MARCEL V. PANSY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17104, 8 September 1917, Page 8

MARCEL V. PANSY

FRENCH VISCOUNT AGGRIEVED.

TRIVIAL BREACH OF PROMISE.

(Feom Oub Own Coeeespokdent.)

LONDON, July 10.

"It is a public outrage that the action was brought at all," said Mr Justice Low, in ordering the Vicomte Marcel Emile Claude Vig-ier, of a West End address, to pay the costs of a broach of promise action which he brought successfully against Miss Pansy Smith, an actress. Mr T. Hoaly, K.C., and Mr Doherty appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Storry Deans, for the defendant, admitted the promise to marry and the breach. The only question would be that of damages.

Mr Healy said the action had been brought to vindicate the character of the plaintiff, a French viscount who had been rejected from military service on three occasions in his own country, and had been in business in England for two years. He met the defendant last November. In January she was fulfilling an engagement at Drury Lane Theatre, and she promised to marry him. The banns were put up; defendant was introduced to his friends as his intended wife, and his father's consent was received. Suddenly, for no reason, defendant left her residence, and wrote the following letter:— Marcel, —Before it is too late I have found out that I lovo Henry the best. Ours was just a fancy, dear, that would never last. Forgive mo, dear, if I caused you any pain. I don't want to really. I am going to, be good 'and straight to Henry as I was before. Bybye, Marcel, think as kindly as you can of me. Believe me, it is for the best. Counsel, continuing, said plaintiff merely wished to make it known among his friends that the defendant, not he, was •in default in the matter. He had spent large sums on her. On January 16 she wrote to him a letter in which, she said:— I feel very sad, and I want to see you, and I cannot. Oh, my dear, you little know what I think of_ you. You have quite upset my gay life. What are we going to do about it? Ah! Tell me dear. I love you, ohl ever so much. Excuse writing. I am writing this on my knee in the dressing room. \ On February 6 she wrote. — Marcel,—This little note comes from my heart, so keep it sacred, my darling, and think what it must have cost me to send this and open my heart to you so. On February 16 she wrote:— It is just 12 o'clock, and exactly three weeks from the. day and hour in which we shall belong to each other entirely, and then, with God's help, we will be happy evermore. No evidence was called on either side. Mr Storry Deans said that plaintiff had been afraid to go into the witness box. The parties were engaged from January 16 to February 14, and plaintiff was not entitled to more than nominal damages. If ho had been engaged for years, and had thus been prevented • from making a more remunerative marriage, he might have had some claim. Marriages were arranged in Franco in a different way from tliat in which they were brought about in England. Mr Justice Low: In France they are arranged, and here they arrange- themselves. —(Laughter.) Mr Storry Deans went on to say that the defendant was not a woman of any means, and yet the plaintiff asked for substantial damages for the loss of a marriage with her. The jury were entitled to return the same verdict as the Cumberland 1 jury, who said that the plaintiff oirght to pay the defendant £50 for the opportunity of getting out of tho -engagement.—(Laughter.) When a woman brought an action for breach of promise she was entitled to compensation for her trousseau and other exjrexisea. The plaintiff in his particulars of special damage claimed 50 luncheons at 15s each and 75 dinners at 20s each.

Mr Justice Low: They must have had two dinners a day.—(Laughter.)

Counsel said another item was S) visits to the theatre at a guinea each. The plaintiff had claimed for his stall as well as defendant's. Ho would have liked to ask the plaintiff where those . dinners, luncheons, and theatres took place, aod whether be or tho defendant paid for them. Plaintiff also claimed £10 for taxi-cabs. If the plaintiff wanted his position made dear, iAs defendant's letter was sufficient for that purpose. The fact that a man was jilted by a capricious woman did not cast ■ any aspersions on a man's character. From the defendant's letter it seenrcd that there was a Henry—either Henry the first or Henry the eighth—{laughter)—about whom tho plaintiff" knew. Tho plaintiff cot Henry out for a time, bat later defendant returned to her old allegiance. _ At a. time' when Englishmen were pouring out blood and treasure for the plaintiff's country even more than tor their own, the plaintiff choso to waste tho time of 12 Englishmen and an English judge on a paltry case. He (counsel) had never expected such an action from a member of tike chivalrous French pepole. The Judge, in summing up, said that in these times it was scandalous that a, judge oi the High Court and 12 jurymen should be taken from their businesses to try such a ease. The suggestion that plaintiff had suffered any damage was too absurd for words. Tho jury returned a verdict for plaintiff with no damages. Mr Justice Low: You have got to say a farthing. Tho Foreman: That is what I suggested, kit— Yon thought that it ought to be lea. — (Laughter.)— Yes. The Judge: I shall enter tho verdk* of the jury as one for no damages. Mr Storry Deans: I think it would bcnafor for me if plaintiff had a farthing , ; I do not know whether it is lawful for the jury to say "no damages." Mr Justice Low: lam not quito sure, but you shall have your farthing. Mr Storry Deans: It belongs to wy learned fiumd, my lord.—(Laughter,)