WINDER WINNING WAYS

NZ Truth, Issue 850, 4 March 1922, Page 5

WINDER WINNING WAYS

' . \ DODDERING DAYS DECIDES TO DUCK THE DESOLATE DAMSEL WN&S TEN THOUSAND BUCATS AS SALVE fOR HER SiIATTCRED SOUL VERDICT fOR PLAINIIIT-TATE TAKES £800

LOVE THAT HATH US IN THE NET, CAN IT PASS AND WE FORGHT? LOVE, THE .GIFT, IS LOVE, THE DEBT — EVEN SO

!£ the g^eat interest that has : sed locally m the Tate-Win-h of promise suit was amply ; ited when the case came on i Wellington Supreme Court on < aorning. • „„. , . •. . i time that Judge Hosking had i seat and a Jury of twelve empanneled the court-room ded to suffocation. Even up lies' gallery the «<house full' i hoisted- ' ■■• M Wilford appeared on beaintiff and Mr. A. Gray, K.'U him Mr. G. G. Watson reprefendant. - Frances Tate, 'the plaintiff, er formal statement of claim was a beauty specialist m m Wellington. In June, 1921, : George Winder offered her and on her accepting his i engagement continued until r 9, 1921, when defendant rehis promise and refused- to r. In view of the .. approachage she had sold her business and expended £.100 m 'buying sau - „„»-«'.» f therefore claimed £1000 for of the sale of her business, her expenses m relation to i and engagement and £9000, iss and Injury she. had sufferr £10,100 IN ALL. fence admitted the promise to ut denied having refused to tlie agreement. /- , ' Tom Wilford's ■ opening ad* supied one hour' fifteen min-i-described the case as an uii3. Touching on the statement counsel quoted learned judges lestion of damages. : Damages an indemnity for the plaintiff iss she had suffered m injured affections and wounded pride s for the financial loss she had hy reason of tihe engagement )ken off. v - -intiff was* formerly a toilet spe'..#it and defendant, was , a wealthy "•' rty owner of Wellington. .,' i/ June, 1921, plaintiff and defend- ".: greed to marry one another and - 1 engagement continued until No"v ocr of last year, when defendant ~h it off. He did it m a fjsLlM, ALMOST SLY IWAT, . h went to prove that he had it m i. -lind to break- it off from October | 'On October 15, Winder started m ' .'and almost artful way to bring ' -t the smash. vHe started to erect Jtle of prejudice against plaintiff, •h assumed enormous proportions : , ••> to the aott, il break. Plaintiff >■§ up her business of making the I "ii beautiful at ' Winder's request, • 'selling out for- £2lO. It was worth ti, for she. had insured it for £ 500. c obeyed Winder's request m this. B f&g a wealthy man and did not B '■■: her to continue working for her i -life. He wanted (hereto be his and Jalone. Then she commenced to live money she received from the f.& of her business. She had expendl 38100 on, her trousseau — a not extra- - s,,jant amount for . a 'srtff who was to *ry a wealthy man. All this she had L ■' ' - defendant m his defence did not ly that he promised to marry plain- •& All lie said was that he had nevfer , Iken off the engagement — a, clever Jence. Jt would be necessary to put m a -.slderable quantity of correspond- ► ;e, which, like ' all . suoh . corresidence In suoh cases, might be \ "SLOPPY." >on a man loved a maid and a maid , 2tan they" wrote for each other alone ■il. just as they felt, and not with the ';'3pect that their letters would go " 'Ore twelve jurymen. L. ?here\were letters and telegrams and F v were rather hard to understand, L ■• both parties formed the habit of j ruing the same , names — fictitious •hes. The' letters, however, could be .<Sly identified ' by. the handwriting. !j$ names under which Winder wrote ■'c "Blarney," "George True Blue,". |uffums," "Georgie," "G- Storey" and .fecleay." Sometimes plaintiff signed l; * replies "D. Storey." The name /drey" was . coined :on one of the rtor rides the parties took to Khan!lah. Winder called at a friend's tse there andj persuaded plaintiff to viw him to introduce her as his %c, "Miss. Storey." . *he above were the pet names'' used the parties. In addition Winder. used £all her his private secretary and janged to pay her at the rate of 6d 'hour, which incidentally, was never binder was also particularly strong , religion and poetry. In. his letters repeatedly quoted hymns and v Scrlpal verse. \ Qne favorite quotation of .was, ■kdoMTHE'LORD L'OVETH — that might prove fl^^fltifc- (Laughter). He also called his "fair one," "his little J—W—m and again "someone with a air and a saucy dimple." IJpHHler.did not give plaintiff an enring until very late m the fl^Hand it seemed to be one that he j^^Bn hand, because it was . a long large for plaintiff. |Bv!le he used to take her about a riding to Mason's • Gardens, Gardens and . other beauty he seemed to have tried to do HP> est to conceal his engagement t'q his friends m Wellington and /where. He used to go on week- £ .s to Palmerston North to see plainwhen she was there, but first of all inquired if the coast was Clear. He iposed again and again before he -■ accepted — twice at Mason's Garf. ;, once at Bellevue Gardens. ''..v len when she\accepted him he fixed marriage to take place m three „<, v.%ths' time, but he always kept !|ji PUTTING IT OFF. |i jfrttting.it' off. He kept making !j J j >se that he had business to lix !| ]| 1 | \,was , a typical artful dodger, j] j j ;ould not pin him to a date, mi I 1 ": tiff began to wonder if he ill I ge * out of * ne n -~ rrla B e ' jj ] s a Scotsman, ii! | t: No Irish— a Preshyterian. jj H ord: Well, the hymns m his !!} all out of the Presbyterian \ jfl! (J c (Laughter.) ->SS^3 ;ca=^ng, counsel. said that at this •' wMMz& 1^ wen t to act- as brides^ji|§|[tp|ssnler niece's marriage at Napier. ;^S&wAcsfa was a Protestant, who was

