A Lovers’ Quarrel

Manawatu Times, Volume XL, Issue 13763, 17 December 1917, Page 5

A Lovers’ Quarrel

CLAIM FOR RETURN ©F £53. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. Sidney Perkins (Mr Thomas) sought to recover from Gladys Hussey (Mr Donnelly) the sum of £53, at the Magistrate's Court at Christchurch. Mr Thomas stated that in November, 1915, plaintiff had been married only two days when his wife had died. Some time later he met another lady, but he had a difference with her, and they parted. Shortly afterwards he met defendant, and was “walking out” with her. He wrote to her people and told them the true position of affairs regarding his financial position. He had been very foolish and had drawn money from the Savings Bank and given to the defendant the sum of £SO to put away for the home. A number of letters were put into Court and read. Counsel, continuing, said that plaintiff had “kept company' s with defendant, but later his feelings in the matter evidently changed, and lue became enamoured once again of the young lady he had deserted f®r defendant. He had then written to defendant and told her the true position of affairs. Sidney Perkins, a cleaner, said that previous t§ meeting defendant at the Boys' High School Hostel he had been keeping company with a girl, but they had had a difference. Shortly after meeting defendant he had received a letter from her asking him to write to her. He had ideas of marrying the girl, arid had given her the sum of £SO to put away for the Louse. Mr Donnelly: Didn’t you promise to buy the, ring? Witness: No, I didn’t.

Defendant: Excuse me, you did. You promised to send me it before Christmas Day.

Mr Donnelly read several letters written by plaintiff. One, written to defendant’s mother, said that he wished to make her happy, and would be able to give her a good start in life. Plain tig: I did not ask her to marry. I only asked permission to 11 walk out ’ ’ with her.

To Mr Donnelly, plaintiff said that the £SO was not a gift to Miss Hussey, but was given to her to hold for him.

Mr Donnelly: She was not going to give you £SO for a home for her rival. You jilted the defendant, and then you expected her to give back the money? Defendant, to Mr Thomas, said that the money was not a loan, but a gift, and it belonged to her absolutely. She intended to pay back the sura for the purchase of the house, as he said that he was purchasing the house for her. If she had broken off with plaintiff, sho would have given him the money back. As he had broken off with her, she had kept the money. Judgment was given for defendant.