LADY BARBER AND BARRISTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9491, 21 April 1894, Page 2 (Supplement)

LADY BARBER AND BARRISTER.

CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

A POETICAL DEFENDANT. itl fne Courb of Queen's Bench Division, before Mr. Justice Wright and a common jury, the case of Chettle v. Wicks was heard. This was an action to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage. The circumstances out of which the litigation arose were of a somewhab peculiar -cnaracter. defendant's poetry. Counsel for the plaintiff, in the course of his opening speech—which was unfinished when the Court rose—read a poetical description, written by the defendant, of a visit to the Crystal Palaoo, during which ho proposed to the plaintiff. It ran as follows :— Once I met in London town f Totally unexpected, iA little girl of no renown, With whom I got connected. She sane no song of undent race. Of pride, great wealth, or glory, But all (lay long she shaved the fac# , Of Liberal or Tory. But later on a change came on, She could not call her heart her own | Because of Him with wi« and gown, Who very frequently came dowu. On Thursday, the 15th of June, tinder the li«ht of stars and moon, They to the Crystal Palace strolled, To see the fireworks, so bold. There being many pretty trees, Under their shade they took their east. From Arthur's heart his lore did pour, But Lottie could or would not hear. He prayed her to be his wife, To guide and guard his future life, His troubles anil his joys to share ; But A3ttie pretended not to hear. Then Arthur disappointed grew, And positively did not know what to do. But conscience came to l/ot tie's heart, Anil for Arthur's arms she made a dart. Ana now this little tale must close, Except the writer no one knows His happiest days, without pretext, Will be the 2nd of August next, When Lottie Chettle's name will be From then to all eternity Lottie Wicks, the wife of him 'A'ho has composed this short poem. The reading ot the poem was frequently interrupted by outbursts of laughter. plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff. Miss Charlotte Chettle, said she answered an advertisement, which resulted in tier obtaining a situation at the Liadi Barbers' Association in Chancery Lane The defendant became a customer at the hairdressing saloon, and after some little time ho said he would like to go out with her. tie had told the manageress that ho was a barrister, and had many good clients. air. Tustico Wright His name is nob in tho Law List. JJpntinuing, witness said that when ho commenced walking oub with her sho went witn him co Hyde Park, and he also visited her at her lodgings in Goorge-streot, Euston Road. In June thoy went to the Crystal Palace. In the grounds he told her chat he loved her, and wanted to marry bar. He said he had £900 a year with more to come, Ho continned pleading, and ultimately she said " Yes." August 2 was fixed as the wedding day. THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. In cross-examination plaintiff said aho was told by Mrs. Niesh on July '29 thab the defendant was a married man with children. He had told her that ho had a child, and she was also aware that there was a Mrs. W. at Margate, out she thought that referred to his grandmother. He ban told witness that he was not legally married, as the woman had committed bigamy. He said he was in soma difficulties with this woman. In further cross-examination plaintiff said her wages were 15s a week, but she brought her income up to 35s by commission. After defendant's second visit bo the shavingsaloon -ihe went with him to the Tivoli. He drove her homo to her lodgings. One night they had supper, after which he drove her to his house, where they spent; the nighb together. She did not know what was going to happen, or she would not have gone. She -admitted that sho went with him to Ryde, Isle of Wight, where they passed as Mr. and Mrs. Wicks. Sho never told her people or her employers that sho had been to Hyde. Plaintiff admitted that tho relationship continued. Sho also admitted that she sent instructions on October 10 to her solicitors to discontinue the action, but she afterwards withdrew those instructions, as they had been obtained from her by Iraud. Mrs. Eliza Louisa Cross said she was tho proprietress of the Lady Barbers' Association in Chancery Lane. Her husband was abroad. Mr. Wicks paid 5s per hour for allowing Miss Chettle to leave a little earlier. Mr. Wicks told witness that he wanted to make " Lottie " his wifo. Mr. P.awlins'on then addressed the Court on behalf of tho defendant. DKFENDANT IN TUB BOX. The defendant was called. Ho said that at the time he first knew plaintiff he was secretary of a company in the city. At the present time ho had no occupation. He had £40 income, interest on an estate, and ho was in receipt of £2 10s per week from a second mortgage of a certain revisionary interest that was his, but which now was practically worth nothing. He described how ho first met Miss Chettle, and how he invited her to the Tivoli Music-hall. On July 19 he told hor that he was a married man, but that subsequent to his marriage he had found that his wife had committed bigamy. He had told her that ho had married her a second time, and that he Was not on good terms with her. He showed Miss Chettle the certificates of marriage ab Hampstead. It was then agreed between them that when they wenb away together they should pass as Mr. and Mrs. Wicks, that her friends should be told they were engaged, and that, after a separation had been obtained from his wife, they should live together until they could bo married. When Miss Chettle stayed ab Hampstead with him thore were articles belonging to his wifo in the bedroom, and the plaintiff wore his wife's nightdress. As to the Atherstono visit, the arrangement was that they should pass as an engaged couple. When he told her that his wife was returning there was no reference made by hor to his having deceived her. On October sho saw her at Mrs. Niesh's. It was agreed that ho should pay the solicitor's costs and her expenses homo, and she should write to stop the proceedings. They had a social evening, and he parted with her on perfectly friendly terms. oross-exasiination. Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger, defendant said he was secretary to the Marsoy Manufacturing Company. He did not tell Miss Chettle that he was a member of the bar. He said he was studying for the bar, and she assumed he was a member of the bar by his general behaviour. (Laughter.) Some time after he knew her he did say he was a member of the bar. It was a lie. Ho did propose to marry Miss Chettle, being at the time a married man. He did nob know why. He never ab any time intended to marry her. It was a foolish thing. He was a father, and one of his children was a girl. He did nob think anything as to when the news that he was married would have to be told to Miss Chettle. Ho knew she might discover it at any time. Ho never meant to marry her on any of the dates eaggested. His legal marriage took place on February US, last year, at Hampstead. No separation actually took place between him and his wife. She went away to live ab Margate on account of her troubles with him tnd other private troubles. inn VERDICT. , William Wiley McAlister, an accountanb, of Hackney, stated that on August 20 he was at Hampstead. He went there at the request of the defendant, who had asked him to get him out -of a tangle with a girl. Witness then advised a complete severance of the acquaintanceship between tho plaintiff and the defendant. At the interview with witness the plaintiff seomed surprised, and wept. She then made reference to a promise of marriage, and added that she was a ruined woman. After addressos by the respective counsel, the learned Judge summed up, in the course of which he said that if a married man promised marriage to an unmarried woman, tho law said she was entitled to treat him as "in default," and was entitled to damages, as he had promised something he could nob perform. Under these circumstances the question for the jury would be what amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to. The jury, having considered the matter for half an hour, gave a verdict for bhg plaintiff for £300,