ONCE they had been the firmest of friends but now they were the bitterest of enemies with one Hampshire-based officer accusing the other of seducing his wife after finding them in a compromising situation in the back of a car.

Major Ritchie Capel Langstaffe Capel-Smith accused his former senior officer Major Bernard A S Dyer of betraying his trust by ‘unlawfully enticing and procuring his wife’ to leave his home.

The issue had first been laid at a High Court sitting in Winchester where after four days’ evidence, the judge, Mr Justice Swift, stopped the case, directing the jury to enter a verdict for the respondent.

Capel-Smith was furious and on November 9, 1928, the two men faced each other again in the Court of Appeal.

The major, who had served with the Royal Army Service Corps, claimed he had been happily married to his wife, Mildred, until Dyer came between them.

For nine months until he was posted abroad, the two men had been such good friends that Capel-Smith allowed him to accompany his wife to dances. Capel-Smith, who did not dance, said he was unaware of what was going on until he found them in the car in the garage with the lights out.

“I tackled him about it and Major Dyer said ‘I am sorry. Why haven’t you mentioned this before? It may be that I have been seeing too much of your wife and, perhaps, unsettled her.’

“Afterwards I spoke to my wife. There was a scene and she said there was nothing to it.”

Good relations between the two men were restored until Capel-Smith was sent to India on military service in September, 1926. 

But before he departed, his wife promised she would not see Dyer.

Mr Valetta, who appeared for Capel-Smith, said he was “infatuated” with his wife and regularly wrote to her in terms which he admitted would “nauseate” the court.

“However they were letters of intense affection. He received replies from his wife couched in affectionate terms.”

Referring to the earlier hearing, Valetta said the contents however were far from the truth.

“Her explanation of these when she went into the witness box was that they were intended to deceive her husband into the belief that she still loved him. In fact she had disliked him for many years.

“It was during that evidence that the case was stopped and I hope to satisfy you that the trial was not satisfactory.”

The barrister revealed how Capel-Smith, while serving in India, had received “information” which granted him special leave to return home. 
But it was not to rekindle an intimate relationship.

In fact he went to his solicitors to start divorce proceedings with the object of getting his wife to come back to him but no avail.

When she refused, he withdrew the divorce petition.

“Later he made other endeavours to get his wife back but without result. He took the child of their marriage away from his wife and she has not attempted to get it back.”

The thrust of Valetta’s argument was that the judge had mis-directed the jury at Winchester.

“He had apparently been impressed by the lady’s evidence when she said she was tired of her husband and intended to leave him.”

And to endorse his submission, he poured scorn on the judge’s memory.

“He mentioned that no such action had been brought since 1857.”

Lord Justice Sankey, the senior judge at the appeal, concurred. 

“That is not correct, is it? There was a case at Leicester Assizes a few years ago.”

Valetta concurred.

“Yes and there was a case at Liverpool.”

That provided the perfect opportunity for the court to study case law.

That however only served to undermine the weakness of Capel-Smith’s challenge, and without hearing from his opponent, the judges threw out the appeal.