ALLEGED BREACH OF PROMISE

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 194, 17 August 1922, Page 7

ALLEGED BREACH OF PROMISE

plaintiffs house when witness stayed with Mrs. Stewart on different occasions

SOME EXTRAORDINARY FEATURES. j WIDOW WITH GRANDCHILDREN. SUES THAMES HOTELKEEPEB. , A somewhat unusual case that came 'before ilr. Justice Uerdman and jury at the Supreme Court 10-day was a breach of promise action for £1000 brought by a sturdy woman of Maori blood named Emily Stewart, widow, of Parawai, Thames (Mr. Sinper), against Thomas Edward Tasker. liutelkeeper. of lliames . ( Mr. I'rendcrgasi 1. ! Mr. Singer saiil it would be shown that Mrs. Stewart, a woman with a large family, the eldest being about 30 years of ago, met defendant about six years ago in October, and the parties had" been engaged for several years. Just before Mrs. Stewart became definitely engaged to defendant she broke off rcla- ' tions with a well-to-do man named I Deeble. Defendant was constantly suggesting marriage to plaintiff, and everybody knew i,, n small place like Thames about these matters. Consequently, when a broach occurred, as stated, it had given plaintiff much painVuucl anxiety. It would be admitted tiiat defendant had presented the lady with several rings. | including a dress ring and an engagement ring worth about £75. Defendant "cooled off" to hc"r towards the end of last year, with no satisfactory explanation. In February last plaintiff and a cousin met defendant, who strenuously denied any suggestion of flirtation or that there was another lady in the case. j I rifortunately for his veracity, there i was proof that he was engaged to another lady in 1910 from about January to June, and some letters in counsel's possession spoke eloquently of the fact. Mr. Singer said it was to be assumed that a man could .not be engaged to more than one girl. The defendant ultimately wrote ill "cold and icy terms" to plaintiff in May. returning photos and prayer book, !i:ul asking f or the return of a prized greenstone drop. This was evidence that he was well off with thp old love anil well on with the new. Counsel said they would have the pleasure of having Mr. Tasker in the box. when he would" have the opportunity of giving some interesting explanation of his conduct with this woman and others. It was a slight j of grave character upon Mrs. Stewart for defendant to spurn her in the way he ■ had. and for the indignity to which* she had been submitted she was entitled to damages. A e:.i RTXO. Emily Stewart 1-W1 said she had eight : children, and she was over thirteen years a widow. She lirst met defendant about six years ago. and about three years' after thvy became engaged, plaintiff 1 breaking 'off friendly relations with a j well-to-do farmer. Tasker gave her two rings (produced), one costing C7o and the j other about JtlH. she haj another ring; from him Inter. Plaintiff wa<j present in Mr. <ilk - s shop when Mr. silk said: "Voiiyj two get married'and I'll give you the! best present in the shop." She and defendant were constantly together, defendant being at her home nearly every evening j and Sunday afternoons. All her friends knew. A year or two ago—about two— plaintiff, a Mrs. Hoffman, and defendant went house-hunting. They found a suitable house in Ponsonby costing .Cll>oo. ' on which a deposit of £000 cash was to l.c paid. He then decided not to buy. as theru was not enough ground. Ho kept looking at the papers for houses. He bought silver and glassware and arranged for linen requirement*. He mentioned his intentions to liur friends and her children once in her presence. Plaintiff, wanted to live in Auckland, and Tasker 1 was agreeable. Defendant had two ; farm*, with fifty cows on each; he had a hotel at Russell and also half-interest in a thousand or more acres in the | Thames district. 1 THE CUOLIXfI OFF. i Towards the end of last year defendant' pooled off and stopped coming to sve her ' She first noticed the change in his atti- ] tilde about the Christmas before last, ] and lie ceased altogether to call upon j her in October last year. This was a ! shock to her and it caused her grief, but she did not tell anybody. There was nothing in her conduct to justify his attitude. ANOTHER SHATTERED ROMANCE. Counsel put in a letter written in j March by defendant to "the other lady," 1 in which defendant addressed the reci- 1 pient as "My deaTest ." and sa.id he hud. seen Mrs. Stewart at the races wearing the ring. "1 am anxious for you, and for you alone, and wisli that 1 had you hen; with mc," it ran. "I know you wish lor the same. Never mind, you are young and I am keeping what is* left of mc for you. and I hope, and you know, that as soon as it is possible we shall be together, never more to part." The letter referred to marriage, and ended, "Yours for ever (signed), Tommy Tasker.' , ! There was a row of crosses and a postscript, "This long one that we like." In another letter written in .January defendant wrote also to ''the other lady" say- i ing, " if 1 was not anxious to got I yoiiii I wouldn't try to keep you from working. You know that 1 love you too much " and this epistle ended in endearing terms and the conspicuous j crosses. Then in •Tune this year defendant wrote a brief letter to "the other lady" saying he had had a row with lu3 sister and the-game was up and there was no chance of her and him coming together. This letter finished with best 1 wishes for the future and signed, '"Yours : faithfully, Tommy." This engagement, said counsel, ended as disastrously as the other one, but did ; not last as long. Mr. Singer, in reply to Mr. I'reudergast, said that lie recently I got possession of these letters as the result of the then pending breach of promise by •'the other lady" against defendant, uiio had settled. Plaintiff said that through a friend named Dufty, who had earlier advised ; her not to proceed with this action, she j was offered £100 before coming into ! Court not to go on with this case. She ! hail refused. Cross-examined, plaintiff said she had ' eight grandchildren. She. met the defendant in October. 1010,. and about a weeklater the latter proposed, but plaintiff treated the whole affair as a joke, because she had not known him leng enough. Respondent proposed every day after that, and three months later he was . accepted. When plaintiff saw Talker ; with a woman and heard lie was going to marry, she became very angry. She had looked on the engagement as being on until she got the defendant's note asking her to return the presents he had gi .en her. She had had quite a lot of presents from the defendant, and so far as .money was concerned had not lost anything. He had kept her well supplied with ale, and she' was al?o the recipient . of fowls, a spring cart and a gun. (Laughter.) Jane Hoffmann (cousin of plaintiff) and Christian Hoffmann gave evidence, the [former as to the defendant being at the

during the past live years. She was under the impression that Tasker was very fond of plaintiff, and had said so ■to witness. DRIFT OF DEFENCE. Mr. Prendergast -aid the defence was that on several occasions defendant f asked Mrs. Stewart to marry him, and gave her presents, though there was another suitor, one named Deeble, in the , field, and because of him defendant's ' propo.sal was rejected or postponed. I)e----i fendant was not too sure about the j contract, but tile jury could decide lhat. ' Apparently the marriage of the parties eventually depended upon Mrs. Stewart linding a suitable house, and not being satisfied they had drifted apart and be ceased visiting her. Mrs. Stewart did not "fix the da.'.c." as would have been expected 01 a woman of her age and ex- ' perience. Apparently she treated the ! affair only as an incident in her life. Mr. Dufty would swear that away back in November Mrs. Stewart told him "w was all off between her and Tasker. ' Apparently these proceedings were not I brought as a salve to her wqunded feelings, 'but as a money-making proposition. Defendant, a middle-aged man, said he was a tenant of the Thames Hotel, and did not own the Russell House. The farms referred to belonged to his sister. He could not pay the. interest due on another farm. He had given Mrs. I Stewart presents worth from £400 to £000. The case is proceeding.