THE M.P. AND THE LADY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8270, 31 May 1890, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE M.P. AND THE LADY.

THE JURY UNABLE TO AGREE. Tax hearing of the cade Hairs v. Elliot was resumed before Mr. Justice Denman and a special jury on April Bth. This case had been partly heard. The plaintiff, Miss Emeline Mary Hairs, had been an opera singer, and she sued Sir George Elliot, M.P. for Monmouth, claiming £5000 damages, for breach of an alleged promise of marriage, accompanied, as it was alleged, by seduction. The defendant, by his pleadings, denied that he had ever made any such promise. Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Breniner were for the plaintiff; and Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Horace Browne for the defendant.

THE MOTHER IN THE WITNESS-BOX. Mrs. Harriett Hairs, the plaintiff's mother, said she was a widow. Her husband, who was a journalist, died in 1865. She had other daughters beside tho plaintiff. She was first introduced to Sir George at her house in Norfolk-street, on the 31sfc May, 1881. He called upon her after dinner, she believed She saw him in the drawing-room. He told her he had made a proposal of marriagj to hor daughter, and would make handsome settlements. She believed that her daughter was present. He said that he had her daughter's consent and he asked witness' consent. He added that he did not wish tho marriage to be mentioned to anyone whatever until ho had communicated with his family, as lie expected opposition. He expected that his daughters would not be at all pleased. She (witness) said that her daughter should do precisely as she pleased ; she was old enough. Her daughter had told her that Sir George was coming. He remained an hour or more. Sir George afterwards came frequently, and behaved bo the plaintiff as if ho were her suitor. The marriage was mentioned on several occasions when Sir George was present. He, indeed, spoke of tho plaintiff as his future wife, but ho still wished the matter to bo kept secret. She did not ask when it would take place, but it was to be after lie had mentioned tho matter to his family. She always received the defendant as hor daughter's future husband. " NOT INTRODUCED TO SIR GEORGES* FAMILY." Mrs. Hairs was then cross-examined. Her private income under her mother's will was, she said, about £400 a year. Her sister was her trustee. A good deal less than that, is it not? It might be a trifle under. Her daughter took that house when they came to London. Sho dined twice at Sir George's house during the three years that the intimacy continued. Sho was not introduced to any of the family. She had not tho least idea of any improper intimacy with Sir George until this action was commenced. She thought her daughter was able to take care of herself.

When you saw Sir George on tho 30th of May, did you, in the character of mother-in-law, embrace him? (Laughter.) Ho embraced me; he kissed me. (Laughter.) Her daughter—added the witness—was " getting on " ; she was '.)~. Sir Charles Russell read a paragraph from the Times, which described the plaintiff and her mother as having pursued a disreputable course in Paris. Mr. Kemp : I do not know whether my learned friend relies upon the accuracy of .statements that appear in the Times. (Loud laughter.) Sir Charles Russell admitted that his learned friend had scored, but he did rely upon the accuracy of this particular paragraph. MR. OEOROK AND THE BUSINESS. Mrs. Louise Avant spoke to the defendant, having called at her place at the request, as lie said, of Miss Hairs. He said that he did not sec why she should have anything to do with the business, as she was going to be married to him. He said that he had no objection to it, but he thought that her name should not. appear as a partner. He talked of Miss Hairs all the time, spoke of the unliappiness of his previous married life, and hoped that the coming marriage would be more fortunate. He was there for an hour or an hour and ahalf before Miss Hairs came in. When she came he kissed her and said how pleased he was to see her. She was pleased to see him. He invited witness to his house to dinner, he having telegraphed to put off an engagement he had with Mr. Parkinson. He also telegraphed to his housekeeper to prepare dinner at eight. Miss Hairs wrote the telegrams at the defendant's request. Witness went and dined at his house. When she was having it he again asked her not to say anything about the marriage, as his family knew enough already. She saw him many times after this, and heard him frequently refer to his marriage. He always kissed Miss Hairs when lie met her, and she always looked upon them as engaged people. In cross-examination, tho witness said that she did not think that Sir George ever kissed her. She was, indeed, sure of it. She first met him about October, 1887, at a large luncheon party given by Mr. Sutton Sharpe at the Bristol Hotel. Five or six weeks after this the proposed partnership was mentioned to her by the plaintiff. At that time she knew of the proposed marriage with the defendant. The plaintiff generally addressed the defendant as " George," except in the presence of other people. Witness was a married woman, but she did not live with her husband. They parted nine years ago. She received no support from him. Her father rendered her support until this last year, and now she supported herself. The letter handed to her was hers.

