£500 BREACH DAMAGES

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 July 1932, Page 4

£500 BREACH DAMAGES

MAN WHO MARRIED SECRETLY. LONDON, June 17. A man who was alleged to have remained “engaged” for fifteen months after he had married another woman was sued in the King’s Bench Division yesterday for damages for breach of promise. He did njot appear, and was not represented by counsel. Miss Ethel Florence King, l 32, shoe machinist, Blanchard Road, Dalston, E., was awarded £5OO damages against Mr George Arthur Wilson, Hackney Road, London; manager of a city warehouse. MrJßernard B. Gillis, for plaintiff, said she earned about 35/- a week, and Mr Wilson’s salary w r as from £5 to £6 a week. They met in 1918 while Mr Wilson was serving in the Army, and a friendship developed into affection. In June, 1920, Mr Wilson proposed and was accepted. The following April he bought plaintiff an engagement ring. As Mr Wilson was anxious to improve his position, Miss King agreed to his suggestion that they should not marry for a few years. . When they had been engaged for four years Miss King suggested that it was time to think of setting up house together, but Mr Wilson replied that, as he had not obtained the managerial position he wanted they had better wait. To this Miss King agreed. Early in 1926 Mr Wilson took his

fiancee to a dance and introduced her

to a young widow, who, he said, was a waitress and served him at a city restaurant. , As an engaged couple, Miss King and Mr Wilson visited the woman at her house in Albany Road, Camberwell. Later Miss' King discovered that Mr Wilson 1 had been to the house in het absence, and she objected. Mr Wilson, however, assured her that she had nothing to worry about, and told her, “Don’t have a suspicious mind.” Later Mr Wilson confessed to Miss King that he had been associatng with another girl. He begged Miss King uot to break off the engagement, assuring her that it would not occur again. She agreed to remain engaged, though the news caused her a breakdown in health.

Some time afterwards Mr Wilson neglected Miss' King, and finally, in March, 1931, said he could not marry her. Miss King, afterwards discovered that he married the widow in January, 1930.

Miss King gave evidence that she had spent nearly £7O in preparation for her marriage. Mr Justice Swift, summing up. said that plaintiff had been badly treated. For over ten years she was engaged to be married to this man, who had grossly deceived her, and for fifteen months after he had married another woman, he went on pretending that he was still in a position to marry her. She was entitled to say that this man had taken away the best years of her life from the point of view of matrimony, as between twenty and thirty there was a very much better market for matrimony than when a woman was past that age. The foreman said that the jury desired to associate themselves with the judge’s remarks about defendant’s bad behaviour. '