marrying a Roman Catholic. Although Winder made the niece a wedding present She suddenly evinced very rabid anti-Roman Catholic views. He wrote an extraordinary letter on this subject and later, still harping on this subject, he tQld Mrs. Macleay, a friend, that he had intended to. make Eileen independent for, life, but said h© was not going to let the Roman Catholics get his money. It would make him turn m his grave. He also threatened suicide there and then. , Plaintiff came down " to Wellington some time later, and falling ill with gastric influenza, was sent by Dr* Maurice to Nurse Fitzgerald's Hospital on the Terrace. Winder visited her daily at the hospital. This was early m November, and Winder suddenly developed fresh ROMAN CATHOLIC ANTIPATHD3S. He discovered that Nurse Fitzgerald was a Roman Catholic and left m a huff. Four days later he returned, they had another" row and Winder left plaintiff for the last time.

| (The well-known Theatrical Manager) i He smoothes down the chorus and j When inclined to fly off the handle. While at stopping a grouse at the I , front of the house . I There-no one can hold up a c.\ndle t To Johnny, whose known from the ; North Cape to the Bluff i As a live-wire showman right : bang up to snuff. j

•Counsel on the question of damages said that m breach of. promise actions elsewhere, one 'defendant had paid a- 50,000 and m a recent case £5000 had ; been paid. If a man .was worth £30,---000 the girl was entitled to at least one-third of that amount, because she had only got to be a true wife, arid loyal pal and helpmate and she would get the lot 'The. jury would "And out what Winder iwas worth when counsel got him m the "box. If he was worth I £30,000,. £10,000 was not an extrava- j gant claim. Besides philanderers had got to be ' punished. '.-•... Counsel concluded by ' saying that Winder, after the final row on Novem- ! ber 9 had done a very subtle thing, i He had perpetrated a clever fake. He ] alleged he had sent plaintiff a letter at : that time. Plaintiff had never received j that letter, but Winder would, no.! doubt, allego he posted it. It bore the '. appearance of having been concocted ! , BY A MASTER HAND. It read as follows: - Dear Eileen, — I was indeed disappointed that you were hostile to me to-night, for why J cannot understand, as I thought I was doing everything to see you since you went to the Home. As' for any. remarks on the visitor on Sunday night you yourself put the idea into my head as you no doubt remember. You said on. 'Sunday night that if I had been a quarter of an 'hour later I 'would have met him. However, I ' hoiw hasten to accept your word it was not a man, and am quite satisfied accordingly, and, write this note 1 to-night so as you' won't be 'brooding over it. As for my riot calling dur-. ing the .week, it was entirely to please you, as you know. ybu said it might sbe misconstrued, but I was sorry for having so cold a reception and thought it better to clear. However, I had better not call again un- - til invited, but will be pleased to see you at any time at the omce. I had one or two matters I wanted to discuss with you.— Tours sincerely, • George. Counsel characterised this letter, as, the concoction of a Machiavelli, AN ARTFUL ' DODGER. The jury would see how he cooly.put all the blame on to plaintiff and .ascribed the hostility to her. PLAINTIFF TELLS HER STORY. urlaintiff was called. Dressed m a dark blue coat frock relieved with red, and swearing a black picture hat, .she entered the witness-box and was ac-. commodated with a seat. She said her full name Was.. Eileen Frances Tate. Before coming to Wellington plaintiff said she and her sister carried on a toilet specialist (business at Christchurch. In -January, 1920, plaintiff opened the toilet business, over Little - John's shop on Lambton-quay. Her stock-in-trade and furniture were insured for £500. In July, 1921, she sold the business for £210. Her average income from the business was £5 per week over all expenses. < This enabled her to keep her mother and rent a cottage at Lyall Bay. Plaintiff said she y flrst met Winder m the early part of 1920, going to Winder's Buildings to try and reht an office there. Early m 1921 plaintiff again went to Winder's shop to buy some show cases. An agent named Samuels then introduced her to defendant. ThiB ,> led to another meet-