Sir Charles -. It says, "It is so kind of you to help two poor loan women (perhaps that is a joke)—(a laugh)—and you doubtless have rendered the name kind services to many friends. I venture to think that you will never be more satisfied with the result of your kindness than in tho present instance."

Witness : I beg your pardon, Sir Charles ; that is not my letter. The writing is like mine, but I never wrote it.

Take it in your hand, look at it, and bo careful. I beg your pardon. I did not know that the letter was to Sir George. I thought it was to Mr. Eastly. It is my letter. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. SIR GEORGE EI.LIOT CALLED. Sir Charles Russell said that he proposed to call the defendant. Sir George Elliot was accordingly called. He said that he was born on the 18th of March, 1815, so that ho was in his 76th year. In 1885 he received a letter from Mr. Charles Bell as to the plaintiffs concession of the coal mine. He had been acquainted with that district thirty years before. He saw the plaintiff twice, and on the 4th of January she invited him to dine with her at Browne's Hotel. lb was a good dinner, and especially good wine, ho remembered He never entreated her on any occasion, it always proceeded from the other side. He afterwards had a letter from her from Paris, but lie did not know what had become of it. In consequence of what took place yesterday, ho had searched for any letters from her, bub only those produced had been found. He had a letter from her, by which he understood that she had a miscarriage. The subject of marriage was never upon any occasion whatever mentioned between him and her. He never in any way made any promise of that kind. He knew nothing of Mrs. Avant until the question of business arose He had inquiries made into the business. He paid £700 in the first instance, and one way and another about £1200 had been advanced. He had a security or equivalent in connection with a grant in reference to the concession. He had also paid at times £1500 or £1600 to keep the concessions alive. He saw the plaintiff frequently in 1886 and 1887 but little in 1888, and in 1889 not at all.

MRS. AVANT'S statement dekied. It was not true that he made any statement like Mrs. Avant had spoken to. The witness, who seemed very much affected, said that it was not true that his married life had been unhappy. He had never had an unhappy day with his wife. She died ten years ago. Some improper intimacy took place between the plaintiff and him. The last time he saw her he was much pressed by the plaintiff and by Mrs. Avant to advance money for their business, or to become security to the bank. The last time he saw her it was at his house, and she again spoke of her condition. Was the subject of marriage spoken of upon that occasion, or any other, to her or to the ladies who had spoken ? He could not understand any claim that she had ,oon him, and to his surprise he learned Jjbt it was a breach of promise of marriage. . in b-o wa« no truth in what the servant jV* Hid as to his having said at three in I the n-n-ning «i w iu marry you.' He

never said anything of that kind or of settlements.

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. In cross-examination Sir George said the temptation as to improper intimacy camo from the plaintiff. The woman tempted you, and you fell And it is the sorrow of my life. He might possibly have kissed the plaintiff's mother. He had a large family, and he was in the habit of kissing them. He did not kiss the plaintiff's mother as a proposed one of his family. He did not remember sending £50 to the plaintiff for a birthday present, bub it might have been. What the plaintiff, her mother, Mrs. Avant, and the servantmaid had said was altogether false ; there never was such a case of iniquity. Sir Charles Russell addressed the jury for tho defendant.

Mr. Justice Dcnman, in summing-up, said that he did nob apprehend that they ought to have sympathy in this case either with tho one side or the other. The simple question for them was whether there had been a promise by the defendant to marry the plaintiff, and by statute there must now be confirmatory evidence in addition to the plaintiff in such a case. It was for the jury bo say whether they thought that they could rely upon tho confirmatory evidence in this case.

JURY DISCHARGED WITHOUT A VERDICT. The jury retired at twenty minutes past four, and at a quarter-past six the judge came into court, and asked the counsel who were present whether they would agree to a verdict of the majority of the jury. Mr. Lionel Hart said he was instructed nob bo do so. Tho Judge: I had bettor send for the jury. I understand there is no chance of their agreeing. The jury were accordingly sent for. The Judge: I understand, gentlemen, you feel there is no chance of your agreeing to a verdict '! The foreman : No. The Judge: Will you be so good as to take my advice not bo toll any human being how you are divided, becauso great mischief is done nowadays by people fishing out the secrets of the jury-box. There will bo another trial. Do not lot anybody know how you are divided. If you tell mo you cannot agree, you are discharged. Tho jury wore accordingly discharged without giving a verdict.