TANGLED SKEIN

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23131, 1 September 1938, Page 16

TANGLED SKEIN

MAN AND WOMAN

WEDDINGS FALL THROUGH

STORY TOLD IN COURT

CHEQUES WHICH WERE STOPPED

[from OUR OWX correspondent]

MELBOURNE, August 25 Ti\o weddings, which a count's daughter arranged but which did not tare place because the bridegroom-to-be already married, were described to Judge Magennis in the County Court this week. An action was begun in which Rose ''Pauline I'oyston, now Mrs. Hosking, of Caulficlu, a suburb of Melbourne, described as formerly artist, teacher and dress designer and daughter of the late Count Orlowski, sued William Matthew Lane, of Pincdale, Goolgowrie (New South Wales), grazier, for i'3so, claimed to be due on cheques Lane had agreed to pay but had stopped. After Mr. N. E. Burbank had outlined Mrs. Hosking's case a settlement of the action was anuounced and the case was adjourned. "A Wealthy Squatter" Mr. Burbank said that Mrs. Hosking had known Lane as Lewis, "a wealthy squatter," when she met him in 1937. They arranged to marry on June 30 last year and invitations were issued to a number of- prominent guests. On June 15 Lane said that he had a big job to do, taking sheep across country. Later ho sent a telegram, sas'ing that he had been held up by bad roads. On June 19 Mrs. Hosking received another telegram, which read: —"Lewis passed away six o'clock this morning. Will be buried Sydney on Sunday." Inquiries showed that Lewis was really Lane, and that, far from dying, he had sent tho telegram himself, continued Mr. Burbank. Lane said that the reason for the telegram was that he was not the wealthy man he had pretended to be and he thought it best, "gracefully to slide out of the picture." Discovered He Was Married The parties "made things up" and nrranged to be married quietly on July 5, said Mr. Burbank. Particulars were filled in on a marriage form. Then the puiice called to see Lane about, his motor-car, and Mrs. Hosking found out that he was married and had a family in New South Wales. Lane said tnat his wife had left him and he thought she had married again, so he would be free to marry. The wedding arrangements were continued, but when they reached tin church, said Mr. Burbank, Lane realised his danger. He said that he could not marry tho plaintiff, and that, his wife was living, being in hospital with an incurable disease. On Lane's suggestion they went to the church and pledged that they would be true to each, other and be married' when that was possible. They made wills in each other's favour, and Lane executed an absolute bill of sale over his stock and property in favour of Mrs. Hosking. Alterations to House Lane also" agreed, said Mr. Burbank, to pay Mrs. Hosking £8 a month, and when he was in Melbourne they lived ab man and wife. After a time it was decided that she should live in her own

.house in. Caulfield, which was then let ... to a tenant. A builder quoted £2OO for [i alterations needed to the house. Lane } ! told him to go ahead with the work

j and said that Mrs. Hosking would £ make the payments. On December 6 *J Lane gave her a cheque for £225 to u :- /pay for the alterations. When she t [tendered it, however, it was returned £ "payment stopped."

ijs Mr. Burbank said that Lane had ex- ' that he had not stopped the .cheque but that the bank had. He said 1 he was in serious financial diffiI Itulty. Another cheque for £125 was

given to Mrs. Hosking to cover money

"the had spent on furniture, but pay.ment of that cheque was also stopped. V •-An Unexpected Shock

On February 19, following advice

•from her solicitor, Mrs. Hosking tele-

graphed Lane that if the cheques were ,not paid she would be forced to foreclose the bill of sale. Lane came to see "her and said he would pay the £125 immediately. He 6ent a telegram to the <banls, instructing payment on that cheque. There was no suggestion of blackmail or menace. Later, when she saw that there was no' possibility of getting money from added Mr. Burbank, the plain-

tiff / met a man named Hosking and married him. Then Lane "put his foot in it" again. He went to the house and fc.tid to Hosking: "Where is my wife?" That gave Hosking such a shock that two days later he decamped, taking his wife's jewels. / Points for the Defence

Lane's formal defence was illegality and fraud. He said that he was induced to hand over the cheques when Mrs. Hosking threatened to publish to his wife and other people his illicit relations with her. Alternatively Lane claimed that he was induced to hand over the cheques by verbal threat that criminal proceedings would be taken against him because of a telegram. A further defence was that the £125 cheque was given on the understanding that the £225 cheque was cancelled. A settlement of the case was then announced.