SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6962, 28 November 1900, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, Nov. 28. . civil sittings. . liie civil sittings of the Supreme Court were resumed at 10.30 a.m. to-day, before fas Honor Mr Justice Martin. HALLIDAY V. CAIN. ihis was a case in which Mary Halliday, a Widow, sued) William Cain for £200 damages 'for breach of promise of marriage ? \i Do " TOll y appeared for the plaintiff, and _Mr Joyat for t he defendant, Mx (Donnelly in opening his case, said-that tne plaintiff had made the acquaintance of the uefeodant in iApril la^fc. He had] commenced to visit at her house, which' was attached to a-shop- sihe condUcted^n Colombo btreet, to<j ihad.asked <h«r if she^would marry nan. Tie subject of marriage hadii requemtly been mentioned, and! the- defendant had pr(s--anised to many. her. She .had told^im-'-that • S L did ™- t€n< i' to many her, it wouldbe better for Mm to cease visiting the house, seeing KUat she had her own living to make iIjFT 3 * a shop. A* tine end off August the defendant withdrew fromi the position ne nad taken up, and 1 ceased) caHing on ther Oorraborative evid:en)ce would be given by ™r? ? m ' S SOn > wta w about twenty years o-x age. *h^Ji? >Uttt <mry eaJlid ay. staited that about a yeaa- (and none months, a£d! last toe. oonunemced) to visit &t (her shoD which w ftß attached to the house. He* sited her very fr^uentiy^sotaetinxes fou? « ftj he t S -^ he aTlted! * e » a^ ne tbougblb witness wouldl be suitable He asked witness if she .would marry him* and she saad she would. The subject was motioned frequently, as the dtfente y££& t«^ S^ spoke toTS about (his frequent visits, tdHmr him that ncr, but last August his visits became ess frequent. S When he 7^l to her place one evening in August, she wilfc V hat he did nofc seem cSe whether he came or not, and he said that mi • sJ M t gol °f *v g , rowl he,^<mld clear wm",M t d the key dn the door *nd would not let him go until he iad apoloSSfl * H \ tOld her th&t he had intended to marry her, but he had changed + He had not been at her Juse since. He told her what property he had, *tf 't WOuld •" * h«'s some day. ' To Mr Joynt: It was on the firet occasion tiat the defendant visited her house that he said he wanted a wife. On his last visit he did not leave the house until a quarter to two in the morning, but he was not locked in all the time. After the defendant promised to marry her, they became very intimate. A week after his last visit she sent him a bill for £1 10s for a broken chair and two brooches. His Honor asked the plaintiff how she arrived at the claim for £200. The plaintiff said she had been led by the defendant into thinking that he was i. going to marry her and provide her with a home. Her character had been injured by his frequent visits. William Halliday, son of the plaintiff, stated that he knew the defendant, who had for some months been calling at their house four or five times a week. On the last occasion on which the defendant came, witness was in the sitting-room nest to the shop, where his mother and the defendant were. He heard the defendant tell his mother- that he had intended to marry her, but he had! changed his mind. Witness's mother 'began to cry, and the ■ defendant then coaxed her, and when he left they were on the best of terms. 1 . «• To Mr Joynt : One evening, about the , beginning of May, 'witness heard the del fendant ask the plaintiff whether she would marry him, and she said she would. He had also heard the defendant say that ihe had loved his first wife, and that he loved witness's mother as well. Mr Joynt briefly opened the case for the defence, and said that the defendant denied that he had ever promised to marry the j plaintiff. The question of marriage had 7 been mentioned, by Mrs Halliday, but iihe defendant had given evasive answers. The defendant, WdEiam Gain, stated) that he was a widower, sixty-seven years of ( age, and had a son and "daughter living with him. One evening, after he had been introduced to the plaintiff, he was passing the shop when he saw Mrs Halliday at the door. She asked him to come in, and he did so. He did not visit tih© house four or five times a week ; he only went in when p he was asked by th« plaintiff. He didi not 1 on any occasion ask her to marry him, nor ; did lie promise to marry her. She did ■ • mention tfoe question of marriage, but he put ' her off. The last night that he went to Mrs 1 Halliday's house, she said she did not think ', be wanted a wife, and got in. a temper, > locked the door, and would not let him go! ' He begged her to let him go, but she said 1 she would not let him out until he had I apologised. He wanted to know what he ' had to apologise for, and it was not until he had promised to call the follownng. Sunday evening that he managed to get away. '< He had been a widower for five years, amd had no intention of marrydng the plaintiii. To Mr Donnelly : He had' Tiever promised • to get another store in whioh to set un Mrs [ Halliday. He thought he might have been > at Mrs Halliday's place seven or eig-ht threes, i but he only went in when he was invited . to pasa the time. He had cone in for im- , moral purposes sometimes, "but before he began going th^re he had no reason to sup- . pose that Mrs Halliday was anything but re- > epectable. , After further cross-examination of the y defendant by Mr Donnelly, the case was 5 closed, as far as the evidence was concerned. Counsel addressed the Court. His Honor said that !he thought it most likely that in the. course of defendant's adventures he did promise to marry the plaintiff. At the same time the damage would be only nominal, because the action appeared to be a money-making exploit. There was no question of affection about the mat- > for. He thought if the plaintiff got a £5 ; note she would get all she was entitled to. He would give judgment for iher for £5 [ without costs, j At 12.55 p.m. tlhe Court adjourned. ■:^>u. [pj^ p HESS Association.] WELLINGTON, Nov. 28. r In the Henderson case, Mrs Luke, mother of the girl whose death accused.' is charged , with having caused, gave evidence to tine t same effect as in the lower Court. \ A case is being heard by tflie Chief Justice , to-day in which J. R. Skelley, a commw- ■ cial traveller, sues W. J. Geddis, tho pubUsher of "Free Lance," an illustrated palper, (for £1000 damages for the pu'blica- ! tion of ai cartoon which' the plaintiff interprets as representing that he was endeavouring to pass a valueless cheque. The defendant denies that the portrait in the cartoon was meant for the plaintiff, or that, the oartoon will bear the meaning put upon ; it.-