Cheap at £100

Southland Times, Issue 16051, 31 May 1902, Page 2 (Supplement)

Cheap at £100

THE WELLINGTON BREACH OF

PROMISE

An action to recover £501 damages for breach of promise of marriage was last week tried before Mr Justice Edwards and a jury. The interest taken in the proceedings is evidenced from the largeness of the audience. which included a number of women. Mr Skerrett appeared for plaintiff and Mr Wiiford for the defendant. Mary Jane Richards, the plaintiff, stated that she lived with her mother. For eight years Bhe bad been working at Hannah's boot establishment, earning her own living She first met the defendant about 12 years ago, and had been on friendly terrm with him for about eight yearß. Witness went to Sydaoy with defendant and his sister, and •topped with a relation of plaintiffs. At Manly defendant gave her a riDg, and told <her that that was to 'keep her ,gobs for always.' After her return to Wellington defendant told her he would make her his wife and set up houße in August, 1900. Defendant came to her mother's boose on ftfondays, Wedneadays,and Fridays and Sundays every week. In August, after witness had made ©reparations for the marriage, defendant ■aid he could not settle down until Christmas of 1900. In January, 1901, the defend*anf went to employment in Ptflmereton. jHe laid he would settle down,and Bbc would; be op there very booh, but gave up his en}-: ploymant. Witness had had conversations;: with him about farni6hing<Jtheir bouse. One? thing that he anggested.'fra's £bat as witness; oould not play bhe piftao veryjwell he sbouKf buy a bagatelle- "board iumCgg a P> an «- After the return frojjr»> Pal^raton the de-: meanoor of defendant' chapel. ~ When she ■poke to hio* Ip w*i# ?°Z'*'2 P !!"£ u M „ would be*e liked him to. '. Oa 9th February : witness weat to ckfiiirch wjth bim, and re- • turned to her rfotihetVbooae. She asked i bimforan-explaffttioii of ibis coolneas, but aot none. Witpesß was very much d«s trtwed and fainti* She went to his place on the following Tuesday night, as she wanted him toV'mUte it up,' bat he Bpoke very^ rudely to her, and told her to 'clear out. She last saw him on the 14th, and he then *aid he would not walk out with her unless «he promised not to say anything about the breaking off. She promised not to Bay anything about it, bat did mention it, and theu he said, *Don'b say anything about that again.' Witness was always desirous o carrying out the engagement, and was distressed at defendant's refusal to do co.

To Mr Wilford— She was 31 yearß of age, and defendant was 29. She bought: bim a handsome ecarf-pin, and defendant bought her a ring. Another gentleman with the , p*rty bought a lady t ieud with him a baagle. Tney were * j illy party, buying each other presents. D.d doe. get the ting in the shop. Defendant gave it to her on the beach at Manly when they came to an understanding' At first they were just ewetthearti, bus at Manly they were engaged. He did not «»y, *Will you marry me? 1 He ■aid a lot of things— just the sam- as usual, «he supposed. Id w»b rut thaUfier * *hi c they got iiritated with each other after beinainTeach othei's company for a time, but that «M b« fault. They hid tiffa, and now »nd agaia ther* were, qurnb. 1 hey got to J!!^-!*,^.-- t^-mUf, »ai went out> with

each other and would not speak. She spoke to him, hut he w< v d not aDbWer,

Mr Wi ford— Yon had (.truck him? Wants')— Yes, with my band, after he h»d lifted his band to me. Then you bad stiuck each other?—Coirect. ADgrily — Nofc exactly. It was io playShe had told defendant that he was not to go to the races, bat did nofc lemembt-r eayiog i hat if he went she would not speak to him again. He went to the races, and came to her plaoe on the Sunday following. Did no remember telling him then thai since he hai gine to the laces against her will thu bts r ihing was to break it off. dimply told him it was no use his going on like this — he had better treat her properly. Did not h'S visits to you become not nearly co frequeot after that date? — Yes ; but he still need to come.

On the Sunday night of the quarrel they got home first from church. He lit the gas and sat Down to read the Post supplement. Sbe pleaded for him to c. me up to thu balcony, but he refustd, and said he was going Do re*d the paper. She then epoke a litile roughly to him.

Then you struck him in the face ? — 1 don't remember doing ao.

Now, did yun not Btrike him ?— 1 may have, playfully.

Did you not lose your temper and strike him hard ? I won't swtar I didD't stiike him.

After you bad struck him he said he would go on the balcony ? — Yts.

TheD you diJ strike him?— Yes ; I remern ber now. I struck run Ightly.

Then, after you started t > go upstairs, he fe ezed bis hat and ran out and away? — Yea.

And you chas d him right to his gae »ml pulled him back ?— I did not pull him hack.

The incident 01 eaied quite a ecene in tht street, and people Btnpped tv i-ee you two flying down the stre<t? — 1 said they would, out did not see tbun.

Then you managed to get him back to your plac« and struck him again eevt-ibl times?— Yes.

Oa the face ? — Yes. He spoke very rudely to me

You saw him a night or two later, in the presence of his mother ? — Yes.

D;d you notufck him I alf a dozen times to give you another trial? — I asked bim once. And he refused ? — Yei.

And bolted oud of the room into the garden ?— Yes. With you after him ? — Ye.B. And you knocktd his mother down? — No.

