AN AMUSING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 50, 27 February 1909, Page 15

AN AMUSING CASE.

MAN BTJJCB FOB ÜBBACH OF PROMISE £50 DAMAGBfI. Leonard Theodore Herbert Cooper, clerk, of Qneanbeyan, brought an action In the Sydney district court on Monday of last week for alleged breach of promise of marriage against Pauline Miriam Loder, of ■North Sydney, damages being laid at £200. Cooper set oat that Mlis Loder agreed to marry him on a certain. Cste, and she had. refused to carry out her agreement, and had promised to marry someone else. Miss Loder in her turn said that at the time of the alleged promise she was under the age of 21 years; that Cooper was not always ready and willing to marry her; that «he did not agree to marry him; that If there had been an agreement it had been mutually agreed to rescind It; and that reasonable time and date for marriage had not elapsed. In opening the case for plaintiff, Mr .Tames said that it was a most peculiar one, Inasmuch as a man was the plaintiff In a breach of promise of marriage case. It was not often that a man was found courageous enough to bring such action, but now that women were taking the same place In the world as men It was time they were brought to a sense of their responsibilities. The lady was good looking and sensible, and it was the view of the plaintiff that ahe could not In his view be replaced. The defending solicitor very wisely had not brought defendant Into the court on the ground, no doubt, that If the Jury saw her they would hare granted more substantial damages'. Plaintiff worked at Qneanbeyan at a More where defendant was also employed as a milliner. Plaintiff bought a house, and had it repaired, and entered into other expenditure. Plaintiff, in giving evidence, said that In February, 1906, he gave defendant an engagement ring. He afterwards took her to concerts, and gave her presents on her birthday and at Christmas. He bought a house and land for £550 to give her a home. They, were te be married at his brother's place at Drmnmoyne. Mr James called for a photograph of the defendant, adding, "If you won't bring the lady here, we will have her photo." Mr Mclntosn, counsel for defendant, handed over a photo of a lady In a "Merry W'dow" hat, and the judge and Jury regarded It closely. Plaintiff eald that In September, 1907, he and defendant chose the furniture. The marriage was to have taken place in February, leoe. Then one d*y they arranged that the marriage should take, place in April. Then she wrote asking him to postpone it again, because of her rheumatism. He replied that it would be rery awkward, as he had already got leave on two occasions from the firm. He came down again In March, and they went together to Pig Tree on the kane Cove boet They chatted it over In a peaceable way, and finally arranged that the marriage should go over from Aprii to September, to tide over the cold weather because of her rheumatism. He went tack to Queanbey an satisfied. In July ehe asked for another postponement for twelre months, expressing the view In a letter. that she would then be able "to settle down ac a matter of fact lady." Hβ came down to see her again. He went to her place at North Sydney, and she came to the door. She invited him inside, but after a little while she cleared out. He did not see her again until the afternoon. "She came in," said plaintiff, "blubbering." When she had finished drying her tears a little bit, I sold, "What -Is all this nonsense about," referring to the twelve months' postponement. She wanted mc to break oE the marriage. I absolutely refused. I bud gone so far already. She held the ring towards mc, but I refused to take It She placed it on a corner of the table, and went away blubbering again. "Mr James held np a letter from plaintiff to the defendant. It was made up of twelve foolscap sheets. "It concludes," eald Mr James, "with the words 'ray love for you Is like the ocean. Ton can't mop it np.' " Mr Mclntoeh (cross-examining plaintiff): I suppose yon want us to believe that you still love this girl? — No reply. Come, let us have It. — Wall, not at present. Are you prepared to marry her? —'Kot row. Plaintiff eald he had brought the suit to recover his losses. Mr Mclntoeh: I see you -wrote, "I can see myself daily losing flesh, and my face is getting haggard and worn." Is that so? ' Wltneas: Yes, It is. After the time when ahe put your ring on. the table, yon subsequently wrote to her, "If I had only had a revolver I would have ended my cursed life." Did not you? Witness: Yes; and I would, too. I wu so highly strung. And you wrote, "I'd dan anything, as any man would if crossed In lore, and Ton wonld have been my murderess"? — Tea I wrote that And you wrote, too, "I'll take a back seat to no man. I stand on my legal ground, and have a clear conscience"? — Tee. jm« there is tula, too, "I live for only two things now — you and love, or the Mttereat of revenge. My teeth are clenched and if I am toned my blood will hnngor tor revenge." Did yon get this oat of "Deadwood ■Dick" or "Buffalo Bin"? — Ton can pot it that way if you like. The cross-examination of the plaintiff, Cooper, was continued by defendant's solicitor a* the hearing on Tuesday. Cooper said that in a letter, written la August or September, lie threatened the defendant with legal proceedings If site did not return certain presents. Had yon then decided whether yon would be willing to marry her or nott—.Well, I couldn't make head nor tail of her oi-tkma. She would .not come up to the ecr»tcli. I couldn't decide one w*y or the other. 'In answer to furtfier questions, plaintiff said that be found oat that the defendant was walking ont with eomeene else; «u< that she had become engaged. He had net taken delivery of the furnJtur* ordered, and. had not paid anything In respect of tv Ton spoke of Miss Lodder htafeberlng: yen were crying a lot yourself, weren't you>No; that's a yarn of your own. When you were having ttart interview over the ring, didn't you fall oo the floor in a rag*?— Well, that n«itM -expUna.-. tion Hie Honor: DM you go down, or aid yog not?— Well, I may h«ve fainted off, Mr. M'ln tosh: Did you say te her- once that if she. tired of you after marrlag*, there was the Divorce Court?—-.Nβ, Did you. In September, send her back her photo, with el aorta of. insolent fTpriisiliiili written over became her at the time. Did. you write en It "wreW—3fes. Did you write that four 'spirit would alWftyi be en her and jeu, would 3»nnt hex all your life? —I dent remember the exact WOTds, Mrs, M, teder, e£ Herfh Sydney, mother ej{ the defendant, ga?e evidence, ghe said, that a{ foe jnjewiew between the plaintiff and the defendant ax Berth Sydney nlaintlS ptctei} no the e»r gsgement ring after the defendant pot it dMBB. ytefi ?—He asked her tf sbe wonld say. geod-tjye fo tie. She said etie wpnld. Aad did shat—Ysa, they kissed. iffef fhes» any t£tzs?—Set, tney were, -*•*&. ciffttg*