ling which developed into a chac, Winder saying that he was going to Ireland and wanted to take a companion with him., Plaintiff said "Perhaps you . are taking your daughter with you." Winder replied that both his son and daughter were hostile to him. Plaintiff then invited Winder round for a musical evening to hear the phonograph. He came round and there was just tlie two of them there. . ... Winder asked 'plaintiff to go, motoring with him the following Saturday afternoon. They went to Mason's Gardens and' soon a habit developed of frequent motor rides together. They used .to take tea together at Scott's ' pie. shop m Manners-street. In June of that year Winder proposed. They were m plaintiff's toilet rooms at the time; He had POPPED THE QUESTION on three or four previous occasions and she had refused. This time plaintiff consented and Winder told her to dispose of her business, so that they could set married m three months' time, when, he would be quite ready. They then met frequently. On August i 29 of that year plaintiff said she left ifor Palmerston North to await the [ marriage there. Witness stayed at the Commercial Hotel, a friend, a Mrs. j Macleay also staying there. Winder i came up the first week-end, and said ho could turn the key m the door so far as his business was concerned, but j he seemed to 'be m trouble about his house and 'his daughter. Speaking about the honeymoon, Winder said that they would go somewhere across the water. Plaintiff said she paid her own way at the hotel. Defendant had made her a present of two travelling trunks. He- once wired her £20 to. Palmerston. North, writing at the same time that he thought the delay might be proving expensive, but that if she did not want the "money she could return it. He signed the letter "Fluff urns." They were on very affectionate terms at this time. Plaintiff said she sent Winder a post card with two "Kewpies" on it about this time. In reply he wrote to her a letter which seemed to indicate that he thought the two kewpies were children and he indicated that he, did not. want any children as the two he had were not a success. Plaintiff said Winderjasked Mrs. Macleay to inquire from-, the Presbyterian parson as to how "long they would have to reside at Palmerston North before marrying. Winder suggested that after the. marriage there they would go to Wanganui and to Rotorua, and plaintiff suggested they should go to Ireland via ! Brisbane so that she could see her sisi ter. . ; I Winder, howeycr, when tho date of • the wedding was under discussion, never actually fixed the day. When he. began making evasive excuses plaintiff said she^ wrote suggesting October ! 4 as a suitable date. He replied he j would like it very much, but thought 1 it would be too soon. | Plaintiff then detailed the occurl rences incident to her niece ! s wedding lon October 17. She (wrote telling '.'dear 1 Georgie" that the wedding had gone off : satisfactorily, and that her niece was I delighted -with the travelling trunk Winder had sent her. On October 19 Winder replied: Dear Eileen,— l duly received yours of Monday, but was grievously disappointed that ybu should have taken the leading part m a performance that from your expressions to me on various occasions was entirely against your principles, par- .' ticularly knowing my oft-repeated views on the same subject. I really, thought you were genuine in' the matter. You know you gave me j your eiHiire confidence on the subject j and I feel very hurt, over the matter. I Surely, if you had any regard or I respect for my feelings you might if I you had considered me taken a minor ' place and not write to me. seemingly - approving of the action of your j niece. I really don't know, now where j- I am and cannot form an opinion of i what your convictions are. I did j think that you were firm and that I ' j could trust you t,o be with me on this subject. and that there was no | wavering. You- did not say what was your present. In place of being • so. much overjoyed I thought you i would be upset and sad, but per- ! haps I don't , know all the circumstances, but this question is a very

sore one with me. I dare say you will have * REGULAR VISITS PROM THE \ t ' PRIEST

now. I am sorry it happened considering there are so many other matters m hand to be dealt with, arid naturally time only can guard some of them, and I am, afraid this must prolong matters. You will no doubt say I am making a mountain i out of a molehill, but I have rea-sons-asa party told me that you had inclinations and your sympathies were with the people I am opposed to, and as "actions -speak louder than words" and as it is said "by . their deeds shall you know them." Now you nVver seemed to please me when m Palmerston by entering a I church so one thing goes to cbrro- ' borate another. I may say I haven't done a stroke and I am sure cannot sleep, but perhaps I deserve it all as I I I may. not have been as kind as I I should. One thing, Eileen, you will ! find me always honest and true to

my .convictions. Mrs. Mac. is well and now remain — Yours disappointed — George Truo Blue. . Plaintiff, . m reply, wired' defendant that lie had no need to worry and several wires signed "Storey" passed between them on the subject. Then. plain- i tiff came down from Napier to Wellington. She was to stay at Winder's j house, where Mrs. Macleay was stopping, ' When- she arrived Winder met her but did not take her to his homse, explaining that his- daughter refused to let Mrs. Macleay bring a friend there.' Winder therefore took her to a room rented by Mrs. Macleay else- . where- WJnder appeared to be very cool. Ho did not kiss plaintiff as usual end did. not display any affection. One evening, two days later, plaintiff was with Winder at his ofhee m Cubastreet, and he gave her, AN ENGAGEMENT RING. Plaintiff produced it. Winder apologised because it was too large and borrowed another ring off plaintiff to. get a better ring , made tho right 'size. Plaintiff said he had' never returned this ring. Later at Winder's suggestion, plaintiff went, to stay at the Oriental Bay Kiosk. Three nights later plaintiff took ill and was sent by Dr. Maurice to Nurse Fitzgerald's hospital. This was on November 1 and Winder made a practice of visiting her every evening from November 1 to November 5. On Sunday 'night, -November G, Winder arrived as usual. While he was there a lady friend of plaintiff's, a.Miss Curry, called. Plaintiff told the nurse to ask her to call agaiin. Winder got very concerned, at this arid brought up the Roman Catholic subject again. He mentioned that plaintiff's sister had married a Roman Catholic and then he upbraided her saying "You have even come to a Catholic hospital." Plaintiff said the doctor toad sent her there. Winder went away without kissing plaintiff, and stayed away until the following Wednesday, November 9. Plaintiff was still ill m bed. This was plaintiff's last meeting .with Winder. He started on the Roman Catholic,subject again and plaintiff could not pacify him. He- paced the room, got very agitated, and tmished up m a fury by saying he. had made up his mind to end everything between them. Plafntiff said "Does that really mean you are going .to throw me over?" Winder replied, "Yes, it simply does. I'M FINISHED , WITH YOU." He then left the room and rushed downstairs. The door slammed and that was the last she saw of Winder. The letter which it was alleged Winder had written, to her that night had never been received by plaintiff. Next morning plaintiff told her story to her lawyer and the proceedings were commenced and the writ served the same j I day. ' v .

