CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XII, Issue 3391, 13 June 1881, Page 3

CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Matrimonial Troubles of an Auckland Boarding-house Keeper.

(BIT TELEGRAPH, VIA BLUFF, OWN CORRES

POSDENT.)

At the Supreme Court, Melbourne, a case of breach of promise was commenced. The plaintiff, Mary Kirkham Brookes, sued Thomas Conlon Smith, importer, for £2000 damages. Mary Kirkham Brookes, plaintiff, deposed : I was married in England on the 24th April, 1855, to Robert Wilson. I loft England eighteen months, afterwards and went ti the Cape, thence to New Zealand, and ultimately settled in Sydney. My husband left me in 1864. Afr.er that I earned my living makiug mantles for warehouses. I commenced proceedings for divorce in 1573, and a decree by a Sydney ciurt was granted in 1874. After I had obtained the decree nisi, I went through the ceremony of marriage in Sydney with John Coutts in 1875. I left Sydney the same day and went to Auckland; thence to Nelson. At the time of my marriage,after paying divorce expenses, I had £600, which I gave to Coutts. About six months afterwards I received a decree absolute dated Hth June, 1.875. I remained with Coutts in Nelson three years after I received the decree absolute, and requested Coutts to go through the ceremony of marriage again. but he refused. After leaving Nelson, I went to Christchurch and remained until February, 18S0, whan we went to Auckland and took a boarding-house there. I was to have the management and returns' Coutts was doing nothing. Tha defendant (Smith) came and lodged, at the house in July, 1880. He got into some trouble at the Customs in December last. 1 had disputes with Coutts in reference to his refusal to go through a legal marriage. These disputes were of frequent occurrence. The defendant heard one quarrel, and spoke to me about it. On the 28th of December he said, "I see you are not on good terms." I said we were not, that we had disputes about money matters, and, .that I could not get a settlement regarding my own money from Coutts. He asked me if there was anything else. I said there was, that if I could not get the settlement I would have to leave Coutts A few days afterwards ha spoke to me again on the subject, aud asked me if I still intended to leave Coutts it I did not get a settlement. I said I did. de asked if 1 had fully made up my mind to leave Coutts would I allow him to say something that he wanted to say very much, but which would never have been said but for my telling him my position with regard to Courts. 1 had just told him what my position was ia regard to my marriage with Coutts. He then asked me if I intended to leave Coutts would I marry him. 1 said I was very much surprised at his question, and thought he had uot considered the great differences in tho way. I said I was much older than he, and we were ot different religions. He said all that could be got over. He was in a position to make me a liberal settlement if that would be any inducement. I said I could uot give him an answer then, as I would like to think the matter over, and would answer him in a day or two. He said at tho same interview that he had considerable means, and could settle JESOO on me. A few days after, he asked me if I had considered the proposal. I said "Yes; have you?" He replied "Yes; and I still want a favourable answer." I said, "I am willing to marry you, but how am I to get away from home ?" He said, "Oh that is easily managed." He suggested, in the first place, I should go to Nelson on a visit, thence to Wellington, and get a steamer to Sydney and meet him there. At this time he had arranged to go by the mail steamer, which left on the 14th January. Before he went we had another convarsation. I told Smith 1 did not think I could get away as he suggested, but I could say I was going to England. He said this would he a better plan. He said before he left Auckland he would wish me to let Coutts thoroughly understand 1 was leaving him, as he was afraid after he left I might change my mind and not join him in Sydney. I said I should be quite sore to keep my promise to him. He said he would have eveiy arrangement made in Sydney, so that immediately on my arrival we could be married. He told me to forward letters to "Post-office, Sydney." Smith said I had better come to Sydney by the next mail four weeks hence. On leaving he said he would be sure to write immediately he reached Sydney. I told Coutts before the defendant leit that I was going to leave him. Coutts was very angry. I told defendant that Coutts was very angry, aud had said I could go by the mail leaving the following day. Smith replied. " Very well,that is the best thing you can do. Get your things put together and come away with me now." I first objected to leave so hurriedly, but subsequently said I would go. I commenced to get my things together, and was collectiag some presents in the room Smith was in, when he said, " Don't bring anything that belongs to Coutts, and only take the best of your wardrobe." After the conversation with Smith, Smith and Coutt3 went out together. When they returned, Smith told me Coutts said I was going to leave him. He waa very much displeased. Smith then said "You had better remain until next mail. I said, "1 would rather go to-morrow." He asked me severaltimes to wait for the next mail. At last I said, " Very well, I will do so." The piece of newspaper produced was cut ont by me in the presence of defendant, who was perfectly satisfied from the legal opinion it contained. I was free from my marriage with Coutts. It was au extract from au Auckland paper, and stated that in the Divorce Court ia New Zealand on the 19th November, a new rule came for the first time into operation. Hitherto divorce had not beeu legally complete until six months after the hearing of the case. Thu<, after a decree nisi, in one or two caces, a woman has married aaain without waiting till the decree was made absolute. An impression has prevailed, especially amongst poor people, that after the judge's decision they were tree to marry again without further attendance in Court. Thus, " marriages have taken place in the six months' interval legally compelled in order that the Queen's Proctor might intervene in cases of collusion. Now, to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence a list of all divorce cases ia which decrees are ready to be made absolute is made out by the Registrar, and finding no obstacles lodged he at once obtains the sanction of the judge." The defendant left on the 14tb January. After the defendant left I commenced a letter to him. (Produced.) I left Auckland on the 24th January. Receiving no reply, I sent a cable message to defendant on 2nd February, and next day received a letter from defendant (produced), and in reply sent the telegrams produced. Coutts sold off the house and furniture, and, on the 9th March I left Auckland for Sydney. Defendant did not meet me at Sydney. I heard he had gone to Melbourne, and came here. I called at St. Andrew's Hotel and saw him. He said " You here 1" I replied " Yes " He said, " I did not think you would come." I said, " What else could I do under the circumstances? My borne is gone. I could not remain in New Zealand. Why did you not write, according so proraise?" He said, "I did write a long letter." I said, " You did not send it." He said, "But I would have done so soon." I asked him to explain his strange conduct since leaving New Zealand. He said, " 1 will do so when you're less excited." I said, " I would like an explanation now." He said, " vVait until morning, and I will, explain everything." Saw him next morning. We went a walk to Fitzroy G-ardens and sat down to have some conversation, and asked him to explain, as he had promised on the previous night. He said the reason he had not sent a letter was because he was afraid he could not marry on account of the marriage ceremony 1 had gone through with Coutts. He said ha was afraid he would be getting into trouble, or that some compliestions would arise if he did so. I said, " You were perfectly satisfied before leaving New Zealand that I am a free agent. You saw my papers and the decree, and Coutts' will, which had to be made out in my maiden name, also the newspaper paragraph you requested me to cut out." I added, "" What can I do now if you refuse to marry me. I have given up my home with Uouttsand everything I possess according to your own wish." I was very distressed, crying very much, and he begged me not to be distressed, as he said everything would come right if I would only make ray mind easy I said things would not come right unless'he performed his promise. He said it was'no use talking then. We would come to abetter understanding afterwards. He took me down to the International Hotel until I should get private apartments. I staved a week there, and saw defendant several toes during the week I asked l to have a settlement with him, and told him 1 would have to go back to New Zealand. I went to private apartmen s from the hotel. 1 saw defendant at that time, and.told .torn I had very little money, but would gladly go back to New Zealand if he would .pay expenses. On the Ist ot Apnl.l pointed oufthe injustice he had done mem refusing to keep his promise of marriage, and that