You remember her falling down the sttps when you bumpid against her ? — Yt-s,

The witness suii she felt faint afterwards, jnd was unwell trom the shi ok. She went to 'A Message from M^ro' the following week. She did not remember nskirg defendant in that wet k if he would make it up. WicnePß attended dances and picnics as usual that month, as she was not g jing to st-ky at home and mope. In letters she had got from defendant he did not refer at a!l to their marriage. She had never toki him uhe waa getting hef trousseau ready, nor had she told hie rruther.

How many times while you were sweethearting did you strike him? Would for<y cover it ?— That would cover it; it was gene rally playfully. How many times ? — I don't count all those things up. Do you remember striking him with a book on the side of the head because he did not answer you ?— I won't swear I didn't, but I don't remember. Now, is this {all nonsense that you have been so broken up and woriied ? — Certainly not. I may feal it inwardly, but don't show it.

Do you think that a verdict of the jury for a sum of money from the defendant would make it all right ?— No; it ia not for the money. I' ia to 6how him he ba9 not treated me fairly. Mr Wiiford— Although you asked him to give you another trial? Re-eramined by Mr Skerrett— As to the smacking, he used to pinch her and then she would btnack him. It would begin playfully, and sometimes develop into real earnest. She had devoted over ten years of her life to this young man, and this was a «erioua gap out of her life. Mary Richardß, the mother of the plaintiff, stated that on the night of the breakoff defendant carried her daughter into the house in a faint. To Mr Wiiford— Would not swear that plaintiff was actually faintng, but she was nearly so, and was practically carried in by defendant. The girl had oetn very much upset, as they all had been, *8 the best part of her life had been spent wi h defendant.

For the defence Rebecca Birch, mother of defendant, gave particulars of the occ»eion when plaintiff came and asked defendant to give her another trial. Plaintiff then admitted that it was her temper ttiac had pirted them, and said that if he would only give her another trial she would be better. Defendant replied. 'Never,' and when he ■aarted to go away plaintiff tried to stop him, and nearly palled his coat off. Plainiff, in trying to get after him, pushed witue»B down the step*. Plaintiff's mother an 1 ister aoon after took her away. Wituest- : had never heard any discussion of the mar- I riage batween her eon and the phintiff, and ne had never talked of it to witness and had made no preparation for it. Up to November had loaked on MUs j Richards aB engaged to her son from the lime of his return to Sydney. Had never spoken to him of getting married. Witness j liked the girl, and thought the two would please themselves. Told her that as defendant did not care for her Bhe should Lot run after him, but should give him up. Plainiff replied lhat she could noc give him up. Witness, however, did nob ihink ehe rtally loved her son. In fact, they were never ac tually lover-like, but rather cold and distant. The defendant eaid he bad been walking out with plaintiff most of the time since he had known her. Till about fifteen months ago they goo on all right together, and then they bad their first real quarrel. The next quarrel happened when he told her be waa going to the races at Taratabi, and Bhe said, 'If you go I'll never speak to yoa again, and you will never enter this house again.' They had also had a quarrel abons dancing, &b she used to complain that he did not pay her enough attention. So he gave up dancing altogether. On 10th November, 1900, witness saw plaintiff at her place, and they Had a quarrel. She eaid, 'It's no good going on like this.' He replied, 'I agree with you.' She said, ' That finishes it between us, 1 or worda to that effect, and witness left her house. He had not at any time agree Ito marry her. Marriage waß never mentioned etween them. Witness described *whe inoidenb of the Snnday night alter ohurch, when plaintiff wanted him to go on the balcony. When defendant went on reading the Poßt supplement and deohned to go up, plaintiff struck him on the head. Witness then said, 'All right, I'll go. You lead the way, and I'll follow.' She went, and he grabbed his hat and cleared out, running down the street with her after him. She caught him at his gate, about 100 yards distant, and asked him to go back. Witness declined, but when she started to pull him back, he gave way, and went inside with her. She 'performed, 1 and struck his face again. He did not stay lODg. She had struck him previously wiib her hand and with a book in her hand. Ai I her request, he met her at his place, and she asked for another trial, which he refuted to •gige, becauße he had made up his mind that fcbay could not agree. iffo.Mr Skerrett— -Had been walking out itbtolaintifJ for ten years. It had never foa«y his mind that he might marry her. ejpS think it proptr for him to continue with a girl for so many year* %i(te*ttt any idea of ma-rying her. The idea of' marrying Miss Richards did enter hia mind, cay eighteen months ago. He Baid no-tbu>g->tyjb#re girl about it, bat kept it in his mindfor about three months. Said and did nothing to her to make her thick he was going to marry her. Did nob think he was under any moral or other obligation to marry her. He gave her the ring in Sydney solely out of respect for her. If keeping company with her could be called engagement, he was engaged. Did not write to her letters that a man would write only to his fiancee. He would write similar letters to any one else who was a friend of his. Here Mr Skerrett handed in three letters written by defendant within a period of three weeks. The first began—* My dear Polly, and ended 'Believe me to be, yours forever. Another began 'Dear Polly,' and ended after sending 'heaps of love' with 'Yours truly' He wrote io Miss Richards suggesting that she should come up to P;.lmeist,on for a few days. Mr Bkerrett— Although you were not eagaped to her you were bringing her np to vißityou? Witness— Yes. What would Mrs Grundy say to that ? Mr Wiiford— She doesn't live in PalmerBton. He gave up all idea of marrying the plaintiff when he found that they oould not possibly get on together. The jury gave a verdict for plaintiff for LIOO damages.

Did you ever g^t your lost dog back when you advertised ? 'No, but I got tferoe b&ttec onoa.'