DAMAGES AGAINST LOVER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8178, 20 July 1912, Page 9

DAMAGES AGAINST LOVER

AMUSING LIBEL CASE, SEQUEL TO BOARDING HOUSE ROMANCE. WIDOWER’S WOOING. LONDON. A boarding bouse case in which a middle-aged widower became violently infatuated with the proprietress of the establishment, proposed, was accepted, and married the.next day, it subsequently transpiring that tho marriage was a bigamous olio, had a sequel in an amusing libel suit before Mr Justice Darling i n't he king’s Bench Division. The plaintiff, Mrs Alice Sarah Pick, sought damages for alleged libel contained in letters from .Mr George Frederick Branson. Iho ■ defendant denied publishing the libel, and pleaded privilege. After a two dais hearing, however, tho jury awarded Mrs i/ick *£2s damages. MARRIED IN HASTE. Counsel explained that the plu/atiff c °a; tracted a marriage with defendant wh.ch turned out to have been a bigamous marriage, she not being able to prove that her former husband in America had obtained a divorce from her. In lB»b tho plaintiff, whoso name then was Alice Sarah Levy, married at tho age of sixteen a man named I’ick. They separated, and in 1891 Pick went to America and had never contributed to the sup)port ot Airs Pick find her four children. In 1901 Mr Pick commenced divorce proceedings in Now York, and obtained an order for service upon her by advertisement. These proceedings came to tho knowledge of Mrs Pick, who was only too glad to got rid of him, so she let the matter slide. Prom that time she seemed to have regarded herself as free from Mr Pick. Airs Pick had acquired a large boarding-houso at Kensington. On Christmas Day, 1909, Mr Branson, who at that time seemed to lie a widower, met Airs Pick, and by December 30th he seemed to have fallen violently in love with her. He asked her if she would marry him. She replied that she would, and he asked when. She answered, when ho liked. Ho then made an appointment next morning, to get a special license. He said that his solicitors told him that sho would have to state that sho was a widow;, because under the regulations of the Bishop of Loudon a license, except under exceptional circumstances, would not be issued to a divorced person. Tho next day, January 18th, they went through the ceremony of marriage. They lived together for six months and then separated. Subsequently a question arose as to payment for household goods which had been supplied to them by a certain firm, to whom Mr Branson wrote the letters complained of. One letter said: — “1 know nothing about the curtains. . . I did not know -she gave the name of Branson, as T was only a lodger for six months. Her husband is alive, not divorced. . . . This woman has done similar things and should be brought to justice. . .Why should respectable people be fobbed in this way?” Mr Justice Darling said he must rule that the occasion was a privileged one. Counsel said there had been further litigation by the plaintiff against the defendant with regard to certain property, which ended substantially in her favour. Somebody put the police in motion, and sho was arrested and charged with bigamy, the defendant giving evidence for the prosecution. He was cross-examined, and the charge was dismissed. The plaintiff said she was a Jewess, and her first marriage had been in a synagogue. Air Justice Darling: Did you ever ask the defendant what ho was?—l presume ho was a Christian. Mr Justice Darling: Because ho treated you so badly? Sho did not knew the nature of the charge made against her by Mr Pick. Sho had heard that the defendant was tho co-respondent. Mrs De Rosa, the plaintiff’s niece, said she met the defendant at a tube station, and he had told her ot his approaching marriage. She said, “If my aunt knew yon as well as I do she would not he such a fool.” THE DEFENCE. For the defence, counsel said the action was a frivolous one, and that plaintiff had not suffered any damage as the result of tho letters. Mr Branson said he first came across Airs Pick at a Christmas party in 1909: by December 30th he was infatuated, and on January 17th he proposed marriage to her. Tho morning of January 18th found them both at Doctors’ Commons, and with a license there procured they a littlo later in tho day went through tho form of marriage. In answer to the insinuation that ho had "lived upon” the plaintiff, Mr Branson went through his cheque-books and showed that he had spent .£2OOO during tho six months he had lived with tho plaintiff. Answering the allegation that he often got drunk, th? defendant said, “Tho only time I must have been drunk was when I met and when I married tho plaintiff.” Defendant caused a great real of merriment by his description of a visit which he and the plaintiff paid to the alleged grave of her divorced husbano, who. as ho afterwards discovered, was still alive. Did you read much about it. Tho gilt was off. She told me it was her family vault, and so I took it to bo all right. “Who is the payee of this cheque ?” asked counsel, producing one bearing the plaintiff’s name. “That,” Replied the witness, “is ono of the plaintiff’s daughters; she turned up from Germany.” When other similar cheques had been produced, the witness was asked what he said when he found so ;many requiring money. “Oh,” he replied, "when, I married the plaintiff one of them came along, then another of fern, and another, and I said, ‘Let ’em all come,’ and paid the cheques.” "There are two long columns,” defendant added, “of these sums of money I have paid while at her house. For instance, Lord Leon, £5 I9s 6d ” The Judge: Who is this Lord Leon ? Defendant: He is a dressmaker at Kensington. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and assessed the damages at ,£25.