SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4027, 22 January 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Friday, Jan past 21. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a

special jury.)

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE-

James Shaud, examined by Mr Barton; Did Mr Wilson sound yon on the subject of Miss Hughes and yourself ?—Yes, he did. Mr Bar on asked that the Registrar's report of Mrs Wilson’s examination should be supplemented by giving' oval evidence that Mrs Wilson had made statements which had been omitted in his report. After argument, Mr Smith objected to the evidence of Mrs Wilson being received at all, as the order of the Court, on which the examination had been conducted, expired on the previous morning. His Honor ruled that the depositions should be admitted, and took a note of Mr Smith’s objections, and his Honor ruled that parole evidence could not be admitted, and that the questions, “ What did Mrs Wilson say to you and “ What did you say to Mrs Wilson P” could not be put. Defendant’s examination was resumed : On April 41 was at Mr Grant’s with Mr and Mrs Wilson. Between the February interview and then I bad not visited Miss Hughe ■, and had not spoken to her. I had a conversation with Miss Hughes on April 4. Mr Grant, I, and Mr Wilson went out of the house, and Mrs Grant took me by the arm and said, " Miss Hughes wants to see you." Miss Hughes and I then alked down tho road after the others, and Miss Hughes said, “ Why did you not reply to my letter ?” I then said it was not likely that I was to answer a letter of that sort, when she knew quite well that I had never made such a promise. She then led me

Mr Barten: Well, Mr Shand, she said what P—l knew quite well what she was drifting at. I said she knew very well I had never made her a promise of marriage. , She then said,j“ What did you come after me for ? " After the statement Miss Hughes made—l can assure you it was a commonplace affair—l told her that I knew what that letter was sent for. It was sent to entrap me, and that I was not to be entrapped that way. Miss Hughes was in a great fury, and she said I must marry her. I said I had never promised any such thing. We met Mr and Mrs Grant then, who had turned back. Miss Hughes then said, " I wat you before Mr and Mrs Grant." I said, “ I know quite well what you want," and said good night. I then walked on a small bit, and Miss Hughes said, "Mr Shand, stay.” Mr and Mrs Grant went on to the house, and Miss Hughes repeated tho same thing and went on in a great way about it. I soothed her a little, aud then went away home. (Laughter.) She was in a sort of hysterics, and I said, " You need not put yourself in such a' way." Mr Barton: Is that what you mean by soothing ? Witness: We did not talk any, and she jumped about in an hysterical way. She then went elf home with Mr and Mrs Grant. In that interview I did not behave as a lover, and did not speak of marriage except in the way 1 mentioned. ' I told her that after the letter she wrote to me 1 knew she could not really care for me, and only cared for what 1 had, and after that I would net have her upon any consideration. I refused to send any more letters to Miss Hughes after getting that letter from her. I never wrote any letters to Miss Hughes after getting that letter from he'. I did not write any letters to Miss Hughes. I did not choose to correspond with her. I have no remembrance of writing any letters to her at all. I have no remembrance ol: getting a letter from Miss Hughes on the 27th May. I have no recollection of it at all. I had a conversation with Mr Grant in the road after tho 17th March, coming from a road board meeting. Mr Brant said, " I want to know what you are going to do about Miss Hughes. Miss Hughes said you had promised to marry her.” I said 1 hod never dona any such thing, that I did not intend to do it, and that he had no business meddling in the matter. That was all that passed about Miss Hughes at that time. I told Mr Grant at that time she could take the remedy into her own hands. I did not say I wanted longer time to know her. I had not known her at all, but very little. His Honor : I have on my notes that you never said you wanted time to ki>ow her at all, and then you said you had not known her at all but very little. Did you say that ?—No, I did not say that. To Mr Barton: Between the time I first knew her and that time there was an interval of fourteen or fifteen years. I never said that I was miserable and came down with the intention of marrying Miss Hughes. I was not miserable—certainly not. Witness then denied several statements contained in Mrs Grant’s report of the interview between her husband and Shand. I never said I would meet her in the rood soma day. The second time Grant spoke of an action I told him to go and do it. I hod only two conversations with Mr Grant about Miss Hughes. Cross-examined by Mr Smith: How many love affairs have you had on your hands during the last six or seven years, Mr Shand P Mr Barton objected to the question, which Mr Smith contended he had a right to put to test the credibility of defendant’s evidence. The question was not allowed in that form. Mr Smith; How many people have you premised marriage to daring the lost six or seven years ?—I promised to one, and only one. lam perfectly willing to answer the points os they come np in the present action. Do you mean your present wife P—Yes. To how many ladies have you made a proposal of marriage during the last six or seven years P Mr Barton objected. Mr Smith: The oulv promise of marriage is that which has been completed by the marriage of yonr wife ?—Yes. Do yon solemnly assert that yon never promised marriage to any Indy excepting your present wife ? —Yes, except a little thing put in the way of a joke. You never did—you say so F— Yes. I am sorry to he obliged to mention names, bnt I have permission of a lady to do so. Have you ever promised marriage to Miss Isabella Campbell ? Mr Bat ton objected to the question. This was an attempt to try other actions for breach of promise at the same time with this—at least it had been rumored that thei e would be others if this succeeded. Mr Smith submitted that he hod a right to put the question, to test the credibility of the witness. His Honor mled that the question should not bo put. The answer would influence the minds of the jury when it should not so influence them. Mr Smith: You solemnly swear that during tho last six or seven years the only promise of marriage which yon have made is that whieh von have performed by marrying yonr wife P—Well, I cannot give my courtship with Miss Campbell without I give an explanation as well. Mr Smith: I shall be very happy to give you the opiortunity. Mr Barton: Bnt yon shall not get the opportuuity. I object to any questions from Mr Smith upon this matter. Mr Smith contended that ho had a right to chow, if ho could, that Mr Shand had acted like a gay Lothario, and had broken several engagements. Mr Barton said that might be calling on him to defend fortyfactions instead of one. His Honor said the only effect of his answer might be to show he had made an offer to somebody Mr Smith :|Do you repeat what you have already sworn, that during the last six or seven years you have promised to marry bnt one lady ?—I can’t say, without that same explanation that I gave previously. You now wish to give a qualified enswei ?—I do wish to give n qualified answer to it. How many times have you visited Southland ?—I eeuld not say. I first commenced when I became a landed proprietor there, bnt I could not tell the year without some trouble : ten years ago, I expect. My acquaintance with Miss Hughes was of a very Blender kind, and there was no particular friendship at any time between us. I never paid her visits in the capacity of a wooer. I have walked with her, because she was very often on the road between Outnvm and where I live. She was there nearly every day. I have walked with her seldom in the day-time, but 1 have seeu her going from the town, ship in the evening. We did not meet by appointment. It was accidental on my part. She passed my place. I will put you on yonr guard, and request yon to be very careful how you answer the questions I am about to ask. Do you swear distinctly that not only *,as your acquaintance with Miss Hughes very slight during the whole time you have known her, but that you have never met her by appointment alone P—On the road P Anywhere ?—That is a difficult question. Will you answer that ?—I still believe that she sent a note to me this last summer at one time. The note came to me to meet her; but I would not swear it.

