THE LOVE OF A LADY'S MAID.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10679, 28 January 1913, Page 2

THE LOVE OF A LADY'S MAID.

AMUSING BREACH OF PROMISE , ! ACTION.

BLOTTING PAD OLUE,

Nino months' ardent love-making between a valeb and a lady's maid ended in a breach of promise action recently in the King's Bench .Division, before Mr Justico I-lorridge. The plaintiff' was Miss Annie Maria Milsted, of Chillenden, Canterbury, and the defendant Frederick C. Davy, of Mercan Road, Brixton, now in service at Brocknell, Berkshire. The defence was that defendant was released from the engagement. . >

Tho story, said counsel, was one_ of ardent love-making' for. about nine months, with tho marriage of defendant to another woman at the end of another nine months. In November, 1909, the plaintiff's mistress was on a visit to a relative in Wales, and there Miss Milsted met tho defendant, who was employed as a valet in tho same house. They met again in January, 1910, and subsequently they became engaged. The marriage was to "take place in June, 1911, but the defendant constantly pressed the plaintiff to be married at once, secretly, at a registry office. The defendant's employer, it was suggested, objected to having married people in his employment. Plaintiff strongly objected to being married at a registry office. She would be married properly, she said. Towards the end of 1910, said counsel, tho defendant's letters became considerably cooler, and eventually they ceased. At that time, said counsel, defendant was making lovo to another woman. "THOUSANDS OF KISSES."

Counsel then proceeded to read let-, ters. One from defendant ran

"My darling littlo Nancy,—l am very proud that you love me so, Nancy; I hope it will last a long time, darling. I shall count tho days. I am awfully sorry you are not near me to torture me. . . . I send my fondest love to youand send you thousands of- kisses.—l rom your very loving Fred."

The next day there was the, following ,

"Thank you so .much for'your nice letter this morning. I would like your photo., darling Nancy. I think about you , a long time, darling, when I shall have you always with me, darling. . . . My sweet little girl, you will look after yourself and try to keep free from cold. Also try to keep off your Woodbine cigarettes. (Laughter.) I don't like the idea of your smoking, sweetheart. My darling little wife-in the futuro, from your ioving Fred."

Later the defendant wrote in a letter : -

" There aro some moments when I feel afraid of myself. I asked Sir S. if he would let me bo married, and he said he" would not have any married people here." The plaintiff replied:— " My darling Fred, —Really your letter is enough to make anybody institute breach of promise proceedings at once. You know you are engaged to me. I will not give you up for- anybody or anything. . . . /Dearest, cannot you make the best of it now you have won my affections?" In a later letter she said: "I do not think you null get your freedom without paying for it." She also wrote: "Now, remember, if you don't mind the racket of a breach of promise case, I don't." LETTERS TO A RIVAL. Counsel said plaintiff went into tho defendant's room at a certain house and found that he had written some letters to another woman. This was clear from certain. impressions on blot-ting-paper. The defendant sent her a letter about this, saying:— " She devil, the moment I hear a word of the lies you aro telling about mo i will have you arrested for breaking into my room.r-(Signed) F. Davy." The nlaiutiff, a slim young woman, who s:>id she was thirty-three years of age, gave evidence, and in cross-exami-nation the blotting-paper incident was referred to. Witness 'said she had an appointment with the defendant at his room. She waited two hours, but ha did not turn up. She took the blot-ting-paper entirely away. There were impressions of letters to another girl 011 it.

Mr Justice Horridge: You took it away to read at your leisure?— Yes, niv lord.

Tho defendant was asked by the judge: "Did you ask plaintiff to marry you in secret?"—" Yes," he replied. Why P—l had no means to provide a home. The jury awarded plaintiff £25 damages.