A BOOKMAKER'S LOVE-MAKING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8360, 13 September 1890, Page 2 (Supplement)

A BOOKMAKER'S LOVE-MAKING.

Ik the Queen's Bench division, on July 25, the case Balls v. Reece was tried. The plaintiff, in her statement of claim, set out that she was a widow, who resided at Buenos Ayres, Margate, and that defendant was a bookmaker, at Ashford. On Marr' 20th, 1889, the defendant entered into and signed the following agreement:—

" Vulcan Villa, Ashford, Kent, March 20, 1889. To Mrs. Emma Jane Balls, 13, Burleigh - street, Strand : Madam, —In consideration of your foregoing to institute proceedings for breach of promise of marriage, which I hereby admit I made with you, and you on your part accepted, I hereby agree to pay to you the sum of £2 per week during my life (by quarterly payments). I further agree to pay you by way of liquidated damages the sum of £500, such last - mentioned amount to be paid to you as follows : — £200 on or before the 11th day of April, 1889, and the balance of £300 on the 20th day of May, 1889. I also agree to deposit with you as security for tho due payment of the several sums above stated 120 shares in Messrs. Howell and James Company (Limited), on the 25th day of March, 1889.—Yours obediently, Ror.ERT Rkkck."

On March 27, 1889, the defendant deposited the shares. On April 12, 1889, he paid the plaintiff £100; and on the 17th of that month lie paid her another £100. He, however, in breach of the agreement, neglected to pay the plaintiff the remaining £300, which sho was entitled to. Another item of claim was this: The plaintiff alleged that in consideration of her having received the defendant in February, 1887, into her house, having attended upon him, procured him medical assistance, and incurred expenses for him, the defendant promised to put for her and did put £10 upon Oberou for the Lincolnshire Handicap, and in March, 1887, the said horse won, and that the plaintiff thereupon became entitled to receive from the defendant £500. He did, in fact, pay her by instalments £369 ss, leaving a balance of £130 15s due. The defendant by his pleadings traversed most of these allegations, lie denied the promise of marriage, and said that therefore there was no consideration for the agreement. He also said that when he signed the agree ment he was of unsound mind, and was suffering from tho effects of intoxication. There was likewise a counter-claim for money paid for the plaintiff. Mrs. Emma Jane Balls, the plaintiff, was called, and she said that the defendant repeatedly promised her marriage. tie first spoke to her upon the subject on November, 1887, and when he was at her house ill Dr. Lucey told him that witness had saved his life. The defendant replied that he had already asked her to be his wife, and he intended to ask her again. He fixed several days for the wedding. June, 1888, was particularly fixed for that purpose, and the defendant took her to buy the ring. He could not find one to suit, and he ordered one to be made. The defendant had a good deal of family trouble, which delayed the marriage. On one occasion defendant iltlipped some letters and she picked them up, and found that they were from a lady. He said that lie was afraid that she would go against him and ruin him. The lady had £800 a year of her own. He said if witness would settle with him lie would never marry anyone else. Mr. Bond, when he came, explained everything to defendant, and wrote the document thr'b was signed from his dictation. Subsequently defendant's -on spoke to her. He said that he was very sorry for her ; that his father had already promised many ladies, and hail behaved in the same way to them. (Laughter.) The defendant was perfectly sane and he hud not been drinking when he sigued the agreement.. Cross-examined : She Cuuld not produce any letters from the defendant, -'he destroyed them when she was about Ljoing to Margate, and after the agreement had been signed and she thought hat every tiling had been settled.

She quarrelled with the defendant because he received letters from a lady. (Laughter.) She understood that he wan tio, not (iS, The lady Was Airs. Moss, of Canterbury. The defendant was frequently the worse for drink on big race • lays, buD he did nob drink so much for the last three years. She denied that she had said to one of her servants, "I never got a farthing out of tho old devil to-day ; he was sober." The defendant arranged to marry her at the registry oflice, Hen-rietta-street, Covent Garden, on a Saturday morning in June, ]SSS. S waited at her house for him, bub he ni cv came. On other occasions the defendant failed to keep bis promise to come and take her to the registry office. The defendant's excuse for nor. marrying her in June, 1 888, was that a lady would come against him and ruin him. She was really desirous of marrying the defendant. The defendant offered to settle £.">()0() upon Iter, but she refused. Everybody knew the defendant was a man of wealth. When the defendant offered to settle £3000 upon her she said his children should never say she married him for money. Mr. Willis : You loved him so. (Laughter. )

Plaintiff, in further cross-examination, said the defendant obtained his living by bookmaking.