■ Plaintiff added "that Winder had an exercise book .containing poems in a lady's handwriting-. He told, plaintiff they were written by his dead wife. Counsel: Were these constantly quotod to you ? — Yes, he gave it to me and told me ! to learn them. Did you quo'.e part .of the poems in your letters? — Y,es, and he, quoted them back to me, . _ t ■ ' PLAINTIFF fc.RpSS-EXAMINED. Mr. Gray, K.C.:'Dicl you sell Out your other business before going- over Littlejohn's? — No. • ' : Have you ever followed any other occupation?— Millinery and teachingpainting and faiicy work and sewing 1 . Have you' ever followed any other calling? — Not that I can remember. , Have you ever been a waitress? — I worked at Broadway Tea Rooms and managed another tea shop. • , When you came to know Mr. *W>irider r think- you discovered 1 that your father was born in the same town?; — Yes. And you told him 'that you iwere related to Archbishop Tate, of Dublin, and /Henry. Tate, ' the founder of the Tate Gallery? — Yes. Did you suggest he was a lonely man? — He said he iwas. And that led to you going together several evenings a iwe&k?— Yes. There was nobody there except your two selves? — That is, so; - This, intimacy grew V ery rapidly?— I don't think so. When was there the first flavor of a suggestion that you should' marry him? — Within the first' two or three weeks'. How did it 'come about? — He asked me at Mason's Gardens. Did you say "No"?— No. But I said I .would think it over. , . That gave him encouragement. 'When did he ask you again? — Three weeks later HE ASKED ME AGAIN at Bellevue Gardens. And you gave the same answer?— Yes, until ' he asked me again in my rooms. ■. And you became engaged in June? — YeS.-; . _■<■■'/: \ ■ And you sold' out the business in July?— Yes. . Has the lady you sold to complained that you had misrepresented it to her? —No. ■.-■• .-...■ • ■ You have no records to show what your business was making? — No; I did not keep books, ■■.-.., : You 'have not been behind hand with the spoony business?— No: You signed yourself /'The fair-haired one"?-r-Yes. He gafe me that name. "The Little Fraud" and ''Your Little Fraud"? — He christened me that.

I "The same little Fluffums",' "Your little Sunshine," "From the Genuine Article"? — He bestowed all those names : on me. Your counsel has suggested that defendant maintained a note of secrecy over the engagement. Was it not you that were frightened of your friends .laughing at you for marrying such an old man? — No. Do you know Mr. Winder's age? — No. How old do you think he Is?— Fifty ■ — cr — about fifty-five. You are very complimentary to him! (Laughter). You knew he had a grown-up family?— Yes. What is your age? — His Honor: That is a question that might be answered by being written, down on paper. Mr. Wilford: She has already answered it. Speak out, Miss Tate. Witness: I am thirty. Counsel: Didn't Mr. Winder have to go to a doctor about his health and wasri't this the reason why the marriage was postponed? — He told me the doctor said it .- was nothing and he would be better m a day or two. When you were m the hospital and the visitor , was announced, why did you not receive her? — Because he had been upsetting me. Are you sure you (told him it was a lady friend? — Yes. \ First of all I told hirii he had no right to know — then I told him it was a lady friend. Didn't Mr. Winder stand up. to leave the room and didn't yuu say to the nurse tell THEM I can't see them?— No. Wore you indifferent m your manner at all on that night? — No. Did ho say: "Well, Eileen,' perhaps I'd better not call 'for a day or two"? — No. Whose idea was it to claim £10,000 damages, your counsel's? — -No, mine. Do you know what -income that represents at present rates of interest? 'Mr. Wilford: Six hundred a year. Mr. Gray: And you were making £5 a week out of your 'business!' Your lawyers say that up to the renunciation at the hospital on the Wednesday night you were ready to marry him? — That is so. v You were quite ready to make it up? —Yes. j And you would rather have had Mr. | Winder than the £10,000?— No reply. What would you rqither have now? — No reply. v ' | Mr. Wilford: Say "You'll think it out!" Plaintiff: I'll think it out. (Laughter.) ,-.