Do you recollect whether she intimated the place ?—I don’t remember. If I sent one I wonder why that letter wna not produced. But if a letter was written, I sent an answer to it. You abstained from answering before ?—But the letters were quite different. You do not state ns a fact Miss Hughes wrote to you ?—lt was in spring. You said summer; but be careful what you say. I tell you plainly your character is at stake. I understand you to say you are not clear whether Miss Hughes wrote a letter or not—now you correct yourself and say she wrote itiu the sprii g. Why do you name the spring rather than the summer—because it is a fit time for lovers to meet when young buds begin to shoot ?—That la my idea of the time. I would not be positive. But how do you recollect that anything took place between yon and Miss Hughes ?—Because she asked me to meet her. If you have got this letter it was in her writing. It seems au odd thing that I should be asked to produce tv letter writ feu by Mr Shnnd. You have now stated that you do recollect Miss Hughes asking you to meet her some time last spring ?—I have an idea still there was a letter. Do you recollect whether Miss Hughes wrote n letter to you?—l never wrote a letter to Miss Hughes. That she wrote a letter ?—I have an idea, hut don’t recollect distinctly that she wrote a letter. Do you recollect whether you did anything in consequence of Miss Hughes asking you to meet hen f—l answ'ei'ed tbftfc letter, I hSye in idea,

