“DARLING ALEC”

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19705, 20 November 1926, Page 8

“DARLING ALEC”

A WIDOWER S BETROTHAL BREACH OF PROMISE CLAIM BRIEF ATTACHMENT ENDS IN COURT. JILTED LADY AWARDED £2OO. Unusual features marked a breach of promise action heard at the Supreme Court, Wanganui, yesterday, when Louise K. Scanlon, a Wanganui masseuse and nurse, was awarded £2OO damages from Alexander Hannay, a Palmerston North business man. The history of the relations of the pair was traversed by Mr 11. F. O’Leary, of Wellington, who appeared for plaintiff. Hannay (Mr H. R. Cooper) was described as the managing director of the firm of Manson and Barr, Ltd., Palmerston North, in which concern, stated Mr O’Leary, he held 750 £lO shares. The amount of the claim was £2OOO.

Letters which passed between the pair were read to the Court. “Darling Alec,” and “Darling Lois,’’ were terms frequently employed. It was disclosed that the pair met at the Palmerston North races last Boxing Day, again at Feilding at New Year, and later in Wanganui. Trips to Wanganui. About two months after their first meeting they became engaged. Hannay presenting the lady with a ring. At this stage he made frequent trips to Wan- ! ganui, where a dinner party to cele- ' brate the engagement was held, but | later there was an estrangement, and ! plaintiff, having heard rumours of the | conduct of Hannay with other women in Palmerston North, taxed him with his behaviour. Finally, early in July, the engagement was broken off. The plaintiff, Louise Kathleen Scani lon, said she had practised for three i years in Wanganui as a professional ' masseuse. She was qualified as a nurs- ! ing sister, and had served in the War as i a nurse. She met Hannay last year in | Palmerston North, and between then j and February saw a good deal of him. He came up to Wanganui several times •to sec her. He told her he was managing director of the firm of Manson and j Barr, and a large shareholder in that • concern. She knew’ lie was a widower, I with, three children. A Party at Foster’s. | When they became engaged, she said, i Hannay gave a dinner party at Foster's i Hotel, to celebrate the event. | Plaintiff was asked about the trous- [ seau, the expense of which was includ I cd in the £2OOO claimed. Mr O’Leary: I suppose you could ■ make up a list of the things you made* I—l worked at the trousseau from the 1 time I got engaged. I Could you compile a list? —Not off I hand. But 1 still have the things. I Mr Cooper; They are still wearable,

I s'. f >pose. \\nness: There are lots of the things that 1 don’t really need. Further discussion turned on the question of damages through the loss of plaintiff’s massage practice. She said she was so upset that she was unable Lu carry on. Bis Honour said that such abstract issues as injury to pride and health had to be considered in assessing general damages, lie thought the evidence regarding the massage practice was admissible. It was sufficient that plaintiff found it necessary to give up tne business after the breach, occurred. Witness added that she» had since lived with her sister in the country, having been unable to do any work. Refreshments Together. Cross-examined by Mr Cooper, Miss Scanlon said she knew that defendant was a widower, 48 years of age. She met Hannay at the Palmerston North races last Boxing Day. During the afternoon you had some refreshments and some afternoon tea together?—lt may be so. ►She saw Hannay again during the two days of the' New Year races at Feilding. The next time she saw him was early in February, when he was on his way through to Hawera. That night he look her to a theatre, anti proposed to her. Did you accept him that nignt?—No You went to the Hawera races with him next day?—Yes, 1 aruve up in his: car. The evening he proposed to you, was there any demonstration of affection between you?—No, none whatever. There was none at this stage. j Later, said witness, she accepted I him. He gave her the ring a week , later. What was the exact place where you i became engaged? —I was out in his car. He had definitely asked me to marry him on several occasions. Getting Along Well. Air Cooper: I put it to you that what happened was this—Mr Hannay said, “we seem to be getting along well together. Here is a ring, and if we decide to get married I will give you another. } ’ Witness: Yes—a wedding ring. No, another engagement ring. Witness: That most dertainly did not happen. He said he would give me another ring, after we were married, ueI cause the first one was rather large, j Several of the letters read referred to trips to race meetings at Haw’era, Feilding, and Otaki. Describing one ; meeting, witness said she met “Roy’’

between the races, and he gave her some good tips. ’To Mr Cooper: That would be Roy Reed, the jockey. His Honour: 'These letters seem to be mainly about races. Witness: The race meetings were all on holidays. Reference was made to the stories heard about Hannay and another woman. The pair had a talk in plaintiff ’s consulting room, in W’anganui, and fixed matters up. Later they had an interview in the Grand Hotel, Palmerston North, on June 30, and reached a complete understanding that they would be married as soon as business worries cleared up, but soon afterwards the engagement was definitely discontinued. Well Out of It. Have you satisfied yourself that there is something in what you heard about defendant?—Certaiuly. Don’t you think you are well out of marrying such a man? —He wasn’t a man at all. To Mr O’Leary: Her massage practice was a personal one. She attended to it exclusively herself. Robert Bond, land salesman, said Miss Scanlon Jived for some months ai Sandon, a boardinghouse conducted by his wile. Hannay came to the house several times, and witness congratulated him on his engagement. Addressing His Honour, Mr Cooper contended that the engagement was little more than tentative. There was no suggestion that the lady had shuffered in any way except for her pained feelings. It was certainly not the case of a young girl who had been led astray. With reference to Hannay’s position, he was not now managing director of Manson and Barr, though up to three mouths ago he had held that position at a salary of £lOOO per year. Now all he had was 750 £lO shares, which were not unencumbered. He was not by any means a wealthy man.

Mr Cooper contended that it was not a ease for heavy damages—though admittedly it might be a case for some. He quoted plaintiff’s last letter, stating that she' would not have the finger of scorn pointed at her as a jilted woman without some reparation. She therefore .asked that he come up and discuss the matter, stating that her lawyer could be present at the interview, so that a satisfactory settlement could be effected. No Violent Affection. 11 It looks,” said Mr Cooper, “as though the engagement was not because of any violent affection on the lady's part, and that she was disappointed at not getting the financial benefit she had hoped for.” Mr O’Leary, addressing the Bench, drew attention to the fact that Hannay had not been put into the box. Though defendant had not gone into the box to tell his story, it was at least satisfactory to know that he had had the courage to come into Court and sit beside his connsei. His client could thus see what kind of a man it was she had missed. Defendant was not a youth, swayed by the feelings of a moment, but a mature man. The inference regarding Hannay’s retirement from the managing directorship was, he submitted, that he had retired because this action was pending. Mr Cooper: Oh. nothing of the sort. Mr O’Leary, concluding, said that, plaintiff’s last letter, saying: “All my dreams of a happy future have been shattered,” aptly described the position.

His Honour, in delivering judgment, said he did not propose to comment on the case. He would simply give judgment for plaintiff for £2OO, with costs on the lower scale.

In the undefended divorce proceedings Clifford v. Clifford and Mortensen, at the Supreme Court this week, no order was made by the Court for custody of the children, but in the. petition application was made for custody, but at tho last moment petitioner agreed that icspondent could have custody of the two youngest children and that he would have custody of the other five.