Mr. Gray: Did you tell a Mrs. Knowsley that you were going to marry a rich old man? —l don't remember. Did you tell her that you were going to get £1000 per annum out of it and that he could not last two years and then you would be a rich woman? — Certainly not. And that you wanted mpney only and that love marriages were things of the past? —Certainly .not. And that .when he pressed you to marry him you intended to hold him off until you saw the marriage settlement?—Certainly not. You have formed no plans, for the future?—' No. ' You do not intend to start business again m Wellington? —No. Why not?—l gave my word to the woman I sold out to. Jessie Macleay, widow, was called. She said her home .was at Martinborough and she had known Miss Tate v for four years and Winder for about/ one year. Plaintiff introduced defendant to witness at the Commercial Hotel, Palmerston North. Plaintiff and defendant were lovers at the time. Witness frequently went out motoring with them. When Winder would be m Wellington Miss Tate corresponded" with him every day. Winder told witness the plans they had made about the contetnplated honeymoon, and suggested that witness should take charge of his house m Pirie-street while they were away on their wedding tour. He never fixed a definite date for the ceremony, but he mentioned something about the first or second week m September, arid he asked witness to see a Presbyterian minister at Palmerston North to find out how long he-wouJ.l have to reside In the district before the wedding. Witness had a bad foot at the "time and could not go and even-; tually Miss Tate went to see the Registrar of Maiu-iages and got a form. Witness was to GIVE PLAINTIFF AWAY and to mother Miss Tate. • For this purpose witness 'provided herself with a new dress. His Honor: T\hope it '' won't be thrown away. N Witness: I may want it on some future occasion. Continuing, witness said she went down to stay at Winder's house m .Wellington and at Winder's, request she sounded his daughter to see if "a friend" could come and stay there. In consequence of Miss Winder's attitude the arrangement fell through and Miss Tiite did not come down. Winder knew that Miss Tate was going. to Napier to her niece's wedding on October 17. Winder came into the sitting room and said he had had a letter from Eileen stating that she had been to the wedding and that her niece was married hv a Roman Catholic church. He seemed to be very agitated because she had been a bridesmaid m a Roman Catholic' church. He seemed to be very much against the Catholics, and -he said if he. married Eileen - and thought his money would go to the Catholics he would turn m his grave. He said his first wife, was a strict Presbyterian, arid he thought they .would be throwing holy water over" Eileen. He said something about suicide and seemed quite beside himself. Witness said she spoke earnestly' to him and .said "You, a great church-going man, talking like that! Go back to your room and,go down on your knees and pray to God to give you strength;" Winder then left the,room. Witness said she went to stay at a house m Owen-street, and about this time Miss Tate, who had come down to Wellington, was taken ill. She subsequently went to Nurse Fitzgerald's hospital. Winder came to see witness while plaintiff was.there. It was the Monday after the Sunday' evening when he and plaintiff had had the bust up. Winder was still agitated on the subject of Roman Catholics and said "Eileen is going -to'..Sydney, and ' ■''■'. I'M,THROUGH WITH, HER.v Witness • tried to* soothe him, but he left] '■' without saying, good-night and she had,never'seen'"'.him again. Mr. Gray:. You know Miss Tate very intimately?— Yes. . She calls me "mummy." ' YOU have.acted as her guide, philosopher and friend ?-^-Yes. . When; did you first heas- plaintiff was