Perfectly right, Mr Shand; you did. la that my writing!" P (pre߀ntin » a letter).-Yes, that la West Taieri, , ”D«Hh. Hn.be., —I in the morning, and will be away* week. I will come down to the old place after dusk it that will suit you.—l remain, yours truly, •or,, ... "James Shaud.” WiU you swear this was not written in December ? —1 will not ewetr it. Was not yonr first thought the correct one. when you said it was in the summer time. Let me try to refresh your i ecollection. You have told us that you went down to Southland in December ? Yes. Will yon now swear that it was not in December that this note was written ?—I never said what time it was. Yon will not swear it was not in December P—l will not swear. You tell Miss Hughes you will come down to the old place.” What is the meaning of the "old place ?”—I do not know what the meaning is. (The witness spoke almost inaudibly.) Now do speak out in the same sonorous tones os you do in the Provincial Council when you are delivering one of your favorite diatribes against tho profligate Ministers of the day.—l believe it means tho gate. Your answer to my question; "What is the meaning of * the old place P’ ’’—l do not know The Judge: He said “ I believe it means the gate. , ® lr Smith; What made yon give the answer. You believe it is the gate ?’’—You took me unawares. • T° u mean to say that you believe you are tellmg the truth when you say that, having put you on your guard—yonr learned counsel says “ threatened you —having requested you to be careful what you said, you would have the jury to believe I took you unawares in asking you the meaning of the " old place ?’’—l did not take proper time to answer the question. Do you wish to make any alteration in your answer that the old place means the gate ?—Yes it is the gate. * What gate P—Tho garden gate. What garden gate ?—The garden gate near Mr Gmut s. Why do you call that the old place ?—No answer Why do you hesitate ?—We used to part at that gate occasionally. I suppose you used to meet as well as part P Yes, and go into the bouse too. What did yon talk aboub-business ?—No. Potatoes ?—No. What did yon talk about F-Miss Hughes used to come to tho door. yards 7 *** ** th ° 80,40 fromthe * loor ?—• About thirty Is there an avenue of trees there P—Yes. Affording a retirement for lovers ?—Oh. they are very small. What was your purpose of meeting there P—l to * a _y°. u 1Q my examination bow often I went there. "“at w „ 8 purpose of meeting at this " old place ? —That was in answer to a letter sent to me. place* In 416 Miss Hughes at a I mean the place, the gate P—No. You swear that distinctly, knowing exactly what yon are saying p—l do. J Why do you call the gate the old place P Because once or twice when I was coming away she said good-bye at that gate. You do menu to alter that, do you P—No. Will yon swear that that gate was not the usnal place ot tryst for you and Miss Hughes before that, as well as in December?— Yes. ’ You were away tho greater part of December. 1874, m Southland ?-Tos. ’ Are you prepared to swear you were away more than a week ?—Yes, I oc.nld hardly get baok in cember I^aieri ®how, and I went early in De-

Do you recollect ever writing another letter to M>ss Hughes ?) Letter handed to witness.}— That is m L' vn . tln *- t'hat is a year previous. The letter was as follows " West Taieri, , IT , • ,L Hughes «'“ I ““ astonished at the note received from yon. Inm quite in the dark as to what you mean, nud in answer I can onlv give you my word of honor as a mau that neither in word or deed have I done anything to insult or hurt your feelings. I see it is Valentine’s Day you mention. If it is anything in that line you have received I can assure you it is not from me. Certainly. I have had my full shore, and can spore you a few elegant -ones, but as they arc intended to take the conceit out of gentlemen, not ladies, it may not be worth whi!e, as you would only be having a laugh at P 0 ;. surmise is correct, I think you are very foolish to vex yourself about it. If it is anything more serious, you must know what it is. Hoping to see you soon—l remain yours truly,

IM , , . Jams Shand.” 1 ask you again, after having your recollection refreshad os to your relations with Miss Hughes, do you swear solemnly that your acquaintance with that lady has been of the slender and limits c h R . racter you hare sworn ?—I do. Do you expect to be believed ?—I thint- 80 . When you refused to go before Mr and Mrs Grant with Miss Hughes, were you afraid that they would take you neck and heels and hand you over to Miss Hughes f—Well, I was pretty much afraid of Mr, Grant. If I had stood and had any conversation with them they would have made it much more in this Court to-day. Any conversation I have had might have been turned. I do not altogether n>«»nn they would have told lies about it, but they might have turned my words about and given them a double meaning. I understood you to say that your engagement, or auy supposed engagement, between yourself and Miss Hughes was never the subject of conversation between yourself and yourimother ?—Not to my remembrance. I always told my mother that I was not engaged to Miss Hughes. Do you recollect driving Miss Campbell past your mother’s house in the year 1873 P—l do not recollect.

Do you recollect, saying to Miss Campbell, “ I must go in now. I passed last week with Miss Hughes, and I dare not take her in P”—l do not remember saying any such thing, Mr Smith sat down. Mr Barton asked his Honor to adjourn in order that defendant's re-examination might be taken the next day, it being then six o'clock. His Honor considered that any questions on re-exami nation should be put before the Court rose.

Mr Barton declined to re-examine, and the jury wore discharged until ten o’clock this morning. Mr Barton then applied for on oi der for another examination ot Mrs Wilson, on the ground that a statement made by her had been omitted from the Registrar’s report. His H nor declined to grant tho order. The Court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

Saturday, January 22.

