A FARMER SUED.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17098, 22 February 1916, Page 3

A FARMER SUED.

ALLEGED BREACH OF PROFUSE. ■ ~4 CLAIM FOR £IOOO DAMAGES. In '.the Supreme Court yesterday, before. Mr Justice Denniston, Irene F. Ile«v (Mr Alpers with him Mr Goodman) proceeded against Ernest Stackhouse (Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr Wright),* claiming £IOOO damages for alleged breach of. promise of marriage. Both sides freely-exercised their right of challenge of jurymen. When empanelled the jnry elected Mr R. W. Clarkson as their foreman.

Mr Alpers said a of promise of marriage should lie followed with compensation not only for the losing of a good marriage thatj was the sordid side—but also for wounded pride and other sufferings. This case differed in a, material way from other breach of promise actions. The promise of marriage was admitted but the defendant said that it was understood from the first that the engagement was to be a long one and he had done nothing causing the plaintiff to think that he would not carry out the contract. Miss lies was the daughter of a farmer who died three years ago. Since then, she had been compelled to earn her own living. About a year ago she went to Amberley and there met the defendant. In November, 1912, they became engaged. Defendant was a farmer and son of a well-to-do sheep farmer. - A few months before the parties' betrothal, the defendant took a lease of Onaponga station from his father, with a purchasing clause for £30,000. Defendant was in partnership with his brother Leonard, since dead. Miss lies was twentyeight years,, old when" the engagement took place, defendant being nine months younger.. She was well qualified to be a farmer's wife. At the time of the engagenient, the Stackhouse family Kved at the station, and defendant told plaintiff that he could not take a wife there, and'it might'be necessary for him to buy his brother out. That was the only reference to a long engagement. Plaintiff was"well liked by defendant's people and the engagement was approved. Some months? after the engagement, defendant suggested that Slaintiff should come to town, which she id, taking a position as lady-help at Feudalton, Later she served in a similar capacity in a residence in Meriyale Lane, when she was frequently visited by defendant. In June, 1913, on her' birthday, he gave her a beautiful engagement ring, and both parties exohanged presents. Defendant was interested in pigeon shooting and had healthy sporting tastes. He frequently came to town, and having a motor-car, they found no bar to lovers' meetings. A regular correspondence was maintained between the parties. There was in Court one hundred of such letters. •-^k i ■' "' K '-'~~*** *"*'*«'*■■■ »*

