CHEQUES STOPPED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 206, 1 September 1938, Page 15

CHEQUES STOPPED.

GRAZIER'S ACTION. AMAZING LOVE STORY. A SETTLEMENT REACHED. MELBOURNE, August 26. A woman claiming to be the artist daughter of a foreign Count sued a New South Wales grazier for the value of cheques on which he had stopped payment. The grazier's defence was that he had been induced to give the cheques on a throat by the woman to expose their illicit relationship to his wife and others. Counsel for the woman said that the firnzier hnd gone with her to the church door, but there had balked at marriage "because his wife was ill in hospital and might die at any moment." An amazing tangle of relationships was unfolded in the County Court before Judge Magennis during which Melbourne society people were mentioned.

The artist was Roee Pauline Royston (38), who. in a marriage registration form' produced in court, .described her correct name as Rose Pauline Royston Orlowski and her father as Count Orlmvski. She has married since the iesue of the writ and her correct name was now given as Mrs. Hosking, of Carlingford Street, CaulfieW. I?i •the grazier from whom she f225 and S. 125 is William Matthew Lane (50), of Pine Vale, Goolgowrie. New South Wales. Royston claimed that the money was due on cheques given her under agreements by Lane in September, 1937 and February, 1938, but payment of the cheques was stopped. Passionate love letters, jewels, invitations to a "wedding" in which one of the principals was already married, and to a second real wedding were also mentioned. Lane's defence was that illegality and fraud nullified the alleged agreement as he hnd been induced to give the cheques by verbal threat or menace. Air. Noel Burbank (for Royston) said that the defence made it necessary for lnm to broaden his case to involve a story that properly belonged to the realm of fiction rather than a court of law. Lane, he said, had not always been known to the parties as Mr. Lane—he had been introduced to Miss Royston as Mr. J. W. Lewis, a wealthy squatter from New South Wales. Miss Royeton, who was then earning a good living teaching art and painting fashion designs, had become genuinely fond of her squatter friend, who also fell in love with her.

They decided to get married. The date was fixed for-June 30, 1937, and Miss Royston had a number of bridesmaide' parties and other celebrations culminating in the expenditure of £150 in exclusive ehops.

A long list of wedding guests was drawn up and invitations were issued.

On June 15, Lewis (or Lane) left Melbourne, saying he had a big draft of sheep to take overland, and later wired that he had been held up.

After a period of silence, Miss Royston, on June 19, received the following telegram from a Mr. Stevens, of Nyngan: — "J. W. Lewie* passed away this morning. Break sad news to sister and mother. Will be buried 3 p.m. Sunday in Sydney."

Miss Royston became extremely upset and went to the police to see if there had been any foul play or where the body was. Rome time later she found out that although "J. W. Lewis" might have died, her intended husband was very much alive and sent him a telegram asking for an explanation. Mr. Norman Mitchell (for liane): Yes, and it read: "Come at once, I am desperately ill." Mr. Burbank said that Lane came to Melbourne, confessed that he was not wealthy and suggested that he should "slide out of the picture." However, they made it up again and arranged another marriage—a private one just for the two of them and fixed it for Julv 5. Lane filled in a marriage registration form as W. M. Lane, bachelor, and went to live with Miss Royston's family. Two days before the wedding police called about the regietration of Lane's car and said that he was. already married wjth a wife and three children in New South Wales. "Naturally astounded." Miss Royston taxed Lane with this. He at first denied it. then said that his wife had left him and had married again, so that he believed he was free to marry. This revelation did not shake their resolve to marry, said Mr.' Burbank, but at the church doo"r thought better of it. He said he could not marry Miss Royston, because his wife was ill in'hospital in New South Wales and was likely to die at any moment. Until his wife died, he did not feel it would be safe to marry.

Instead of turning back, he suggested they should go into the church and perform a little religious ceremony in which they would bind themselves under oath to remain true to each other.

This ceremony actually took place but there was no clergyman present. After that they went home to Miss Royston's mother and, for all tHat anyone knew, they were man and wife. After that they lived with each other and wrote letters inscribed, "My beloved wife" and "Your loving husband." "Never Again." Some time later Lane went to New South Wales and wrote to Miss Royston of his loneliness: — "The more I think of the way I deceived you and told you lies, the more I care for You are all I have to live for'and I promise before God that I will never deceive you again." When they met again they each drew up wills in favour of the other except, thai Lane provided legacies of £200 each for his children and £500 for his wife. Counsel said that Lane executed in Miss Royston's favour a bill of sale over his stock and chattels on his property but she had never enforced it. They decided to alter a house she owned in Caulfield into two flats and live in one of them. A builder was told to start the work, Lane saying that Miss Royston would pay the bills. It was for those alterations that the first cheque of £225 was given to her. Afterwards Lane told her he was having a lot of trouble with his wife (who was referred to in letterp as "No. X"), and that she would never free him now. "Our Baby." After the cheque was stopped, Miss ! Royston evidently threatened Lane with two years' imprisonment, for he wrote to say that her threat showed she had "little respect for their expected child" and concluded: 'Tve not been too bad. Since August you have received more than £30 and £4 a week. You are rather cruel." After that the tone of their letters became loving again. There were many references to "our baby." and in February this year they bou«rht household goods and ordered furniture. These vere booked in Miss Royston's ■name, and after she moved into the house Lane gave her the second cheque, which was also stopped. Miss Royston telegraphed to Lane telling him she was made destitute by his conduct.

The hearing was suspended at this stage while the parties conferred. When they returned Mr. Burbank said that a settlement had been reached.

Judge Magennis agreed that the case was one which should not be ventilated in court and adjourned the hearing.