A TURK'S WOOING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11986, 7 June 1902, Page 2 (Supplement)

A TURK'S WOOING.

_ »■ ; — '• TWO HUNDRED POUNDS DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF PROMISE. A cunrous story was told at Manchester Assizes, a few days ago, before Mr. Justice Willis and a special jury, when Beatrice Cardus sued Mnstapha Karsa to recover damages for breach of promise to marry. Counsel for plaintiff said she was a young woman about 22 years of age, and at the time she first met defendant was employed as an attendant a* the Comedy Theatre Manchester. Defendant was a Turk, and was Consul-General for Turkey at Manchester. He had lately attained the title of Bey. Defendant met plaintiff in 1899 at the house of her brother-in-law at Timperley, but there was no promise of marriage till' about September, 1900. Before that date defendant went abroad,/and he asked plaintiff not to engage herself to anyone else till he returned, as he told her he wis very fond of her. Plaintiff consented t/o this. Upon his return he saW plaintiff's mother, and talked in father large figures." Mrs. Cardus said that, of course, defendant would make a settlement upon her daughter, and he spoke of settling £5000. He also talked of an income of £10,000 of £12,000 a year. Plaintiff's father was a. police of/icer in the city force, and died in October,; 1900, soon after the engagement took place. The Judge : What sort of marriage was it to be? Was plaintiff to be one. wife, or one of many? Counsel: I assume it was to be an English marriage. Ho did not specify that there was to be more than one write. The Judge: That remains-] to be settled. Counsel: I should have' thought in this country, although you may be a Turk, if you.marry, you marry according to the English law. I think the probability is that he never intended to marry her at all. Proceeding, counsel said plaintiff's father was buried on October 20, 1.900, and defendant attended the funeral. He was introduced to several people who ware there —relations and friends—as being the intended husband of this girl. He never Suggested that there was no foundation for that. On the day following the itinera he asked plaintiff to go to Liverpool with Kim, after having asked her mother if she might go. Her mother '■ consented, and tiny went. At Liverpool (hey met the Turkish Consul for Liverpool, and they had luncheon together at the Alexandra Hotel. Plaintiff and defendant afterwards went to Jtfew Brighton, and returned to the hotel in the evening. Defendantsaid they couhi return to Manchester by the half-past ten or eleven o'clock train. They had supper at the hotel, and plaintiff urged that it was time to take the train home. Defendant then said, There is no train, and you will have to stay in Liverpool." He succeeded in persuading her to remain at the hotel, and they returned to Manchester the next morning. Plaintiff explained to -li.hr mother, that they had lost the train. Later on Mrs. Cardus spoke to defendant, who. said he was going to marry plaintiff in a few months. Plaintiff afterwards, went to Liverpool and- other places with defendant, telling her mother that she had 'been to see her brother-in-law at Tim-

perJey. About twelve months after the promise had been mad? plaintiff and her mother, at the request of defendant, took rooms for himself and them at Blackpool. Defendant Went over-, but on the following morning he got up early and told Mrs. Cardus he was returning to Manchester. She asked him why, and he replied that he was not going to be bothered any more ; lie was going away." In the course of conversation with plaintiff he told her he was a- widower, and that he had a. housekeeper who was looking after him. On one occasion, when he was driving with plaintiff, they mot Mrs. Karsa. Plaintiff asked defendant who the lady was, and he paid she was Mrs. Karsa. Plaintiff asked how that 'could be, seeing that he had told her he had no wife, and defendant said, " Well, she goes by the name of Mis. Karsa, but she really is only my housekeeper." Plaintiff said she did not believe that, and defendant said, " Will you come to my house and have lunch there? This woman will wait upon you, and you will see she is my housekeeper, and not my wife." She did go, and Was waited upon as he had said, and she was thus reassured. There was no correspondence in this case, because defendant said he did not write English very well, and plaintiff did not understand Turkish. 'Beatrice Cardus, plaintiff, bore out counsel's statement. . . ... Plaintiff said the marriage was to take place after twelve months from October, 1901. Defendant fixed it. They were to be married according to the English law;.' Nothing was said about a marriage before a sheik. She did not ask him where they were to live, but defendant's eight children were to live with her. Defendant told her his wife—the mother of the children—-was dead. He'never gave plaintiff any money, She denied that the defendant never said anything about marriage to her. Defendant was about 52 years of age. ;" ; , After the evidence had been given Mustapha Karsa, the defendant, said he was a merchant, carrying on business at Manchester, and resided at Sale. He had lived there for the last two and a-half years. He was married. Mrs. Karsa lived in the house and was the mother of his eight children. lie visited Joseph's house very frequently from October, 1899, till the time he went abroad, and saw plaintiff there. He was abroad till May, 1900. It was not true that he suggested to plaintiff that she should keep herself free to marry him when he came back. He did not ask the permission of Mrs. Cardus to take plaintiff to Liverpool. She wished him to take her, and he did so. They went with the intention of staying there, because they both took travelling bags. He remembered the occasion he and plaintiff drove to Miss. Joseph's house. Mrs. Karsa was in the drawingroom window, and when plaintiff saw her she left the carriage and ran round to the back of the house. Plaintiff was introduced to Mrs. Karsa as Mrs. Joseph's sister. Subsequently Mrs. Karsa, Mrs. Joseph, and plaintiff drove in his carriage to his house. He and Mi. Joseph followed, and all remained to dinner. Plaintiff saw the children, and also went to the nursery. The children called Mrs. Karsa "mother." She was an English lady. Counsel : Did yon ever tell plaintiff that Mr*. Karsa. was. your housekeeper and not your wife? — Certainly, not. He never, from first to last, promised to marry her. In cross-examination witness said he gave plaintiff about £50 in all and about '£30 worth of .clothing. Plaintiff's mother knew of the relation which existed between himself and plaintiff. He did not tell her. Asked as to his income, he said whatever he made did not cover his expenses. Ijle bad a big family. He could not say what his expenses were, but his books would show. His income might be £600 or £700 a year. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and awarded her £200 damages. . In an action brought by Ann Cardus, the mother of plaintiff, against defendant for the loss of her daughter's services, counsel said it had been arranged by consent that judgment should be entered for plaintiff for 40s—nominal damages— ' High ' Court costs. .