Sir John-Findlay: Are you going to read them? >•» * *■«*-i.^■'*•,*^.^. v _ Mr' Alpers:^No, lam not. ""'t, Continuing, Mr .Alpers said that the reading in Court of the letters might provide, opportunity for cheap humour, but he would respect the sincerity of the writers, and refrain from reading extracts from them in court. There wore many discussions about the .marriage, and once the ..•■ defendant showed plaintiff a' site on which his father had offered to build them a house. When the parties had been engaged for about ten months defendant inspected a property called "Pine Grove," but was too late to purchase it. He expressed regret to plaintiff as the house would have suited them and they could have got married. Later, a'property at Mount Brown was purchased, and defendant's parents removed there, whilst defendant "bached" at Onaponga. About August, 1914, a married couple were engaged by defendant. In-September defendant said that he would not write so much as "it bored him." Letters got more "infrequent, until at one time six months went bv without defendant writing to her. His visits.also grew fewer,, and the last time plaintiff saw him was in June, 1915, five months before the writ was issued. She telephoned to him «s to why he had not called, an|d (ha said that ho was,too busy. He made many excuses, and on one occasion he swore at her. When plaintiff told defendant that she' missed "him he replied that she would have to get used to that. A sad motor fatality caused the death of Leonard Stackhouse, and plaintiff sent a telegram and letter of sympathy to defendant, hut he made no jeply or acknowledgment. .Throughout that trying time defendant refused all offers of help or sympathy from the plaintiff. 'The fatality was a great shock to plaintiff, and on September 30 she wrote to defendant complaining of the manner in which she was l>eing treated, and asking for defendant's reasons for neglecting" her, as she was at a loss to account for his conduct, which was grieving her immensely. She asked him to be: straightforward in the matter, and re-affirmed the strength of her affection for defendant. Defendant was in town the Sunday after receiving the letter, but did not come to see her. He actually posted his answer in town. In reply, he affected to iimunderstand I the plaintiff's letter, and in reply " manoeuvred x for position." as,a chessplayer would say, and said that he was having a lot of worries then, and that he could net forgive her for asking him " to be a straight man," and that had cut him like a knife, concluding that lie was going to live at Mount Brown with his parents until "death do us part." Plaintiff', in reply; wrote, asking the defendant to end the suspense ho was keeping her in as to their marriage. He made no reply. A week later plaintiff again wrote to him, reaffirming her love, and asking what he had"against her, and suggesting that his parents were perhaps responsible. No reply was sent by defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S. EVIDENCE. . The plaintiff gave cvideiic? in nip-, port of. counsel's statement. Onaponga Station' she said., was of 4600 acres, and was about twelve ruiks from' Amberley. Defendant used to bvaa occasionally about' his means; bo had rather big" klcas. He had ~ )notor-r?ir. In November, 1912, thev became engaged. No definitetinie for'tho marriage was then fixed; as defendant said that lie would have to dissolve partnership with his brother first. The brothers had power to buy each other out, under the agreement between them. Witness and defendant were on the most affectionate terms, and he gave her a. ring on' her first; birthday after the engagement. On her last birthday she got nothing, nor did defendant write. His birthday was March 19> and plaintiff always re- ' mbered the occasion. It was Sep+»W!h°r 1914, that defendant's attentions'e'eassd. Eight months after her witness came to town to SfiSrs Marshall, of Pendalton. Defendant visited her there, being rereived by her ' employer's family as a friend 'Later witness went to Mrs A. f Raul's- The house was within a ct'nne's throw of Pnnanui Road! Witflss Avent 03 Ircly-l/elp, and was still IVp'c Defendant was received there as a'friend.. At first he frequently: V 1 Continuing, plaintiff /-aid that she«cpd to write twice a week to defendant He replied regularly at first. She iiofl' destroyed some of his letters, as Jwe related to family affairs. In •September, 1914; she received fpur let-

