A SHATTERED IDYLL

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18642, 21 May 1932, Page 12 (Supplement)

A SHATTERED IDYLL

How* the idyll between a Jewish couple came to grief was a ibattej.' that Mr Justice Finlay and a special jury were called upon to decide in the King’s Bench.

They heard an action in which Miss Golda Padolsky, 28, claimed damages for alleged breach of promise from Alexander Roth, 30. Miss Padolsky alleged that Roth promised to marry her In October, 1930, and that he broke off the engagement in December of that year. Roth admitted the promise, but declared it was Miss Padolsky w r ho broke the engagement. Counsel for piajntiff explained that Roth, who had a tobacconist’s shop, was Introduced to Miss Padolsky in .Tune, 1927, and they began to keep company. He had a rather acute business instinct, and fairly soon began to discuss financial matters. Miss Padolsky had savings of £350 to her credit in the Post Office, and Roth stated if he became engaged he would like ihe money transferred to an account in their joint names. Accordingly, the £350, with another £SO provided by ’Miss Padolsky, was paid into a joint account in September, 1930. In October, Mr Padolsky gave his consent to the engagement, and promised to give the young couple some furniture.

Roth bought Miss Padolsky an engagement ring, and she bought him a ring. On October 15 there was a party, at which the engagement was announced. Within a fortnight, however, Roth began to cool off. He complained about the proposed gift of furniture which, he declared, was not good enough, and he said he could “get a girl with thousands."

Jewish Couple In Suit For Breach of Promise.

In December, Miss Padolsky went to a register ofilce to arrange about the wedding. On the lith Roth called and declared he did not want to incur any expense at all. He also made complaints, and finally said ho was "fed up,” and that the Padolsky’s could take their “lousy £4OO and egg boxes” (the furniture). He went out, slamming the door. 'Roth refused to give up the £4OO, and proceedings had to be taken to obtain the money.

Miss Padolsky, in cross-examina-tion, stated she was not prepared to take an undesirable husband merely in order to get married. “I thought Roth might change,” she added.

Counsel for defence: Was your father anxious to have you married? —Well, any father wants his child to be married. Asked if the marriage was not arranged by a marriage broker, Miss Padolsky replied. "Not exactly. He was just a f fiend." She agreed that Roth paid £93 for the engagement ring. Mr Joseph Padolsky, the father, alleged in evidence that Roth broke oif the engagement. lie declared that a contract for the wedding reception had been made, and he had to pay £25 for cancelling it.

“I bought Roth a burr walnut bedroom suite," added Mr Padolsky, "and made him an oak sideboard and dresser. I also gave him £ls to buy a satin suite for the parlour." “I did not call Mr Roth a rogue," declared Mr Padolsky in cross-exami-nation. “Such language has never been used in my house.” Counsel: Didn’t your son threaten to throw him out of the house?—No, my son did not interfere. The hearing was adjourned.