Mr. Willis : I suppose he told you he was making large sums of money ?

His lordship : I have always understood that it is tho safest trade going. Mr. Willis: It all depends upon who conducts it.

Plaintiff further denied that the defendant was the worse for drink when lie proposed to make her his wife. The defendant was brought to her house ill in February, ISS7, and he remained there from the .Monday till the Friday. That was when ho promised to marry her in the presence of the doctor. Her account for what was supplied defendant included champagne, brandy, oysters, eggs, and milk. There were six small bottles of champagne, which the defendant drank with the doctor.

So ho was drinking champagne with his doctor, and brandy in his milk '! (Laughter.) Well, it was supplied him. Mr. J. S. Bond, solicitor's managing clerk, gave evidence to the effect that when lie defendant signed the agreement he was perfectly sensible and sober. In cross-examination witness said he did not notice any signs of drink about tho defendant ; in fact, ho had no reason to suppose he had ever been drunk in his life. (Laughter.)

Mr. George Norman Amwyl, medical officer of Chartham Asylum, said when the defendant arrived there he was suffering from mania following delirium tremens. Ho was violent, furiously maniacal, and could not converse at all. Witness should think that this condition of things had been coming on for a twelvemonth, and that ho had not been really in his right mind for a long while before. Mr. Tom Hoclginan, of the Alexander Restaurant, Harbour - street, Ramsgate, and a member of tho Vicitoria Club, said that he had known the defendant» ir 24 or '25 year.?, and was very intimate with him. For the last live years his habits as to drinking were very bad. About 1880 witness noticed a change in his mental condition, and from that time he got worse. He got so bad that witness would not do any business with him. Ho dined with witness every Sunday. He was frequently crying, and he always said that he was very wealthy, and witness had heard him say that he was worth a million. Tr »* said that he had £30,000 in the South-Eastern Railway Company, and that he was going to be a director. He said that he was a large shareholder in Howell and James, and that he owned tho best part of their premises.

Have you heard him talk of marrying people ? Several. He might say a dozen. (Laughter.) There were five people in Canterbury whom he was going to marry. He on one occasion said that he was going to marry a lady named Wilsor, and they thereupon at once drank his health.

Mr. William Reeco, son of defendant, defended the action as guardian ad litem. His father was always a very hard drinker. For the last two or three years he was almost constantly drunk. From Christmas, 1838, to May, 1889, when ho fell, he was never free from the influence of drink. Witness had never heard of his engagement to Mrs. Balls. In March, 1889, his father's property con-

eisted of the following: — The witness owed him £1500, which ho had borrowed to enlarge hi« business of a draper; he had the freehold house that he lived in, worth £450 ; hid HovveU and James shares were worth £250 to £300; and the balance at his bank was £270. In March, 1889, he was suffering much from the effects of drink, and he got worse towards May, and in that month he was out of his mind. When the writ in this action was served witness could not make his father understand anything about it. The witness also spoke to having found a paper which hie father had dropped, and which it seemed showed that he had advanced money for the plaintiff to the extent of £309 ss. Counsel having addressed the jury, his lordship summed up, describing the case as a very remarkable one, as he had never heard of a case in which the defence of insanity was raised upon such evidence. The very people who said that not only in the month of March the man was insane, but for months before, did not set up that defence three months after the date of the agreement. It was, however, for the jury to say whether, upon the evidence, there was enough to justify thorn in saying that this man was a lunatic when the agreement was entered into. The jury retired to consider their verdict about ten minutes past three o'clock, and, after an absence of nearly four hours, returned into court, and the foreman said there was no chance of their agreeing to a verdict. They were accordingly discharged. ______________