ALLEGATION BY WIDOW

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVI, Issue 21360, 1 June 1939, Page 11

ALLEGATION BY WIDOW

Breach of Marriage Contract Claim for £5OOO Case for Plaintiff By Telegraph—Press Association GISBORNE, May 31. Claiming £5OOO for alleged breach of contract, Catharine May Davis, a widow, proceeded against York Hutchinson, a Poverty Bay farmer, in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Smith and a jury. The basis of the claim was an allegation that defendant entered into a contract to marry her on certain stipulations, and that he had since refused to fulfil this arrangement. Mr L. T. Burnard, with him Mr D. W. Iles, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr I l '. L. G. West, with him Mr P. Blair, for the defendant. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that a few days after taking up employment with the defendant he made certain proposals concerning their mutual behaviour. Witness raised objections which she relaxed, however, when he undertook to marry her "if anything happened” in consequence of her condition. Defendant then seemed very pleased, and promised to marry her before Christmas. In December he said his parents would be calling on them, and that he would put the marriage plans to them. The morning after the disclosure of these plans the defendant came to her room, put his arms about her, and asked her to try and understand, because his father refused absolutely to permit the marriage. Witness, however, received an assurance that she and the coming child would be provided for, this assurance being given by defendant's mother.

Divorce Proposal Defendant, continued witness, said he hoped that the decision taken by his father might be changed in time, and witness offered to meet the objections by giving an undertaking to leave defendant and permit him to get a divorce on the grounds of separation if he would marry her and give a name to the child. He refused this suggestion, and later he told her that his family wanted to send him to the Argentine, but lie would not go on her account. Still later, said plaintiff, the defendant took flying instructions in Christchurch, and during his absence there wrote to her affectionately every fortnight or three weeks. He was still absent when the child was born, and he had never seen the child since. She had hoped for long, however, that he would return and carry out his promise to her. Witness said that on August 12, 1938, she met the defendant at a dance and he failed to recognise her in any way. This had been a great shock to her, and she wrote a letter to the defendant in which she complained of his attitude. The writ in this case was not served until March of this year.

Witness stated tiiat she understood defendant to be a member of a wealthy family, well known in Poverty Bay, and himself the owner of considerable property. It was not possible for her to resume her work as a housekeeper. Allegation Denied Cross-examined, witness, who married in 1922, and had been a widow since 1935, admitted that she might have told the defendant that it was impossible for her to have children. She was 43. and the age given in the marriage certificate apparently was wrong. Defendant’s mother had said that the marriage would be unsuitable. After she knew the marriage was off, she continued to be intimate with the defendant. She denied that her attitude in bringing the action was to cause scandal and drag the family name in the mud. A niece of the plaintiff testified that the defendant seemed very affectionate to plaintiff, and both frequently discussed their marriage. The hearing was adjourned.