GIRL AND POLICEMAN

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21520, 17 June 1933, Page 2 (Supplement)

GIRL AND POLICEMAN

BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT [RING THAT WAS RETURNED / | 'CLAIM FOR PENNY EGG-CUPS In summing-up the evidence in a tir each of promise action in a London Court, Mr. Justice Charles remarked that never in his experience on the Bench had he known a caso where moro f frantic endeavour had been made to extract money out of an alleged breach of contract. In support of that observation, he quoted from the list of purchases incorporated in the claim for damages prepared on behalf of the young woman who began the proceedings. / The list, the Judge pointed out to ' the jury, included penny egg-cups, sixpenny cake fins and a sixpenny glass. In the course of the hearing of the action, brought against a police - constable by a cinema attendant, a number of piquant dove letters were read and in the result the jury found a verdict for the constable. Innumerable love letters were read by counsel in opening the case for Miss Grace de Lacy, of Norwich, who claimed damages for alleged breach of promise „ from George Watson, police constable, stationed at Fratton, Hampshire, Defendant denied the contract of marriage, and put in an alternative dofence that the promise was mutually ended in November, 1931. |.i Extracts From Love Letters r Counsel for Miss de Lacy stated that she met defendant in his boyhood days and they became better acquainted in /1927. He was then a-chemist in Norwich. . ■v.'V-- .v In 1920 Mr. Watson went to Portsmouth to join the police there, and Began/to write plaintiff a number oi ■ letters in endearing terms. " Indeed," remarked counsel, amid laughter, " we might call him the policeman poet. Most of the letters commenced; " My dearisSt kid " ancL-. Concluded, V Your / ■Watty." In one defendant said: " 1 lam ever so sorry I cafanot come home this week-end; but it cannot be did. feut, never mind, keep the presents Juntil you can give "them. to me per- / tonally; I shall hug you all the closer. Keep your pecker up.",, , Love and kisses were frequent in the commented Mr. Havers, who, s reading another, quoted the passage: is only one thing to do, and ido .it damn quick—the quicker the better —and that is to marry you." [ln another letter the policem.au iprrote, •" We • have had a very quiet Christmas, but we will have a bumper one next year. Yum, yum —just you and L" ') Plaintiff. Returns the Ring . Another letter ran: "I am still O.K. and love 3 r oit like blazes and in a further one, written after he had returned from leave, he stated: "My " Qwn dearest sweetheart, I have got it *Hbadly, but I think the worst is over now. .The fir»t two days I felt like suidide, 1 was so bad. I have never realised before that you owned such a big corner in my heart." "We are going to get married next November," was another of defendant's declarations, observed counsel. Counsel then related that there arose a little misunderstanding as a result ... of which Miss de Lacy took off her ~ engagement ring and placed jfc in defendant's pocket. Mr. Watson had made much of that incident in his defence J to this action, commented counsel. However, he wrote later: J.. Dearest Grace,-» 1 shall be pleased to send you the ring back, kid. although your disgraceful conduct made me feel fed up. I ' went and paid a deposit on a bab.v motorv- car. Still, I cancelled ifc wlieh I received ..your letter and have eot to lose £5 for ..getting out of the contract. That is vour J fault, so you will have' to accept a Gold ' wedding ring instead of a platinum and diamond one. Cessation of the Letters ~ Defendant added a question whether his ""dearest Grace " would be inclined to show her "Moving disposition " by his pullover. ~- r In the end, continued counsel, Mr. fWatson's letters became infrequent and eventually stopped altogether. • Miss de Lacy, in her evidence, stated that twice defendant had visited Norcv.wich, but be had not called to see ""her. Marriage was spoken of when *"they first became acquainted, and she - had bought a large quantity of household/and other articles in anticipation •'.'•of that event. They were still in store. *■* On one occasion Mr. Watson became - ifritable because his holiday had been-r-.iipset by' her brother's death. While she admitted that she had agreed to a postponement of the wedding because defendant had confessed being financially embarrassed, Miss r ;.de Lacy denied that at any time she i/agreed to the engagement being ended. 1 certainly did riot give him the ring hack with that idea in view," she said, w . " but simply as a reminder that I was ...... not /pleased with his conduct." It was •'•'■ not a fact that defendant told her he ~ could not marry until October, 1932, because he could not get leave, and also had to repay his father some money. The Policeman " Ordered Out " In his evidence, Mr. Watson admitted that in November, 1931, ho contemplated marrying Miss de Lacy, but he wrote, putting it off until October, 1932. " When she gave me the ring hack," he stated, "we had had a quar»;.,3n her mother's house, and I considered the engagement at an end." In /'fact, he alleged, "she told me to get ' out of the house." 1 Mr. Watson added that plaintiff •?;/ wanted to give him back a watch and some ear-rings, but he would not accept ■»«" them. It was not a fact that he put as* an excuse for not marry-~i£~-ing Miss de Lacy that there would possibly be a reduction of police pay. " As ■*?. a matter of fact," he added, " 1 was -vy prepared to marry her up to the time ■Su'shp issued her writ in this action." "[ Ar ' In his summing-up, Mr. Justice Charles remarked that claims for damliY,iiages for breach of promise were reAstfgurded by many people as very unAv desirable, but it was a class of action i -'the law recognised. " I havo tried a good number of cases of this description," proceeded the Judge, " and I am sure I can say

[ I have never seen a cose in which a more frantio endeavour has been made to extract money out of an alleged breach of contract. If you examine the case, can there really be any sympathy for the lady?" Continuing, Mr. Justice Charles observed that the only allegation in the pleading was that there was a breach of a promise to marry in November, 1931, but it had been admitted by plaintiff that there was an agreement to postpone the wedding until a later date, so that the real contract was altered mutually. Therefore, he found it difficult to understand the statement of claim. The Judge then turned his attention to the claim for articles purchased by Miss de Lacy. They wero contained in a remarkable document, and included, ho remarked, towels at Is 9d, a glass 6d, dusters 62d, egg cups at one penny each, a tin-opener Is, and two cake tins Is. Everything from brass ornaments of Buddha, costing £3, down to things at 6j[d, had been put forward and claimed in Miss de Li.cy's list, although many of them were purchased months before the marriage was arranged. None except about £9 worth was, in the Judge's opinion, claimable. Then an extraordinary story had been told by plaintiff that in November, 1931, when defendant was spending his leave at her home, ho became offensive and discourteous to her because her brother died. Did the jury believe that story? For some reason fehe lost her temper, took off the ring, and gave it back to Mr. Watson to annoy him! That not was accepted by defendant as an end of the contract between them, said the Judge. Later, Miss do Lacy apparently repented and asked for the ring back, and it appeared that an entirely new caso had been presented in Court from that alleged in the claim. The jury found in favour of defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly, with costs.