going to marry Winder? — When she came to Palmerston North. '■ Do you suggset that Mr. Winder knew Miss Tate was going to jbe a bridesmaid , at her niece's wedding? — ■; He. knew she was going to the wedding. Did Winder ever discuss with you his objection to mixed marriages — "mixed" marriages I mean, not "Mick-sed"? — I don't remember. Did not you yourself say that mixed marriages were most improper things? — I don't remember. Do you seriously suggest that Mri Winder talked to you of suicide?— Yes. Well, give me the details? — Well, ' my age is against me -you know. I may not remember. No, it isn't. Come on, tell us? — He said he thought -he would kill himself. Mr. Gray then opened to the jury for defendant. He agreed that the case was an unusual one, and evidently caused considerable amusement, judging by the number, of people m court arid 'by the amount of space devoted to it" m the newspapers. It was not often that one saw m this country a young woman claiming a large sum of money for her outraged feelings froma'ri old' gentleman— old enough to be her father. One could understand a young girl being fooled and beiiig kept on the string for a long time by a man who would have made a suitable match. She was a young woman of good appearance and presence and she came to court to ask for a large sum of money sufficient to set her up as INDEPENDENT FOR LIFE. Modesty was apparently not one of the lady's strong points. Her demand for ;£ 10,000 damages should be taken for What it was worth. His learned friend m opening' mentioned. a, case m. which £50,000 damages had been paid to a girl.' In that case the defendant was a wealthy peer, a marquis, and he paid the girl, an actress, £50,000 by consent. . ■Mr. Wilford: As a fair thing. . ■ Mr. Gray: Yes, as a', fair thing for what she toad lost by not becoming.' a marchioness and the possible mother of future peers. ,_...,. Mr Gray also quoted what juries had done m other cases m awarding damages: and finished up by quoting a noi-thern case, where a Maori, whose daughter had been insulted 'by. a man, consulted his lawyer m order to make the man pay. His lawyer said, "How much ' damages are you going to claim?" The Maori said, "Well, how much do you think? Would ten shillings be too much to ask?" (Laughter). "I need .hardly say that that lawyer was not my learned friend," said Mr. Gray. "He thinks m thousands, not m. shillings." Mr. Winder had never disputed the engagement to marry plaintiff. It was an extraordinary thing that a young attractive woman should be entertaining an elderly man m her rooms WITHOUT A CHAPERQNE, but there was not. the slightest suggestion that she conducted herself otherwise than as a lady. All the same she iwas making the running and setting her cap -on Winder. Winder, indeed, got really fond of the girl. A great deal had been made of Winder's alleged antipathy to Roman Catholics.- 'It was mixed marriages he objected to, not to the Catholic religion. Mr. Gray proceeded to argue that defendant had not broken off his engagement with Miss Tate on November 9. N His Honor: There will be an issue then as to whether there was a breach? Counsel: The whole point for the jury will be whether he committed a breach of his promise to -marry this young lady. , ■ His Honor: Then it ail depends upon what happened on this nights of November 9 at the nurse's? , Mr. 'Wilford: And on the Monday. Mr! Gray: No, on Wednesday, November 9. ' X Continuing, Mr. Gray contended that the letter written by Winder,, and alleged '-by Mr. Wilford to be. a fake- toad really been sent. It was the letter oi' a man' who felt a little hurt at the treatment he had received, who thought he might have been a little harsh to plaintiff on the* Wednesday night and who felt genuinely sorry for himself and was anxious to make it up. Th 9 letter was not written after the writ was served. A man who could write such a letter with a * view to misleading tho court and defeating- the ends of justice was capable of anything. , • Mr. Winder was an unsophisticated man of the 'world. (Laughter). • SIMPLE AS A* CHILD where women were concerned. Mr. Wilford: An old child. . (Laughter). Mr. Gray: Some people might go further and call him an old fool. There was no fool like an old fool. It .was the surprise of Winder's life when he got the writ. It was evident plaintiff had been attracted by Mr. Winder's money and not by his personal attractions'. (Laughter). She had shown no affection for him m the witness-box, nor were her letters, though somewhat "spoony," affectionate. There was no_ evidence "led that she had spent any money on her trousseau. Mr- Wilford: Yes, £100. r Mr. Gray: My friend gave the evidence himself m his opening. . George Winder, the defendant, then entered the box. He said he was now a retired ironmonger, having sold out his business premises m July, 1920. He said he and plaintiff first got u-iendly after a chat, m which they found that her parents came from the same part ox Ireland as defendant did. It was not correct that he proposed marriage at Mason's Gardens or Bellevue Gardens, and that she refused him. There never was any formal offer df marriage— they just drifted into an understanding. Defendant described A LITTLE TIFF they had at the commencement of their courtship/ . He ' wanted to know why a Mr. Samuels, the agent, who •had introduced her .to him, had an office and 'phone m Willis-street and another office and. 'phone next to her rooms. She had given him a large colored photo, of herself and said it had to be returned, if they had a tiff. Later Mr. Samuels came 'to defendant's shop and said that. Miss Tate was upset that her name had been coupled with his. Defendant said he told Samuelsit was a joke and asked him iwhere his wife was. Samuels said she was abroad. Defendant said he had nothing to do with the sale of plaintiff's business.' She told him she was making £10 a week and he told her she would be a fool to sell. There was no talk of marriage at that time, they were pals, that was all- ' His Honor: I suppose when she sold the business that put an end to your visits to her room? ■'•■'.- Defendant: That spoilt that. She used to come to my office then. Continuing, defendant said that plaintiff toldvhim she had a housekeeper out at Lyail Bay.: He never visited her there, because she told him the housekeeper, whom ,she called "the old Dutch," was unfavorable to him. "The old ..Dutch" turned out. to _ be plaintiff's mother. / Miss. Tate, went to Palmerston for a three months' holiday; Just before she left they came to an understanding and defendant told plaintiff that when the business was ...wound up he would' marry.- her.-' He was . very fond •-. of the girl. Defendant said that when Miss Tate's niece was to bo married he discussed with her the question of mixed marriages. Miss. Tate said shehad no; time for mixed marriages and told him definitely that she would not! take .a .prominent part m the ceremony. Ho told her that the Catholic clergy did not. believe m them, neither 'did the Protestants. Defendant said mqst 'of his friends were Roman Catholics and he had no objection to the reli-