Subsequently, said wilnee, piauujff ««4 her that ,&«: Vgttigiifef lmd given Mid * would fievet rtceret , * Hβ gttje krat £fcsv Mk*)' ie nadettfama that fee regarded the engagement"it aa .end. :, ;.- ■ ,r-- '.■;. ; ».-"'•.,-V^''-'.., Cross-examined by Mr James, Mrs, led« ■eld th»t Bhe'*ad-:wVlttea a jetter to tßa plaintiff in July in which she said It would be * bftter blow to herJtt Eearl, her dauglf ter, refused to carry out her promise, that it haft been her dearest wish to see then. married, 'And that she was .ashamed that Pearl bad treated Mm co cruelly. g ne re . peatedly urged her daughter to . inak«. it up, and finally advised him to forget all about her, as there seemed to be nothing else to do. In reply to Mr. M'lntcwh, Mrs. Lofler eeid that her daughter had no father or brothere. She was also without property, and she had no expectations. Iα «unimlng-up, his Honor eaid that he would leave the matter to the commonsense of the jury. If they found that the plaintiff had assented to the termination of the agreement, the verdict would be for the defendant, but if they found tha'c he did not assent, bnt waa all along wishing to marry—whatever he wished to do now was,not material —then the jury would flnd for the plaintiff. The question of damages, it the jury found that the plaintiff's feelings had been. Wounded' and that he had been wronged, was entirely one for the jury. The jury considered the matter for aa hour and a-half, and then gave a yerftci for the plaintiff, with £30 damages.