Embalmed Love

NZ Truth, Issue 979, 30 August 1924, Page 5

Embalmed Love

BUT ONCE IT WAS HOT AS FIRE. plaintiff, Agnes May Mooney, did not weep. ln giving evidence, but Inter, when her counsel referred to her lack of homo life and her battle m the world, she sobbed softly. Plaintiff spoke m an nlmort Inaudible voice. She gave her present occupation uh lady's companiq«i, living, for the moment, m Victorh Street, Hamilton. She stilted, m i.nswtr to | her coun.sel, that from August, 1918, till January, 1019, sho was a waitress

at the Club Hotel, Masterton. She then went to the Empire, and later to a tobacconist's shop m Masterton: In April, 1919, she cache to Hamilton, where, being- ill, she immediately entered the" Waikatp Hospital, where she remained for several weeks. She then went to reside at the Bella Vista boardinghouse on her. discharge, and it was there that she first met Hudner. She was only there a. few days when she went on to Rotorua, subsequently returning to Hamilton, and then going back to Masterton, where she took a position m Hugo, and Shearer's .tea. rooms.- . ' She later went back to the Club Hotel again, and then took a trip to Samoa. On her return from . Samoa she came on to Hamilton, and again met defendant at the same boarding establishment.' This was ; early m 1920. She got a job as lady help to a* Mrs. Gilbert Gilmour, m which position she remained for several, months, and finally took a billet behind the counter of the "Cosy Corner" 'drapery establishment. She was' m defendant's company every evening until she left Hamilton m November. , About the time of her birthday, m March, 1920, he asked her to marry him, and she promised to do so. - He did not give her an engagement . ring, however, as he said his people did not believe m them. He gave her, instead, a coat which cost 51 guineas. She declared that she told him of her trip to Samoa shortly after she came to Hamilton, and that she had accompanied McDougall there. Hfe replied that he quite understood that she could not have afforded to go there alone. She told him all about the Masterton divorce case . (McDougall's) coming off. . She told him that McDougall, who had come to Hamilton with a party of friends, had informed her that he was not going, to defend the case. His Honor: You had better tell the jury all about it. Plaintiff said that Mrs. McDougall brought an action for divorce against her husband and joined her (plaintiff's) name as co-respondent. Defendant knew before the engagement that she had misconducted herself with McDougall. He told her, however, that so long as no one knew . and that she remained true to him, his feelings towards her would not alter. > About November, 1920, she went for a trip to Auckland, where she stayed with a Mrs. Daysh, at Hepburn Street, Ponsohby. letter Written after seeing ?TRUTH." While at Mrs. Daysh's, she was shown a copy of "Truth" just published, giving An account of- the McDougall divorce case. Oh her return to Hamilton, defendant met her at the station and took her round to his office, where they talked the whole matter over. Shortly .afterwards she again left, for Auckland, where she was admitted to the Huia Private Hospital, and where she remained for several weeks. Whilst there he' wrote to her every, day. • A number of these letters were read m Court and were couched m terms of the greatest affection. Here is a delightful specimen: — My Dear Agnes, — After a glorious summer's day I write my darling 1 a line to tell her how I would love a walk with, her to-night. Still? what she cannot do I am not partaking of, and as she will be m bed early to-night she will also learn I will be too. My only, regret is that it is not the same bed m a little far-off home m some quiet little corner of the map, where we could enjoy life m reality and not as we do m dreams. However, many things I have yearned for m the past have since been granted unto me, and I have full confidence supported m an earnest ambition that this yearning shall too, some day, be accomplished or achieved. Not until it does will I give .up my darling and, of course, nevel* afterwards; nor my fullest determination to realise the yearning of two. human hearts, that beat together as if they were concealed m one body. They will, yet, darling, he beating m. one union, which is far better, and when my darling gets well arid strong again, and when I am free to come and claim her as my wife, and the/only human that I ever Joyed, the world will not seem hard, for m my wife's eyes I will see the light of copartnership and love brightly shining, and what appeared as night before will be open as a summer's day. All I ask of you, sweetheart, at present, is to be cheers ful m this hour of trouble, after which you will find In me a fellow, that will do all that human nature can accomplish to further our good intentions. Darling, my love for you is ' fast becoming unbearable without you, and do not be surprised if I walk out of this some day. and come to you, for I know you will receive me, arid m doing bo you will feed the hunger of love that, is causing starvation towards all others m this town. Cheerio. Agnes dear, and accept my best love and earnest wishes for your complete recovery ■.•••■■ From D. A host of other letters, written m Similar strain, were also read when his Honor wearily Interposed that he hoped Mr, Lucas did riot intend to go through the whole list. He supposed they all contained the same sort of sentimental trash. Why did she go to Sydney? Plaintiff aclded that when she was discharged from hospital she took a job at Porter's, Auckland, and later went to Sydney. His Honor: Tell us why you went to said she left for Australia because defendant's brother and sisters were extremely rude to her, and she wrote to defendant and told him that was to be the end of everything. She travelled to Sydney alone on the Maheno. She had only been m the New South Wafes capital a couple of weeks when she got a letter from defendant, as a result of which, owing to its affectionate, strain, she assumod ' that the engagement had been resumed. He told her he looked forward ,to the day when they could be united, and talked about selling his business and joining her. Ho sent over some money for advertisements, offering his businesa Cor sale, for insertion m the Sydney newspapers. Other epistles followed regularly until the end of September, 1922, when they began to dwindle m number and diminish m warmth. Just before milling for Sydney, Bhe said, she destroyed between 300 and 400 lettors from "defendant. In his later letters to her m Sydney he intimated that he had started dancing and boasted of the good times he was having. When she was .with him m Hamilton