J gion. He did not like mixed marriages, that was all. Each side should j keep to their own, because there was ENOUGH TO GO ROUND. (Laughter). 'Continuing, defendant said there was no ground for the suggestion that he was trying to put' the marriage off. As a matter of fact he gave the tenant of a cottage notice so that his daughter could go into it. Defendant said he never saw the marriage form produced I by plaintiff, but she told him she had got it. On the subject of ages defendant said he led Miss Tate to believe he was 59. He was erring a little on the wrong side. The engagement was never announced m the papers and defendant said he never told his friends because he would- be chaffed and he did not want his family to know. He wanted to do it quietly and for tliem to go away until the nine days' wonder wore , off. Miss Tate agreed to this because she was a little bit shy at marrying an elderly man. Mr. Gray: That was her reason? — Yes, but she put it m a nicer way than that. , - '. . ..'.-.' Wlhen defendant heard that she had acted as bridesmaid at the wedding, he got annoyed. When he remonstrated m a letter she wired "Disappointed you have taken such a petty attitude." After she had written reassuring him that the ceremony was formal and only took a few minutes, he was pleased and wired her saying she would be heartily welcomed at his house at Pirie- street. Defendant said he did not object to plaintiff staying at Nurse Fitzgerald's. As a matter of fadt his deceased wife had stayed there. "The end of November was finally fixed for the wedding,, as tots, health; Was not good- and- lie might have to undergo an operation. He told plaintiff. fOn the firs.t Friday m November when ho called at the hospital arid leant dyer to kiss plaintiff she gave him the.w armest embrace she had ever given him. On the Sat- j urday she was rather colder arid did not embrace hirri. S \ 'Earlier on when he called and took her to' Miss Macieay's room m Owenstreet he did not kiss her because there were other people there and there was riot much room m the passage. He had kissed her a lot m bis office just before. Defendant added that on the Saturday at the hospital she asked him not to call on the Sunday as the nurse might think he was calling too often..

. (Wellington Central.) Peter Fraser is a chap, Who dearly loves a verbal scrap ; When the fight is fierce and hot You'll hear Peter quite, a. lot. Aided by a glas.'ji of water. . i To wet his Whistle now and then, See him deal . out stoush and slaughter — He's; mightier than the sword or ■ pen.

On Sunday he remembered he had forgotten some cotton wool;, and so he called on that day. While he was with Miss Tate, the nurse said that somebody had called. Miss Tate said, "Tell them. ,1 can't see them." Defendant said he offered to go but she detained him. Afterwards she seemed cooler to him and he left early saying he would call on the Monday. On Monday plaintiff 'phoned him and said she would' call at his office/when the' typiste would be out. She did not turn up, however, nor on the Tuesday. .When she 'phoned him he asked her m. fun, "What about the -Sunday man?" She. rang .off m a hurry. "On the Wednesday night she was rather 'grum'," said defendant and she complained, about him discussing their affairs with the Macleays. Later he said again, "What about the Sunday man?" She replied, "It wasn't a man; it was a woman," and added that, surely, she could have a private visitor without being, questioned about it,. and that she really ought to have him up for defamation. He protested that there was no defamation, and then, feeling he was not wanted, he took his hat and. coat and left, asking her if she .wanted him to call again or not. Plaintiff made no reply. 'On the Sunday night Miss Tate said, "If you had come a' quarter of an hour later you would have seen him." He heard heavy footsteps, as if it had been Mr. Wilford or Mr- Gray. . (Laughter). Defendant strenuously . denied that he had broken off the engagement. He never. said that all was over between them, j"I am fond of the. girl," he added. "I was doing my best to promote good relations between her and me. I was afraid I was going to lose her. We would have certainly been married and m Australia by now if she hadn't gone to Mr. Wilford. I got the surprise of my life when Mr: WinWord's young man served the writ on me. The' perspiration came out all over me." (Daughter). ; Defendant denied that he had ever spoken of suicide, nor was .there any j truth m Mrs. Macleay's statement that he would turn m his grave if the Catholics got his money. Neither did -she I tell' him to go down on his knees and' pray for guidance. WINDER CROSS-EXAMINED. Mr. Wilford: Can you produce any copies of any letters you wrote plaintiff other than the copy of the one you say. you sent and she says she never received? — No- • " , .-■''■"■ Why should^ ydu keep a, copy of this letter only?— She had been talking of defamation. . ..■"(■ If'ryou had broken it off, as she says you had, that is just the letter to write. Why did you keep the copy of this letter?—^Tb, show that I had a friendly feeling,- - Won' t. ybu own • up that you had thrown her over?— l had never done so. ■ ' ' v.: " : . ■■' Did not you have her on a -string for, over, a month?— No. .1 waß doing' everything possible for "a; man to do. Did you ever intend to marry f her? -^1 did indeed. \Look at all I have done. vy.. . ._- . ' . .■..-.-- -'\ Didn't you- .keep' her just to fondle, caress and .play. with?— l did not. -.-'■*' You could not fix a marriage date?—

