THE WINDER CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 50, 1 March 1922, Page 8

THE WINDER CASE.

ALLEGED BREACH OF PROMISE ENGAGEMENT NOT DENIED. DEFENDANT EXAMINED. (By Telegraph.— Prese Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The Tate-Winder breach of promise case, in which plaintiff claims £10,000 from George Winder, a prominent Wellington business man, wae continued in thf Supreme Court to-day. Mr. A. Cray, K.C., counsel for defendant, delivered a lengthy address, concluding which he said: "I put it to you that the young woman had set herself out from the first to have Winder. She was attracted not ■by personal beauty or other qualities, mental or physical, but by his suppose.! wealth. He' is said to be a wealthy man, and I have no doubt this is the estimation in which this lady held him. That is the quality by which she was attracted, and although in letters hae she often used spoony expressions her letters on the whole are not such letters as you would have expected from an affectionate" woman. Do you really suppose that this girl, who was loved by this man, whom she was allowing to fondle and kiss her, reciprocated from any motive of real affection? Can you suppose that it was anything but his reputed wealth that was an attraction to her? Do not her very actions show the character of the woman? She goes the very first mornins after her last interview—gets out of bed, in fact—to consult a lawyer and have a writ slipped into defendant's hands. Look at the amount of the c-Jaim. That, too, is significant of what the l»dy is, and shows better than almost anything else what, to use a vulgarism, she is made of.' .

THE DEFENDANT'S STORY. George Winder (defendant) said that he was a retired ironmonger, and had carried on business in Wellington for 25 years. He denied having ever made a formal offer of marriage to plaintiff, but said they drifted into an understanding about marriage. Witness was not consulted about the sale of plaintiff's business, and had nothing to do with the sale. Plaintiff told him that she was getting £10 a week out of the business, and had a housekeeper at Lyall Bay. She afterwards said that she could not get proper assistance, and wanted three months' holiday. He said that the business seemed a good thing, and told her not to sell. The sale of the tuisiness had nothing to do with his relations with the girl.

His Honor: 1 suppose that after she. sold the business you could not see her there? ■Winder: Yes, it spoiled that. AVitness added that after the business was sold she used to visit him at hie office. He denied making a proposal to plaintiff at her rooms. It transpired that the housekeeper at the Bay was plaintiff's mother, whom she aiterwarde described in her letters ac the "Old Dutch at the Bay." Plaintiff went to i'almerston North to spend her holiday, and said she wanted to go to a friend about a marriage. Witness said that when the business was wound up he would marry plaintiff.

A LOGICAL SEQUEL. His Honor: I suppose what was said was something like this: "After all that has taken place we will have to marry"? (Laughter.) Mr. Gray: That statement would not have come as a shock of surprise to either paTty. i Continuing his evidence Winder said' plaintiff told him her niece was going to marry a Catholic. She did not appear to be" pleased. She said ehe had no time for mixed marriages, because a relative of hens in Brisbane had married a Catholic and the marriage had not been happy. Witness said he did not believe in mixed marriages, tha- the Catholic clergy were against such marriages, and plaintiff agreed with him. He no objections "to Catholics as euch. "Each party should keep within his own faith," added witness, "because there are plenty of them to go round." (Laughter.)

QUERY ABOUT A DATE. Was any date proposed by either of you?— Miss Tate suggested the 4th of October, but 1 wrote saying that was too soon tor several reasons. After that no reference was made to a date. Is there any ground for suggesting that you were always putting , it off? — Not the slightest. Did you ever see a form which Miss Tate got from the Registrar at Palmereton?—No. She said she would bring it along, but she did not. Did Miss Tate ever ask you your age?—l believe I gave her to understand 1 was 59. 1 erred on the wrong side. Was an engagement ever announced? —Xo, I did not want to 'be chaffed, and I did not want my family to know; I wanted the novelty to wear off while we were away. Did Miss Tate agree with that?— Yea, 5.1* was a little bit ehy of marrying an elderly man, but she put it a little bit. more nicely than that. Did you know that Miss Tate was going to act as bridesmaid at Napier?— Xo, 1 understood that ehe would take no pert. Witness explained that he was much annoyed when Miss Tate first let him know of the part she had taken, but when her letter came it put a different complexion on the matter, and lie had ivired to say that she would be veTy ■welcome at 58, Pirie Street.

BURIED THE HATCHET. After plaintiff's return from Napier they buried the hatchet regarding the iXapier wedding. As a matter of fact they had not made much of the matter at any stage. Plaintiff had complained that witness had not- 'kiseed her on the night she returned from Napier, and that he was cool when he went where she ■wae staying. Witness could not very well kiss her as there was only one room, and other people were present. "I did not like to kiss her there," s*id Winder. I ueed to kiss her when ehe came to toy office."

TEMPORARY ENGAGEMENT RING. Plaintiff had a cameo ring which ehe gave witness to get an engagement ring copied from. He gave her a temporary engagement-ring, and if the break had not occurred she would have got a proper ring. When he went to see plaintiff at Nuree Fitzgerald's, she was quite affectionate, and embraced him. She was much the same on the Saturday, except that she did not embrace him. Mr. Gray: You missed that?— Yes, replied witness amidst laughter. Winder said there was a coolness on account of a visitor. One Sunday wit-j ;-ess received a telephone message from plaintiff, who rang off when he aeked What about Sunday night?" He went k* Pontiff. She was wy glum, »nd he did: not kiss hex, a'Khough be eaid i.

''Good-night Eileen." Plaintiff said eihe thought be was away, and he replied that he <was under the impression that he was not to call co often. Witness told plarntff that he bad repeated to Mre. Maeley on Monday what happened on Sunday. Plaintiff said: "He-ve yoa told any oi my business?" Witness replied in the affirmative, and plaintiff remarked "You have no right to teil anybody outside ourselves." Witness asked what about Sunday night? and plaintiff replied in a loud and emphatic voice: "it wasn't a man, it wae a woman." Witness then asked the name, and plaintiff answered, "Can't I have a private visitor without teWmg you?" She seemed very much annoyed, and eaid: "I ought to have you up for defamation." Witness asked what on earth was wrong, and suggested that asking a woman's name was eure-ly not defamation. After this he could see there was something wronf, and went downstairs and put on his hat and coat. He eaid he had never broken his proposal to marry plaintiff.

Other evidence was heard, and counsel addressed the jury, the judge's summing up 'being deferred until Wednesday.