he would never let' her go to dances, as he wanted her all to himself. It was from that time, onwards that his manner began to change, and finally he wrote to her, m No-, vember, and told her that as apparently she was dissatisfied, they had better break off all correspondence. Her reply to this was that. . -she would return to New Zealand as soon as she possibly could and would see him about the matter. She returned to Auckland m December, 1923. She was only able to come then . as a result of receiving a fortnight's leave on full pay m advance from the firm for whom she was working. The day after her arrival she wrote to him and invited him to see her m Auckland. He replied stating! that, for reasons . various and obvious, they, had better not see each other again. • She t then came down to Hamilton, whel*e'she rang him up "from the Westcourt boardinghouse, but he refused to go round and see her. Finally, he consented to meet her outside the Library after 9 o'clock, and they went down to his office, where they remained till midnight talking things over, but they could come to no arrangement. The following night they met again,- . when they, finally fixed; things up and resumed theirformer relationship. He seemed sorry for the way he had treated Her, and he told her to go back to Auckland next day and to have a good ._ rest, and that he would come up ' the following week and fix up arrangements for the wedding. She returned and waited, but he did not come, „ She- therefore rang him up, and he told her over the 'phone that he did Jnot intend to see her. ENTER MR. HALL SKELTON. She then went^to see Mr. Hall Skelton, solicitor, and laid her case before him. He wrote to defendant telling him of the neurotic condition she ■was In over the whole affair and- asking him to meet her at his office and to try f and corner to some understanding. i Defendant wrote back and enclosed the "Truth" cutting.. to Mr. Skelton. To this Mr. Skelton apparently replied. On Mr. Skelton's advice she went down to Hamilton to see defendant again and •called at his office. He then told her he had had a letter from Mr. Skelton and she demanded to see 'it, but he refused her request. She stated that she would not leave until he showed it to her, and she remained on for one ,and "a half hours. He then ; told her that if she did not leave he would call m a policeman,. Subsequently he tried to forcibly eject her, and she snatched up' the telephone for protection. ' Mri Lucas here put In a» large sheaf of poems which defendant had written to plaintiff at "various times. . One, entitled 'il Wonder," and printed m double coluihn on this page, caused a smile to overspread the faces of his Honor and the jury, and showed that when the verse struck Richard it smote him . mighty hard. /Plaintiff declared that this poem ("I Wonder") was only one of many she received. In another, he pictured her as "the finest little woman who ever creased' a sheet." ;. ' Iri answer to her counsel, plaintiff said she spent a certain amount of money m preparing- her trousseau. His Honor; .How much? Plaintiff: Well, I was only earning £2 a week, and of this" I .had' to pay. a pound for 'board.' She supposed she had spent from £20 to £30 altogether. Before going to Sydney she sold -part of her trousseau and disposed of the balance m Sydney to pay her board: She added that she had had to ;earn her own living since she was 13 yea,rs of -age,, .and had never had anywhere to go for help. CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT GRAND HOTEL. In answer to Mr. King, she said there was no definite affection between defendant and herself until she retui'ned from her trip, to Samoa. Her parent^, she said, resided at-Pukekohe, and sSe had been taken from, school , at the age of 13. and put to work m! Auckland. She. scarcely ever saw her parents. She later spent four . years m service m Waikato, and' then went] to Sydney when she was 19. . On her! return to New Zealand she worked for ! a time before going to Masterton, m her sister's tea rooms m Taumarunui. It was true that Mrs. McDougall obtained a divorce from her husband on account of her (plaintiff's) misconduct with the husband. Mr. King: Now, I am going to ask you a few pertinent questions, Miss Mooney. Did you ever stay at the Grand rfotel m Wellington? ' Plaintiff: Yes. Mr. King: Was McDougall staying there at the time? Plaintiff: He came there twice whilst I was there! . Mr. King: Who paid your bill? Plaintiff: I don't know.. I can't remember! „ Mr. King: What were you earning about that time? - ■ • ' • Plaintiff: About £2 10s per week. Mr. -King: Did you go down to the Gmnd National meeting at ■ Christ- ' church shortly afterwards? Plaintiff: Yes. Mr, King: Did McDougall cross on the same boat? Plaintiff: There was a party of us. Mr. King: Was McDougall there? Plaintiff: Yes. , , Plaintiff here declared that Hudner knew of all this. Mr. King: Yes, but I want the jury to know. His Honor: Why go into further details, Mr. King? Here plaintiff admits that she stayed at the Grand Hotel, Wellington, when McDougall was there; that she went shortly afterwards on the same boat to Christchurch with McDougall; that she went on the same boat with McDougall to Samoa;, while finally Mrs. McDougall got a divorce from her husband on the grounds of his adultery with plaintiff and plaintiff did not defend , the action. Could, the jury want anything stronger than that? In further cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that she later stayed at Waikato House, Auckland, at a time When McDoufall was there. Mr. King: Dirt you occupy adjacent •rooms ? Plaintiff: I don't know. His Honor: Surely you know? Plaintiff: No, but he was on the came floor. His Honor: How do you know that? — No answer. Plaintiff further admitted having stayed a night at the Tauhcrenikau Hotel on the occasion of the peace celebrations. .. She only went there wjtli a party, however, of which McDougall was one and Billy Attwood another. The latter tricked her into it as he wanted to compromise her with McDougall. Attwood bore plaintiff illwill and had threatened to do all he could to injure her. She alleged that Attwood was helping on Mrs. McDougall with her divorce for his own personal ends. NO RING, BUT 51 GUINEA COAT. In. further cross-examination, plaintiff said It was not m consequence of Mrs. McDougull's knowledge of her alliance with McDougall that she (plaintiff) came to Hamilton. She txied to break with McDoufiraJJ several times, but he seemed always to follow her up. cither by letter or personally. Mr. King: You say plaintiff bought you a coat? Plaintiff: Yes, instead of an engagement ring. He said his family were opposed to the display of engagement rings; that his brother,' who? hid been