It was to take place immediately I had wound up the business. Didn't you fool her for months arid keep her running round the country 1" — She was enjoying herself. And spending all she had?— She knew she had somebody to fall back on. Why didn't you fix a wedding day? — I only knew her eight or nine months and knew nothing about her. No man m my position' can rush into matri- . iriony on a short acquaintance. Mr. Winder, I put it to you that 3'OU won this girl's confidence arid affection and then you played with her and never, had any' intention of coming to scratch? — That is entirely wrong and untrue. Mr. Gray: You have said that you do not object to Catholics* but. only to mixed marriages? — That is so. - , Mr. Wilford : . That is right ? I am not trapping yo u ? — No. You would not OBJECT TO A PRIEST going to Miss Tate's house to see her? —If he was going to convert her I might. , Have you ijot on oft-repeated occasions . expressed your anti-Oatholic views, to Miss Tate?— No. It is a conteiriptible lie. ' ' ' Then what about your letter of October 19 (reported early m the case) objecting to- her going to the niece'a wedding m which you say that she well knew your "oft-repeated views" on tho su)bject?-~I asked her three times at Palmerston North to come to the Presbyterian Church and she would not go. " In another letter you refer to "tho 'Mick' business".?— That is a familiar phraseology amongst Irishmen. , What did ■ you ' mean by that? — I meant there were so many good-look-ing Irishmen up at Napier I was afraid she would fall m love 1 with one of them. • What .did you mean by writing "I suppose you will be receiving visits from the priest now?" — I would-sooner not tell you for her sake. Did. you ever intend to make Eileen independent? — We never discussed it, but if she hadn't gone round to'' see you she would be tha luckiest woman m the world. Could , you (have made her'indepen-* dent?-^. Defendant hummed and ha-d and counsel, at his Honor's direction, obtained from him m writing, the price he got for Winder's Comer, what his property from N Winder's Corner to. the Bluebird confectionery was worth, the value of his property m Cuba-street,, and the VALUE OF HIS OTHER PROPERTIES. Against the total was set the mortgages. His Honor showed the paper to the jury, saying, "I "do not think this audience would be interested m these details, however much it (may; be interested m others." N Mr. Wilford: -You say you really loved Eileen. Do you love her better than £10,000?— I did love her- I would like to think. Yes. She got that when she was asked the same question. During the., whole time she was with you she spent all her own money?— Yes. On ' ihotel expenses and travelling, and -she sold out her business for £200? — I know 'nothing about her business. She would "not let me pay any* thing. I sent her £20. Yes, and you wrote to her telling her to return it if she did. not want it. (Laughter). — She was AN INDEPENDENT SPIRIT. I did not want to hurt her feelingsi . And yet you loved her? — Love is not money! ' Yet, if you loved this little girl all these months surely you could have ' helped her. a little bit? — She never let on to me she wanted money. Why didn't you fix the marriage day? — We did not want to marry, and havo to stay on m Wellington: Were you not hostile to Miss Tate m the letter you .wrote on October 17? —No. Did you not try to shake yourself free after that? — No; it is the other way about. I was more intimate than ever with her after that date. Didn't you intend to settle with her for ever on the Friday night? — No. t want, to' see how far you had gone towards getting married. You will admit that you discussed marriage with her and that you were to have no children?—l told her not to bo disappoint--ed if we did not have any children. , Loud laughter greeted this i - eply and his Honor observed: "I shall clear the court if you laugh out again. I will have everyone ordered out. It is not creditable to the community to have such conduct. This is not a play house." Mr. Wilford: It is most embarrass-i ing to have' these outbursts. Counsel continuing: You say m a letter, m fact, that your children had, not: been a success and that you would leave them .alone! — That was only ai joke. It is just piffle. I want to .see how far you had got towards getting married. You got so intimate on / the subject that you discussed not having any children? — I put it to' her so. as not to disappoint her. You admit discussing the marriage ■plans and the honeymoon?— l do. I , don't deny it. Why did' you refuse to marry her on October 4? — I had my business to attend to. That is what you say here, but you say m a letter that you were waiting /for Pat. Campbell to come back from Christchurch. Haven't you side-stepped the wed-, ding day from beginning to end? — No.. I have not. .- ' Defendant added that the whole talk about the Catholic objections had been "faked up," except what appeared m the lettei-s. ■Mr. Wilford: I'm relying on what appeared m the letters. i Re-examined by Mr. Gray, defendant said that he had given Miss Tate £30 worth of presents,- travelling trunks and hat |boxes. He did not place any monetary value upon' her. • Mr. Gray then intimated that that was all the evidence. Counsel then addressed the jury. HIS HONOR SUMS UP. On' Wednesday morning, the third day of the trial, his Honor summed up. He explained to the jury that J.he law regarded a contract to ' marry as a business transaction just the same as any other commercial contract to deliver goods, perform wof'k, etc; The pon tract to marry . was made without any specific time being fixed for the riiarriage. It was, however, a contract to be performed within a reasonable time. No breach of the contract could be. made tintil there had been a request to perform the contract and a refusal. Whether there was such refusal depended upon, which side the jury considered more worthy of credence.. 1 It was a case of oath against oath. .' The jury would note that the case was. free from the element of seduction. There had been no impropriety between the parties. THE VERDICT. Plain-tiff Pulls Down a Poultice of . Eight Hundred Flimsies. The jury returned at 2.30 with a verdict for the plaintiff. •' Their finding was as follows: ■.;'.-. ;:? 1 Issue One: Did defendant break off 1 the engagement on or about November 9 ?— Yes. .Issue Two: What damages is plaintiff entitled to for loss of business?— Answer, £300. ■ ■ ■: \ ,'■ v :. Issue Three : What ! general damages is. plaintiff entitled to? — Answer, £500. : V; Judgment- was accordingly entered .tip for plaintiff! for a sum of £800,. with costs against the defendant on the highest scale*