A SEPTUAGENARIAN’S KISSES

Evening Star, Issue 18044, 11 August 1922, Page 7

A SEPTUAGENARIAN’S KISSES

BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT. WIDOW CLAIMS £3,000. The alleged promise of a Morwell septuagenarian and widower (who has a large grown-up family) to marry a Sydney widow of thirty years was responsible for the commencement of an action before Mr Justice Cussen and a speial jury in Melbourne recently for £3,000 damages for breach of promise of marriage. Tile widow is Mrs Miriam CJara Ingram, of Erskineville road, Erskineville, near Sydney, whose husband, a lieutenant, was killed in the war. The 1 promise, she averred,, was made in the orchard at the rear of the house, where Joseph Henry Buckley and his grown-up family resided at MonvelL She was paying the Buckleys a visit. “ Dad ” Buckley, as lie was known to herself, as well as to the family, drew her aside on Christmas Dav and asked her if she would marry liim. ’“l’ve been lonely since Ann died,” lie said. She said she did not think she could forget her husband. “ I don’t expect you to,” said Dad, Think over it,” She thought it over. On Boxing Day, again in the orchard, he asked her if she had thought it over. “Yes, Dad, I have,” she said. (i marry-.you." He kissed her. Dad,” the widow said, wanted to take her m and announce the news to the family. He also wanted to go to Melbourne straight away and buy a ring. But she would not let him. She sensed the probable hostility of the ladies of the household, and a.t her request the engagement was kept quiet. “Dad” told her he would take her to the Zambesi Falls lor the honeymoon. He said again that no would retire, n-iul they would livo whoro she liked, rtle would settle £I,OOO on her when they got married, and they would live at the rate of £6OO or £7OO a year. The defendant, a strongly-built, old man with a bushy grey beard, sat in the court. He denied in his defence that he had made such a promise. Ho admitted that since date of the alleged promise lie had married another lady (of forty years). % Keating, who (instructed by Mr 1. A. Kennedy as agent for Air C. I*. Sheeny, of Sydney) appeared for her-, the widow explained the circumstances leading to the romance. She knew defonant’s son in Queensland. At the son’s request she met Buckley, his wife (then living), and three grandchildren at the central station at Sydney. The Buckleys stayed with her. “Dad” shouted them all a two-days’ trip to Jenolan Oaves. One of tho grandchildren stayed with plaintiff after tho Buckleys returned to Morwell. Mrs Buckley died, and sympathetic correspondence was exchanged between plaintiff and defendant. Buckley referred to his sorrow and loneliness. The correspondence increased. Plaintiff went to Morwell for a holiday. Buckley met her at the station “all spruced up.” “Up there,” he explained laughingly to plaintiff (jerking his thumb in -the direction of home), “ they think they have got me married already. But,” he asked her. “do I look like it!” “I told them,” ho added, “wait till you see the boshter from Sydney.” (Laughter.), .Then came tiic wooing, and the promise in the orchard, They went driving together—hunting. Air L. B. Cussen, who (instructed by' Messrs Sergeant, Bruce, and Frost-Sam-uels) .appeared for Buckley, asked Mrs Ingram what sort of hunting she went after,

Mrs Ingram: Rabbits! (Laughter.) Mr Keating submitted that the defendant’s attitude in marrying another lady aud breaking his promise had seriously interfered with plaintiff’s health and her business arrangements. Hence tho claim for £5,000 damages. Three kisses wore shown to, have been involved in the romance. The first kiss was given on Spencer street station, the second) ion Morwell station, when the septuagenarian lost his hat and nearly lost his head by contact with the passing train. The third kiss was iti some doubt. Mr Justice Gusscn asked th<j septuagenarian bluntly, towards tho end of tho second day, whether ho had “kissed the widow in tho buggy.” Defendant thought a moment, and then, turning _ with an air of honest doubt struggling with a dawning memory, said; “Well, I might have done it, your Honor.” (Laughter.) It was the first kiss—the kiss preliminary to the alleged marriage proposal—upon which counsel on cither side fastened like the proverbial dog to tho bone. The : widow said that tho defendant met her on the station platform ami kissed) her. It was their first kiss.

Defendant (the septuagenarian): She kissed me. (Laughter.) Mr Ouseen (counsel for defendant): Did you kiss her on other occasions? Defendant: Just a time or two. She was quite willing. (Laughter.) Did you make tho advance, or did she? —I suppose we—or—just met one another. (Loud laughter,) Mr Keating (counsel for plaintiff); You did not see her immediately the train arrived at tho station? Defendant; No; I suppose she was dollying herself up in the train. I suppose you had “ spruced ” yourself up, too/—I was dressed as lam dressed now, sir (in tweed suit*. Do you think that is “sprucing” up for a well-to-do farmer?