married just before, had never given his wife one. He said the coat would be more useful. It cost 51 guineas, and I have the receipt here to prove it. Mr. King: And he also gave you a bicycle? Plaintiff: Well, he gave me a bicycle which he said had belonged to his sister, who was then dead, and he remarked, at the time, that he valued it very much and that I was the only person he would ever have given it to. He later promised to sell it and pay my dentist's bill, but although he sold it he never paid the bill, and since I started these proceedings the dentist has sued me for the amount. Mr. King: Did he ever take you home to see his parents, and did he ever exhibit you to his parents and to his friends as his affianced wife? Plaintiff: I went to his home several times, but I never seemed to be really welcome. Mr. King: But if you were engaged, as you say, would he not, m the ordinary course of things, have been proud of you and been only too anxious to take you round to his friends? Plaintiff: Well," his parents understood that he was going to marry me. Mr. King: Did they know of the coat he had bought you? Plaintiff: No, because he told me' to say nothing- about it, as his parents were upset about that time and he did not want to cause them further worry. Mr. King: What was the meaning of a letter he sent you when m Auckland, m which he told you that if you wanted him to go up and see you to wire him m an assumed name? If you had, been the girl he had promised tp marry, why all this secrecy about going up to see you? Plaintiff: I don't know why he wrote that way. . .'-.'■ TOLD HIM ALL, INCLUDING SAMOA. . Mr. King was proceeding to further cross-examine plaintiff with regard to the McDougall ease, when she declared with emphasis that she told defendant all about the case before they became engaged. She told him every detail of her life, including all about the Samoan trip, and he declared that so long as no one knew and she remained true to him, nothing else mattered. She denied that she told Hudner that she did not defend the divorce as she wanted to shelter another girl, Mr. King: Why did you sell your trousseau m November, 1921? , Plaintiff: Because I thought everything was ; finished between us, and I considered I would be doing the best for myself and for him if I got out. His Honor: After the proposal was broken off m November, 1921, was there a fresh proposal? . Plaintiff: Yes. ' * His Honor: Then where is it In writing? . Plaintiff: Welly he. said often m his letters that he would never be satisfied until I became his wife. His Honor: Did he say " Will you marry me?" and did you reply "I will"? Plaintiff: No, but the engagement did not seem to be broken off so far as he was concerned. • Plaintiff admitted that the correspondence ceased m- November, 1922, and that she never heard from him for 13 months. She was very put out when he wrote and informed her that . he intended to stop writing. His Honor: Why did you go to Sydney at all if you Intended to mai'ry the .man? Plaintiff: Well, I had a row with his, brother, who was exceedingly rude to me. . His Honor: But why did you remain away so long-? Plaintiff: I hadn't the money to return.. ' : . • His Honor: But surely, if he was going to marry you, he would have advanced you the money to return. He is, I understand, an undertaker in' a fair way of business. Plaintiff: I expected him to come across to see me any time, as he was talking of selling out, and m one letter he spoke of taking an hotel In Sydney, but said he would not let me go behind the bar. Plaintiff continued, under cross-ex-amination, that on ; her return to Auckland m 1923, she wrote to.

him and asked him to call and see her m Auckland, as she wanted to talk things over with him. He replied that he would not see her, as for reasons various and obvious it was better for them not to meet again.

