THE LOVER AND HIS LASS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13157, 21 April 1906, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE LOVER AND HIS LASS.

MAX SUES FOR BREACH OF PROMISE. A breach of prom.'** action with a man as the plaintiff came before 31 Justice Lawrance and a special jury in the King's Bench Division last month.

Mr. Francis Davle3 Bull, a teacher of painting, of 14b, Manor Road, Stoke Newington, was- the plaintiff: Miss Edith Harvey, a forme pupil, residing with. her parents at Seven Sisters Road, Fine bury Park, was the defendant, and her defence was that the engagement was rescinded by mutual consent.

Wearing a black frock coat and a large ted bow, Mr. Bui! appeared to conduct his own case. He is dark-complexioned, with a long moustache and a wealth of curly hair. His former sweetheart, dressed in black, sat with her friends at the solicitors' table.

It was in 1899, said Mr. Bull, that Miss Harvey became a pupil of his, and >n June, 1903. when lie was taking a party of friends to Germany, she accompanied them. While they were on this trip he intimated nis regard Jor her, and in the following month, while at Clacton, be made a formal proposal of marriage. He was accepted, and her parents gave their sanction to the marriage. Miss Harvey suggested that he should give up his teaching as most of his pupils were ladies, and assured him that she had ample means and was perfectly wi'.ling to contribute towards the household ■expenses when they were married. Her mother supported her in this, and the marriage was fixed to take phice in March, 1904. An accident to the defendant—a doctor had assured hum that it was only hysteria —led to a postponement of the marriage, bub eventually April 20, 1905, was agreed upon, and on March 22 he called for Miss Harvey, and they stalled to walk together to Doctors' Commons to obtain the license.

*" On the way the question of the household expenses was discussed. "The talk becoming complicated," said the plaintiff, "we went intc the A.B.C. (restaurant) to talk the matter over." But even then they did not agree. All ho could get from her was, " You have broken the engagement off. You have thrown me over at a moment's notice. Good-bye." They went home without the license. marrying for LOVE. "You were marrying the lady for love?" asked Mr. Shearman, K.C. The Witness: Yes. Did you suggest to the lady that when you got married all her money should be paid into a bank and you should have the right to draw upon it when you thought fit? Never, at any time. What did you suggest?—l suggested that she should keep her private money in her bank and I should keep my money in my private bank, and that money should be paid into a local Dank for our household expenses. She had a fortune and you had none?— That is a fact.

You were to be at liberty to draw cheques upon her money?— Yes, and she was to be at liberty to draw cheques upon mine. Did you say that if she objected you would part for ever?— Did you draw up a legal document and ask this poor lady to sign it?—No ; J wrote something, but I never asked her to sign it.

"I said," went on the witness, "that it seems to me you are trying to find an excuse, and so that there shall not be any excuse I will write down here that it- has nothing whatever to do with the breaking off of the engagement." The document ran : —

"I wish it to be understood that all matters, whether financial or otherwise, shall bo arranged by mutual consent, both having equal power in the decision of all things. As regards finances I think it desirable that Edith should have a private account over which she should have absolute control, and anv other income from any other source shall be banked and held in our joint names, and to meet an emergency either party shall have equal power in the signing of a cheque, each one to retain the power to withdraw any moneys they have contributed to the joint accounts." .

Are you really suggesting that she wanted an excuse for breaking it off on the day you were going to get the license?—lt seems so.

COCTD NOT FORGET. He admitted that he wrote on the next day: — .

"My Dear Edith,—l feel as though I ought to write to you, for I have been thinking all night that I have been unjust to you; and I feel as if we were making a serious mistake. I should have come up and told you so if you had been alone, but I could not bear to see anyone else. Don't you think we ought to consider the subject before deciding a matter of such vital importance? If, however, you feel that yesterday's decision was best, then I must leave it to you."

She replied on, March 29 : —

" My mind is still in the same unsettled state. As you wished me to give you a definite answer, I hold by your decision last Monday morning, as I cannot see my way to forget so readily the manner in which you threw me over without the slightest hesitation. I forgive it, but I cannot forget it. ... I will collect your letteis and return them to you, of course. Let me know when you would like the furniture returned.—Good-bye, yours sincerely, Edith."

Counsel produced a letter written to Mrs. Harvey by. the plaintiff, and in which he regretted the present state of affairs, and pointed out that he had given up his teaching.

The plaintiff said that he had brought this action because he could not really help himself.

Mr. Shearman: Don't you think it would be a sensible thing to go away now if we did not ask you for any costs? The Witness (solemnly): Considering there is power and wealth and professional men against me, Yes; but as a matter of right—No! Mr. Bull added that he had spent'nearly £400 on furniture.

Ho wrote to the defendant on February 20, 1904: —

You know my opinion of loveless marriages. ... It is a miserable thing to many without love, and I am worried a bit. When I had finished in the shop I got a fit of the blues. I afterwards went to the Hackney Empire. I saw some wonderful swimmers in a tank and men being shot from a cannon, and then I got more blues and then I got the perfect blue devils. And when 1 went home and found no supper and the place all sold—then I got more blue devils."

Eventually hie lordship ruled that there was a recission of the contract, and directed the jury to return a verdict for Miss Harvey. Judgment was then entered for the defendant.

Mr. Shearman (holding up a ring): I have this in my possession. I believe it to be of some value, and will the plaintiff now accept its return? (To the plaintiff): You have hitherto refused it.

The Plaintiff (excitedly): I have never been offered it.

He took the ring and left the court.