ters only,'and defendant said that he was not going to write, as he did not like writing letters. He had written about 100 up till then. Witness continued' to write regularly, as before. In 1915 witness did not get a letter from him till June, the next being in October. She frequently asked him to write to her. They telephoned between the Reads' house and Onaponga Station frequently at first, but that fell off. Since September, 1914, his calls to her gradually ceased, and he did not secTO~to like witness telephoning to him. In March last he asked why she telephoned so often to him, as hb' was busy. He ceased to ring her up in August last, about the time of the AmberTey races. When witness first came to Christchureh defendant came to see her once every six weeks. He came to Ad'dington for the sales. Whenever he motored into town he had called on her. Witness once stayed three weeks with his parents, who received her as their future daughter-in-law. Defendant went to Papanui for pigeon-shooting'.matches. His visits to witness became infrequent after September, 1914. • She saw him. very seldom in 1915, and until this day had not seen him since last June. He had been in town during that period, her friends having seen him. Witness would telephone to him, but defendant used to deny having been in town. On one such occasion, in August last, he swore at her. Defendant told her that be would be coming to town during last Grand National week, but would not have time to call on her. She asked him when he was likely to call on her. and ho replied " God Almighty knows. I don't 1" In September last, when Leonard Stackhouse was killed in a motor-car accident, sbe wrote and wired her sympathy to defendant, and later a wreath. No reply was sent. Continuing, plaintiff said that her health was affected by the worry and suspense. She lost.lj stone in weight, and could not sleep well. Several letters at this stage of the proceedings wore put in by plaintiff's counsel, but were not read in open Court. Answering Sir John Findlay, witness said that had Stackhouse come to her and told her quietly that his feelings had changed towards her, she would hot have brought this action. She had been working for about four months at her sister's place at Amberley before the engagement took place. She had nerqr been told that tho lease of the station was for five years. Defendant was twenty-seven years old at the time of the betrothal. It was her first engagement. She was not aware that the brothers Stackhouse were entirely dependent upon their father. Defendant never told her that he could not marry until the lease had expired. She had never, previous to her letter of SeptembervSO, askeel the defendant to fix a date for their marriage, nor had she complained that the "marriage had been unreasonably delayed. Christchureh was about forty miles from where defendant lived.' She could not remember being told about September. 1914, by defendant that either he, or his brother Leonard, must go to the front, 'and one must stay at home to look after the old people. She remembered being told that-Leonard had volunteered but was found unfit, and that defendant must go. She would have agreed to him going, without marrying her first. Sho, did not remember saying that she would not hear of such a thing, when the defendant said that he was going to enlist. She had never charged defendant with going with other woman, but she had heard •of the charge, and believed it. She [would not have refused to marry him if she had to live with his parents at Mount Brown,, but he had said that he would not let her live with them or to help them. Before -writing on October ).2 last. when she insisted on knowing whether he was going to marry her, she had consulted her solicitor,' who advised her to write an afV fectionato letter, asking defendant to clear up things. Sho wrote the letter on October 20, again'asking him his intentions, entirely on her own. Her letters were all signed." Your true and levin"- girl." The writ was issued on October 30. ' Sir John'Findlay:' Why didn't you go and see him?—ft was not my place. When a man won't come.near you and passes you within a stone's throw, what are you to do? Don't you think you could have pocketed a little pride?—When I offered to go to Rangiora, he told i»e not to. It was natural for this young fellow to consider his parents?—Yas, but there is a single daughter living jfwith them,'.and a married son .also lives close. ( '&< .!' ■*•<■ In reply to Mr Alpers, witness said that her complaint was not delay of the marriage, but tho refusing to marry. She was willing to wait a reasonable time, even longer than she had waited. She had placed no obstacles to the defendant going to the front. - - Mr Alpers saidl that reference had been made to tho defendant's heroics concerning the, war. On September 19, 1914, he' wrote:—The war does not seem to be going any better. . . If I go bung through the war I will get a position as a chef. His Honor: As a sheriff?.-. (Laughter.) Mr Alters (to witness): I understand" that your' lover is a pigeonshooter; shooting at something that cannot shoot back. His Honor: Are you reflecting on the young man that he was afraid to go to the war? ■ Mr Alpers: No, your Honor. His Honor:' Then- I don't think you ought to have said such a thing. It may be smart, but it should not be said, especially at this stage of the nroceadiivrs.

Answering further questions from Mr Alpers, witness said that she had heard that •'defendant; had been taking out a lady. Witness never suggested that actual misconduct took place between defendant and this' lady, with any other woman. Defendant was a clean-living man. Defendant had referred to the lady whose name had been mentioned in a letter dated August 31, 1913. When witness wrote her" last three letters to defendant she had this lady in mind. John Marshall, auotioneer, residing at Fendalton, said that the plaintiff previously worked at his residence as lady-help, .Mr Stackhouse visited her there and witness made his acquaintance. One evening, about two or three years ago, after plaintiff had left' witness's employ, she and the defendant visited witness's house. In a. friendly way, witness" told defendant that he ought to take Miss lies away from whore she was working as she was working too hard. Defemdant replied that it wfis v not worth while as sho would not. be there long. - By that, knowing of the engagement, witness thought that defendant meant an early marriage. On another e.asion, defendant, discussing the Craythonio case, said that he would not

got married until the affair had blown 1 That concluded the evidence for tha plaintiff. „', , ■'■..,l, Sir John Findlav said that In 1912 defendant's father leased his sons a property and stock for nve years, the sons to have for themselves whatever increased value mignt accrue from the' results of their labour at the end of the period. The plaintiff, at the time of the betrothal, knew of that. The law allowed that the man was not to be forced to marry until ho could keep the woman in the position oroper for the parties. Misfortunes" drought and sorrows had happened to the defendant. When his brother Leonard died and the return of his estate had to he made, it showed a deficiency of £2lO. The defendant was in exactly the same position. Ho did not tell the plaintiff, as he did not want the fact known. It was easy to see that friends had advised the? plaintiff, and she had plunged into law before giving the "defendant a chance. The defendant was being sued for £IOOO, but ho really had not one thousand pence. ' . At 4.'20 p.m. the Court adjourned to 10 a.m. on the following day. A SETTLEMENT: It is understood that after the Court rose the parties arrived at a settlementof the case.