THAT OFFER TO RETURN TO SYDNEY.

She then consulted Mr. Hall Skelton, solicitor, and got him to write to defendant. This Mr. Skelton did, suggesting that Hudner should meet her ut his ofllce. Defendant replied that he would not do so, and enclosed a cutting from "Truth" giving a report of the McDougall case. Mr. Skelton, apparently under the impression that defendant had only become aware of this case after the engagement, 'wrote defendant another letter, m which he pointed out that owing to her neurotic condition she' might go to Hamilton and cause a lot of trouble if he did -not go up and see her m Auckland. Mr. Skelton wrote this without consulting her, and under a wrong impression. Mr. King: But what did he mean when ho told defendant that if ho would go up and see you, you would go right back to Sydney? Plaintiff said she could not under-] stand this. Mr. King: Does It not point to tho fact that you were merely out for money? Plaintiff: No! Mr. King: Are you prepared to marry, defendant nowT _ ;

■ Plaintiff: I don't know what you would think of me if I did. Mr. King here read the letter which Hudner received from Mr. Hall Skelton, as follows:— Auckland, January 17, 1924. Mr. R. Hudner, . Box 49, Hamilton. Confidential. Dear Sir, — I am writing -.this not professionally. I received your "Truth" cutting. Miss Mooney told me .about this matter. I recognise your side of the case and the mental attitude of my client. *That is why I have, written you m my own handwriting. It is unfortunate for you sho has so many of your^ letters of varying dates, over a long period, couched m terms of foolish endearment, offering marriage, etc. lam hot .going to do anything m the, way of Court proceedings, but think m your own interestsyou should meet her here. If you do she will go straightaway to Sydney. If" you don't, I can see she will stay and go to Hamilton and cause a great deal of trouble. I will not countenance such conduct, but have no power to stop her. I feel sure we could thrash the matter out here and end the trouble once and for* all. Everything said and done _ would be strictly without prejudice, so you would not be entangled m any way, otherwise I should ,not ask you m your own' interests to come. Yours faithfully, HALL SK ELTON. Mr. King: If your object was to marry Hudner and not merely to extract money, why .did you offer to go back to Sydney?

Plaintiff: Mr. Skelton ' wrote that letter under quite a wrong impression* Mi\ King: You are living now, I believe, with your sister m Rostrevor Street, Hamilton?— Yes. Mr. King: And your sister is housekeeper for a man named Foster? — Yes. Mr. King: Who- else lives m \the house with you? — My two little nieces. . Mr. King: And is it not a fact that you' have had many male visitors since you went to reside there? — No, only two men called altogether. One was a friend of defendant's and came there to- sec what 'he could find out for defendant. I spoke to" him the first time on the , door step. , The second time I invited him m. : Mr. King: But were you, a very welcome visitor at Foster's house ? ; — He invited me there, knowing I had nowhere else to go, and that , I was Übout to bring 1 " these proceedings. DID NOT SUGGEST SQUARING FOR £20. It was incorrect, she said, that she had sent a message' to defendant through another man to the effect that

he could square the whole business up for £20.

Re -examined by Mr. Lucas, plaintiff said that while m Sydney she wrote to defendant and asked him for some money to enable her Jo go to night ' classes. He promised- to send her i some, but never did, always putting her off with excuses. He sent her one lot to put advertisements m the Sydney papers, offering his business for sale, and ho told her to keep the few' shillings change. While living In Rostrevor Street, Hamilton, with her slater, she had heard men creeping nbout the place at night, and one man even'went to the extent of pushing the d( or open, apparently to sec if there were any other men In the house. She albo asserted that defendant and two other men followed her, her sister, and L<QFler % homo one night. Mary Daysh, wife- of George Dayfeh, of Hepburn Street, Ponsonby; Auckland, a middle-aged woman, said she first became acquainted with Miss Mooney In Masterton In 1918, where for a time, plaintiff stayed with her' It was not truo that plaintiff stayed out all night on the occasion of the peace celebrations. Somebody called for. her m a car, hut shp returned home early; After witness went to reside m Auckland, plaintiff called to see her and stayed with her for a time.. Whilst there; she showed plaintiff the "Truth" article. One week-end defendant came up to see her, and from the way he spoke to her she gathered that he and Miss Mooney were soon about to be married. When he was leaving he asked witness to look well after Mb little wife; ■ '