“HUSBAND’S SHADE WOULD HAUNT HER"

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 153, 19 September 1927, Page 13

“HUSBAND’S SHADE WOULD HAUNT HER"

ENGAGEMENT BROKEN OFF SAILORS CLAIM SUCCEEDS Home was the sailor, home from the sea. Light of heart, love in his eyes, he flew on the wings of joy to the home of his bride-to-be. She was a widow. Pl© had not seen her for six months, but regularly he had sent her most of his wages to save for him until he could build a nest. They had been engaged for half a year; the time was at hand when he would lead her to the altar. But six months is a long time —and woman is fickle. She met him on the doorstep ancl sadly told him that they were not to wed. “It cannot be, I dare not marry you, for the shade of my husband would only haunt me all my days.” It was in that manner, according to Allan Clinton Estrop, that Grace Hitchcock broke oft her engagement. *‘l have got cancer and I would make you very miserable if I were to marry you,” the rejected suitor understood her to say, He asked for his money. “Oh! I haven’t got it now,” she replied, and added thoughtfully, “you cannot get blood out of a stone.” It was to test the truth of this axiom, that Estrop brought a civil claim in the Magistrate’s Court this morning against his former fiancee for recovery of £lO5 he alleged he had remitted to her to be held in trust. This, in effect, was the story unfolded by Mr. R. P. Hunt, for the plaintiff, and told by Estrop from the wit-ness-box. Mr. Hunt explained further that it was Elstrop’s practice to send £2O a month, since his engagement, to Mrs. Hitchcock. He instructed her to oank it for him, but she had permission to use some of it now and then “if she got stuck.” Counsel produced a letter from the woman to plaintiff stating that slie had used some of his savings and would pay it back before he came home. Mr. Mervyn Adams, for the defendant, said that Estrop had given the woman permission to use the money how she thought fit. Consequently she had used £3B of it for boardingschool expenses of one of her three children, and had paid £24 deposit on a £235 section the engaged couple had agreed to buy. He contended that the money was not a trust, but was free to his client Since breaking off the betrothal s-he had paid back £lO and offered to hand over the section to Estrop, but he had refused it.

The magistrate, Mr. F. K. Hunt S M gave judgment for plaintiff for’ £6o’ «76 section to be taken over by