if he had any feeling for my miserable condition he would give me a small sum of money to take me back to New Zealand. I received no reply. Defendant Cilled at my residence on the 4th of April, and said ho could not stay to converse, as a friend was waiting for him. I said, "If you don't wait now you won't have a chance again to h ;ar what I have to say. Be said, "Do you intend that as a threat ? It will have no effect with me. I have made myself perfectly sife." I said there was no threat intended, but I merely made use of tho words, thinking 1 would be going .to New Zealand, and I that he would uot see me again. He then! went away. I have had an engagement since Easter in a house of business, and had beeu working for my living. Cross-examined by Mr Pnrves : When I became engaged to Coutts I had a private dressmaking establishment in Sydney. I knew Coutts for 3 years before I married him. This time I was the wife of another man, but had not seen him for nine years, and did not know my husband was alive. I have gone by the name ot Coutts in Melbourne up to the present time. I had quarrelled with Coutts while living in Nelson. The solatis-greer, who sent me decree absolute, informed me I was not legally married to Coutt3. I remained with Coutts because I had no meaus to leave him, and was in hopes he would do me justice. He promised to do so when I was leaving him, but I was engaged to Smith then. At the time Smith proposed I had uot been occupying the same apartments as Coutts for years. My room was on the ground floor. The boarders knew we occupied separate rooms. One reason for this was that Coutts was very stout and snored a great deal. (Laughter.) Mr Smith had not spoken to me on the subject of love until he proposed on the Ist of January. I respected him, but that was all. He said he would be satisfied with the love of a sister and in time the other would follow. My husband went into my room when he liked. Smith knew this. 1 have not written to Coutts since I came to Melbourne, I brought a locket containing Coutts' portrait to Melbourne. I am wearing the locket now ou my watch chain. Smith stopped a fortnight in the bouse after I had promised to marry him. I was in the awkward pre- ; dicamem; of living in the house with the man t bad married and the man I was about to marry. There was no love-making between us, only conversation. I did not go on board to see Smith oft. I said good-bye to ' him in the dining-room. Coutts had gone • out of tho room. I said good-bye to Smith and then kissed him. i

Mr Purves : Why did you never mention marriage iv any of the letters you wrote to Smith; or call him yonr affianced husband ?

Witness : Is it usual ?

Mr Purves : I think so; I can only speak of my own experience.

Mr Williams : Your counsel has had more experience in love letters. You yourself have had a tolerable experience in being twice married, and wanting to be married again. Witneus : After Smith left I stayed at the house of Mrs Dr. Powell. Coutts was there part of the time. He occupied the same room, but a different bed. Mr Purves : Don't you think you ought to have felt that you, tho affianced wife of one man, would rather die than so live in open infamy with another. Witness : Mr Smith knew my position. Mr Purves : Coutts offered to marry you at this time. Why did you refuse ? Witness: Because of my promise to Smiih. Mr Purves : Which did you love best ? Witness : I decline to answer. Mr Purves: Was not Smith's offer that you should go to him on your way to Eugland and live with him for a while 1 Witness : No ; it was an offerjof marriage. Mr Purves : Did not Smith Bay he would not go iv the same steamer as you because of the scandal.

Witness : No ; there would have been no scandal.

The further hearing of the case was adjourned. _^^______________________________