You say she kissed you. You didn’t refuse the kiss?—Would you have refused a young woman’s kiss? (Laughter.) If you would you are no man. (Loud laughter.) You liked it?—Yes; so would you. (Laughter.) When Mrs Ingram loft Morwell you had your second kiss, and lost your bat?— Yes; she asked me for another kiss as the train was moving out, and in giving her one my hat got knocked off. (Laughter.)

Mr Cussen suggested that they might get behind all thesSfldsses and find out just what condition of mind the widow thought would justify them, and particularly the alleged contract of marriage. “ I suppose,” ho asked the widow, “you look upon marriage as a contract involving a certain amount of affection?” Plaintiff: Certainly.

Tell tho jury r when your spark of affection burst into flame and you told the old man how you loved him.—l never said I really loved him.- I ■ was very fond of him. --

What? Never really loved himP Como! Como! Did you ever tell him you were really fond of ,him? —Yes. Was it to bo a contract of marriage for love or a commercial contract?--! told him I was fond of him. If he would look after me and my children I would marry And when did you bSomo fond of him ? —From tho very 'first.

When his wife was still living?—Certainly not. Pressed to say when “that spark of love first burst into positive flame,” plaintiff said it was after she came to- Melbourne, when tho old man asked her to marry him, and sho said she could not forget her first husband.

“He was one of the best boys that ever lived,” added plaintiff, referring to her Into lamented husband, and burst into team.

“Dear mo!” exclaimed Mr Cussen with a look of an’jovance. “ I did not mention your first husband, Mrs Ingram, and I beg you not to do it. I can quito understand your sorrow in that matter, which makes it difficult to understand your sorrow in this other. However, ma-dame, pleaso do not drag your first husband into this. It won’t help you with tho jury.” Plaintiff wiped her eyes, and remarked with some spirit that sho had no intention of courting tho sympathy of the jury. Mr Cussen replied that he was glad to note her recovery from her prostration, and invited plaintiff to gay Whether her “ fussing about tho old man” was not a standing joke amongst tho family at Mo-rwcll. “Certainly not!” replied the widow.

When you came to Melbourne it gave you a shock when tho old man started off with a kiss?—Yes.

Ho was a pretty rapid, lover, oh?— Yes.

Was it not just a g-randfatherly kiss?— I could not say. Well, you did not say to him “Now, look here, you me a forward young fellow?” (Laughter.)—No. Did you do up his collar and tie for him?—On one occasion.

Did you brush his beard?—Not that I can remember. (Laughter.) Are you still suffering from remorse and anguish because of the old man’s treatment?—Absolutely. Defendant was cross-examined at length. Ho might, he said, have “ taken a fancy to the widow,” but he made no promise of marriage. During the holiday trip to Gippsland Lakes he did take offence at the widow paying so- much attention to the Clifton Hill tram conductor—a stranger—but he was not jealous. The widow was always “hinting” at marriage._ He may have said a few things, not seriously. Air Keating: I suppose every man says things he regrets. Defendant (feelingly)! He does that! (Laughter.) As regards Ids present (second) wife, forty, the septuagenarian said ho had “ always had Ins eye on her ” as his future wife if she would accept him. (Laughter.) Tho septuagenarian, with a worried expression and puffed eyelids that told of sleepless nights, took his seat beside Ids counsel on tho third day, while Air L. B. Cussen emphasised to the jury of six that tho war widow, who was suing Buckley for £3,000 damages for breach of promise of marriage was “no simpering maiden,” “ no trusting young girl,” who bad been misled and her affections blighted by the desertion of the heartless yo\mg _ lover. “ No, gentlemen of the jury,” said Air Cussen; “she is a shrewd lady—a very shrewd lady.” She was throughout tho piece, counsel 1 concluded, tho huntress of this , aged man—a huntress of what his wealth and social position could afford her as his wife. But bo made no promise of marriage. That was all very well, said Air Keating, counsel for the widow, but the fact remained that tho widow had sworn that there was a promise of marriage, and 90 per cent, of the evidence given by Buckley himself went to corroborate her story. Defendant had scaled his promises with hisses. “The defendant’s solicitor, gentlemen of the jury,” said Air Keating, wanning up, “has referred to my client as a huntress, and to his client as the hunted. But look at the letters, I ask you. Ho wrote to her that he wa® lonely. Lonely, gentlemen in the bosom of his family and relatives in tho home numbering fifteen or more! Lonely! Why, his position, if anything, reminds one of the fabulous old lady who lived in a shoo and had so manv children that she knew not what to <Io. Lonely! For what, gentlemen? For another wife! I suggest to you. And he took to himself another wife, covering my client with ignominy and shame by deserting and ignoring iris promise to her ■altogether. A man may ho a young fool or an old fool; ho may be a joker if he likes, but if by his foolislmess or his socalled joking he establishes a legal relationship he has to put up with the consequences. Another comparatively young woman now shares his social position 1 and his wealth —that which he promised to my client—and I ask you in justice, gentlemen of the jury, to award her substantial damages,” Tho jury returned a verdict for plaintiff (the widow), and awarded her £350 damages. His Honor entered up judgment accordingly, with costs.