MOTUEKA’S MEMBER

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 February 1931, Page 7

MOTUEKA’S MEMBER

EX-FIANCEE’S CLAIM

WANTED TO "SHOW HIM UP”

[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON, February 27.

Continuing his opening address in the breach of promise action, brought by Edna May Bartlett, spinster, of Wellington, against G. C. Black, M.P., of Motueka, claiming £lOOO, Mr Gray, K.C., traversed Black’s ambition to become a Member of Parliament, and his accomplishment of his desire. Counsel said that after his election, Black had introduced plaintiff to members as the lady he was going to marry, and she was received and accepted as his intended wife. Sometimes she sat in the gallery reserved for the wives of members, through a special arrangement by Black. Mr Gray went on to say that soon afterwards the plaintiff went to Auckland, parting on affectionate terms. Black was not at the station to meet her on her return as promised. She was loth to think that he had forgotten. He explained later that he had thought she was coming by another train. On August 28 he had failed to meet her after the Hous.e adjourned. He subsequently explained that a friend had taken him to Bellamy’s. She still thought in October that he was obsessed by Parliamentary duties, and had not lost affection for her. She was wearing his ring, and was preparing for a wedding directly the session was over. However, defendant left for the West Coast. He did not write to her- nor did she write to him. She looked forward to the 1930 session to resume an affectionate relationship, but she got the shock of her life on opening a newspaper on the' morning of June 27, to find that he had married the previous evening. The name of the bride was not stated. Her friends naturally thought it was she. She had to endure numerous inquiries for a long time. She returned the ring to defendant’s father, and wrote to him setting out. the position. She was advised later to see a lawyer, and did so, and these, proceedings were then taken. Mr Gray suggested that defendant s conduct had been very remarkable. One would have thought, he said, tthat if he had tired of the association with plaintiff he would have had the manliness to indicate in some definite way that he had changed in his feelings towards her, and would not have al lowed her to go on and think she was going to be his wife. It might not have been an easy task, but it would have softened the blow which ultimately fell. Counsel said he would draw attention to the fact that the original statement of defence was simply a denial that he had offered marriage. After the recovery of the documents in the case, it must have been obvious that the defence of no engagement could not stands and so a fresh defence was filed as recently as the 20th of this month. The alternative defence was, counsel suggested, an afterthought.

Plaintiffff gave evidence along the lines of Mr Gray’s opening remarks. Continuing her evidence, plaintiff said that she got a very big shock when she saw the announcement of Black’s wedding in the “Dominion.” She had heard nothing whatever to lead her to believe that, he was paying attention to another girl. . RETURNED THE RING. > When cross-examined by Mr O’Leary, the witness . said 'that the next step that she took aftpr hearing of the defendant’s marriage, was a lettei> she wrote to the defendant’s father, on August 21. Mr O’Leary: Returning the ring which had belonged to George Black’s mother? Witness: Yes.

Mr O’Leary: The next communication was a solicitor’s letter on December 6?

Witness: Yes' Mr O’Leary: Did you desire to have the proceedings taken to get damages or to show him up? Witness: Well —to show him up. Mr O’Leary: Ruin him if you could?

Witness: No, not exactly, but to let everybody know how he had treated me.

Mr O’Leary: It took you six months to make up your mind to do that? Witness: Yes.

Counsel then questioned plaintiff about her failure to communicate with Black during the long period that she was in Carterton and Wellington. “After a month or two, why didn’t you communicate with him?” asked Mr O’Leary. z Witness: I was waiting for him to communicate with me.

Counsel: Another month went by, and did your attitude change?

Witness: No! Counsel: Did you love him? Witness: Yes, very much. Counsel: Black did not make a change of religion a condition of his relationship with you, did he? Witness: Tie did say that he thought the world of me, but he thought more of his religion; and that, if I entered his religion, we would be happier in our married life.

Mr O’Leary said that the defence would be that the change in the demeanour of the plaintiff was more evident than that of the defendant. Counsel mentioned Black’s surprise on finding that the plaintiff had left Wellington, and that she was not at her mother’s in Auckland, but was at' Carterton. By her failure to keep an appointment, she had walked out of his life. The cessatidn of the correspondence, at least from August, showed that the engagement had terminated; Counsel mentioned their quarrel on one night that they went to the pictures, the plaintiff having asserted that the defendant left the theatre without her because he was so proud that he was afraid that the Governor-General, Sir Charles Fergusson, who was at the performance, would see them together. That, combined with her retreat to Wairarapa, led to the quarrel, and to their leaving each other without saying “Goodnight.” Tn explaining a postscript which she had sent him subsequently, tounsel said that it contained the words: “What does this mean? Defeat (or victory and the first step to Premiership?” The Court adjourned until Monday morning.