M.P.'S LOVE AFFAIRS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 11452, 28 February 1931, Page 5

M.P . 'S LOVE AFFAIRS

SEQUEL TO G. C. BLACK’S MAIU IMAGE WAITRESS SUES FOR, ALLEGED BREACH OF PROMISE claim FOR £IOOO tPress Association-’ WELLINGTON, Feb, 27. - A breach of promise action wag brought to-day by Edna May Bartlqtt,, a spinster, qf Wellington, against G. C, - Black, M.P. for Motuplca. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, is on the bench. , .The plaintiff alleges that a verbal agreement to marry was made m January 1927. She was always ready and willing to marry, but lie had neglected and refused to marry her, and in Jung, 1980, married another woman. Black’s first defence is a denial that h e agreed to marry the plaintiff, and further that , the alleged agreement,- if any,, was put ah end to by mutual consent, In;fore there was any breach by him. The claim is for .TJIOOO., In opening the case, Mr A. Gray, K.C said the parties became acquainted at the Government hostel at Waitomo in 1926, while Mr Black was a clerk there, and the plaintiff was. a "waitress. They were thrown a great deal into one another’s company and became quite attached; so much so that Black proposed marriage in January ; 1927, and was accepted. Ho was still clerk at a hostel, add Ins prospects were not bright, although he was an ambitious young man. and, as would bo shown, possessed considerable ability and energy. His idea was that they should got, married when his prospects improved and lie could get an hotel. Ho was, counsel thought, very fond of the girl, and she was certainly fond of him. In 1926, said Mr Gray, Black was a committco clerk during' the sessions of Parliament. Tie read a number of affectionate letters written to the plaintiff between June and the end of the session. He afterwards returned to Waitomo and they, became formally engaged in. January, 1927, and the state of liis feelings was disclosed in a letter to his father. He asked for a loan of £2-5 to buy an engagement ring, but his father replied that the idea did not appeal to him, and he advocated postponing th e marriage till the defendant’s prospects were brighter. This cold douche from his father apparently did not suppress the defendant’s ardour. More than once the parties visited Hamilton, and Black priced a ring there. As the time approached for Black to come to Wellington for the sessions of 1927, he said he hated the idea of leaving her behind, and it was arranged that she should come to Wellington. He took her to his aunt’s house and introduced her as his affianced bride. She took employment in various shops, and one afternoon the defendant took her for. a walk in Central Park and gave her a ring which, ho said, had belonged to his mother. She later spent some months in Martinborough. Letters passed between them, and on her return the same affectionate relationship existed between them. Counsel traversed Black’s ambition to become a member of Parliament and his accomplishment of this desire. After his election he 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 plaintiff went to Auckland, parting on affectionate terms. Black was not at the station to meet her on her return as he promised. Sh 0 was loth to think he had forgotten, and he explained that ho thought she was coming by another train. Op August 28 he failed to meet her after the House adjourned, and he subsequently explained that, a friend had .taken him to Bellamy’s. She still thought in October that he was obsessed by his Parliamentary duties, and had not lost his affection for her. She was wearing his ring and preparing for. the wedding. Directly the session was) over, added Mr Gray, defendant left for the West Coast. He did not write to her, nor did she to him.. She looked forward to the 1930 session to resume the affectionate relationship, but got. the shock of. her life on opening a newspaper on the morning of June 27 to find that he had been married the previous evening. The name of the bride, was, not stated, and 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. law 7 er, did so, and proceedings were taken. ~", '■, ./-. - -' - . ' Mr Gray, for the plaintiff, suggested that defendant’s conduct had been very remarkable.. One would have thought, h e said, that, if he tired of the association 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 allowed her to go thinking that sho was going to be his wife. It might not have been an easy task, but it would have softened the blew which ‘ultimately fell. Counsel said that ho .would draw, attention to the fact that- the- original statement of deference was simply a denial that he had offered- marriage. After discovery of documents in the' case, it must have been obvious that the defence of no engagement could not stand and so a. fresh - defence was filed as recently as the -20th of -this month. The alternative defence was, counsel suggested, an afterthought. ' Plaintiff 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 nf Mr Black’s wedding in the dominion. She had hoard nothing whatever to .lead her to believe *tbat he : was paying attention to another girl. ",. Cross-examined "bv. Mr O’Leary, witness said that the next step she too kafter hearing of defendant’s

marriage was a letter she wrqte. defendant’s father on August 21./ Mr O’Leary: t‘‘Returning.the, MSfwliich had belonge4 to George Black s mother.?” —“Yes.”! “The next communication a solicitor’s letter on December 6? “Yes.” - , ’ . ■ . “Did you desire proceedings to get damages or to show him , u Pt “Well, to' show him up.” \ n , “Ruin him if yqu coiild? Nf'* not exactly." but -to lpt . evoryhody Icnow how he had treated me.” “It took you six months make up your miiid to do that?’’-—“Yes. Counsel questioned plaintiff about her failure' to communicate with Black during the long period she was ip 'Carterton and •'We.Uington. “After a month or,! why aidn t you cbmmimicatc with him?” asked Mr O’Leary. “I was waiting for him to communicate with me.” . “Another month went by and dm your attitude change “No.’’. “pfid you love him?”-—Yes, very much.” •. ' “Black did not make, a change or religion a. condition ol his relationship with you. clid he?”—“He did say that he thought the world of mo, but he thought more of his religion and, if I c.ntcred his religion, we would bo happier in our " manned life.” ‘ Air O’Leary said the defence would be that tho changed demeanour by plaintiff was more evident, than'that of defendant. Counsel mentioned Black’s surprise at finding that, plaintiff had left Wellington and was not at her mother’s iff Auckland, hut was at. Carterton. By her failure to. keep an appointment she had walked o.iit of his life. The cessation of correspondence, at least from August, showed that the engagement had terminated. He mentioned a quarrel on a night they went, to the pictures, plaintiff having assorted that he left the theatre without her because he was so proud that ho was afraid the Governor-General Sir Chas. Fergusson. who was at. the performance, would see them together. That combined with her retreat to' tho Wairarapa, le.cl to tho quarrel and to leaving each other without saying “Good-night. ’’’ Explaining the postseript which she sent Black subsequently. he said that it contained the words, “What do'es this mean—defeat or victory and tho first, step to premiership?” Tho court adjourned until Monday morning.