£300 FOR JILTED SERVANT

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 April 1937, Page 11

£300 FOR JILTED SERVANT

MAN AND HIS CLOTHES

LONDON. March 13

Damages of £3OO for breach of promise were awarded yesterday at Sussex Assizes, Lewes, to a 38-year-old domestic servant, who said she had been engaged “on and off” for 12£ years. Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice. entered judgment accordingly, with costs.

The plaintiff. Miss Dorothy Beatrice Lelliott. of Albert Road, Southwick, had sued Mr. John George Hubbard. 42, described as a sand merchant, of Butts Road, Southwick. She stated that after a first engagement had been broken Mr. Hubbard again asked her to' marry him. and saying he had lost the original ring, sent her into a shop to buy another, which cost 3/6. Mr. Hubbard, denying any breach of promise, maintained that Miss Lelliott herself broke off the engagement. Miss Lelliott said yesterday that from 1932 to 1935 she used to see Mr. Hubbard every evening. He was always putting forward excuses for not getting married. On one occasion she stayed with him at Sbuthsea as his wife. She would not have done so had he not promised to marry her. In 1932 he gave her a card giving details of his name, age and occupation so that she could put up the banns for

their marriage at Shoreham. The letter she received in December, 1935,

saying that he was going to marry someone else was Ihe first she knew about it; but. she added, “I had heard rumours of another woman.

Mi - . Eric Neve, cross-examining, showed Miss Lelliott the original engagement ring—a much superior article to the 3/6 one which was produced on Thursday. Miss Lelliott denied that she bought the second ring without authority from Mr. Hubbard.

It had been stated earlier that when they first became engaged Miss Lelliott did not conceal from Mr Hubbard the fact that she had a child —a girl—by another man.

Questioning her about, a quarrel, Mr Neve asked: Did it. result from the impertinent behaviour of your child towards him?—No.

Mr. Hubbard, wearing a navy blue

suit with a sailor’s jersey and no collar, went into the witness-box and described himself as a bargeman. Mr. Neve: Have you put on that costume to impress the jury that you are a poor working man. or is that what you always wear? —Always.

Eord Hewart: Do you ever wear a collar? —No, sir. Mr. Hubbard added that the engagement was broken off in 1932. “We had a row over the child, who was impudent to me,” he said. “She stood by the child, and she handed back the ring. I never renewed the engagement. ■ We agreed to go on as friends only.” He denied that he gave Miss Lelliott a card with particulars of himself for the purpose of publishing the banns. “MY SUNDAY SUIT.” M. Pensotti: Is that the only suit you have got?—This is my best suit — the one I wear on Sundays. I have another one. Is Miss Lelliott right when she says that you have stated that if ever there was a. breach of promise action you would wear your oldest clothes? —No. no truth whatever. Do you suggest that Miss Lelliott is the sort of woman who would stay, with you as your wife when she was not engaged to you?—Yes, I am quite sure. Having become engaged to another woman, you wanted to get rid of Doro-thy?—-Yes. I did. Lord Hewart: You mean you had got tired of her?—No. It. was her nasty “dispositions” ways. Lord Hewart questioned Mr. Hubbard about the writing on the card which Miss Lelliott said he gave her for putting up the banns. “1 think it is my writing," said Mr. Hubbard, after studying the card closely. “So do I,” commented Lord Hewart.