Elizabeth Wilson’s evidence, taken last evening was read, to the following effect;—l am the wife of James Wilson, of Dunedin, brewer. I know the plaintiff and defendant in this action. In February 1875, I was out at the West Taieri. I was at Mr Grant’s and Mr Sband’s on that occasion. , Mr Stout : Did Mrs Grant tell yon anything about Mr Shand on that occasion ?

Witness: She said she had news to tell me. Mr Stout: Did she say what the news was ? Witness: “ That she (Miss Hughes) was engaged to be married to Mr Shaud." Afterwards Ihad a coiuvrsa ion with Mrs Grant, Miss Hughes being present. No reference was made to the previous conversation. We we-e talking about the engagement between Miss Hughes and Mr Shand, I had not heard of the engagement until that dny, and then only fr< m Mr Grant. I remarked, “It is very strange he never told us" (meaning Miss Wilson and myself). Miss Hughes arid, “Oh, that’s his depth.” Mr Shand came to Mr Grant's that evening with us. I noticed nothing peculiar in bis manner; ho seemed rather cool for a lover. I remember at tea-time, Miss Hughes being present, Mrs Grant was n.hn.ffln C Mr Shand, who said it was time Mr Shand was married. No i eferenca was mode to Miss Hughes. The ■»<»«>? evening in Mr Grant's house I remember nothing further taking place. The next occasion I was at Mr Grant’s was in April following. Mr Shaud accompanied me—it was about the first week. . I saw Miss Hughes and Mrs Grant. Miss Hughes said, “ Was it not strange that Mr shand had not been near Mr Grant’s house since you had been there last ?” (I had understood ho had promised to marry her in six weeks.) Miss Hughes showed mo a copy of a letter which she had sent to Mr Shand. I had previously remarked that it was strange behaviour that Mr Shaud had not been to see them. This copy letter was handed to me to show Mr Wilson for his opinion. The original of this letter Miss Hughes said she had sent over by one of Grant’s boys on a day when there was a party of young ladies at Mr Shaud's. Miss Hughes said she thought it would annoy him. She said she was very ungry. It was Miss Hughes who said, when she delivered me the copy letter that she wished me to “ sound ’’ Mr SLand on the subject. I told Miss Hughes that Mr Shand bad not spoken 1o us on the matter. The next week Miss Hughes culled for the copy letter, and I told her that Mr Wilson bad “ sounded” Mr Shand on the subject, and that ho grow very angry and denied it all. I saw nothing at this April visit, or on any other occasion in Mr Shandrs demeanor showing that he tats engaged to Miss Hughe?, In cross-examination witness saidi I don’t recollect Mrs Grant saying in February that Miss * Hughes was getting her wedding dress ready. I may have said to Mr Shaud in a joking way that he was a lonely bachelor, hat no reference was made to Miss Hughes. Mr Shand never told me he was going to marry Miss Hughes. I never said to >Ti«-s Hughes iu the bedroom. “ So you and Shand have mu da it up again P I thought so when I heard of you being together cm Now Tear’s Day.” Some mouth towards the end of last year Miss Hughes and Mr Grant came to my Louse. I never said to Miss Hughes that I intended to write her that Mr riband was going to he married to Miss Duncan. Alex. Bennie, who did not appear when called yesterday, was merely tendered by Mr Smith ferthe purpose of cross-examination. Mr Barton: During the time Miss Hughes was residing at your place woe Mr riband visiting her as as itoror iov r?—Not to my knowledge ;he was not courting her. Mr Barton then called James Wilson, brewer 5 1 Em married to the lady whose erideaos has bees

tend. She was not in a fit state to be brought here to be examined. I have known Mr Grant for twelve or fourteen years We have been on good Intimate visiting terms. Both my wifeand mvself have been on visiting terms with the defendant. We have been there to parties. I mver remember seeing Miss Hughes at Mr Shand’s house except on one occasion when wo took her up there. The present Mrs Grant was also there. I am under the impreebiou that it was in February last. On that occasion T. 3 Wilson told me something respect ing Mr Stand and Miss Hughes. . After what had been told mo I conld not help noticing the strange demeanor of the two towards each other. Miss Hughes was only there a short time. Mr Barton: From what you observed, could you hay whether Mr Shand appeared as an accepted Suitor of Miss Hughes ?—He did not appear to be a lover at all events. I took particular notice, and watched them very closely. With the Grants and Miss Hughes we walked home together. A good deal of chaffing went on. I think Mrs Grant and I were the principal parties in the chaffing amngement. Mr Shand was chaffed about remaining single, and I made game of him on that account. Mrs Grant said something about Mr Shnud being a “ free lover/’ I had been reading about the Shakers in America that day, and probably that wrought up the conversation about “ free lovers." Nothing was said by either Mr or Mrs Grant of an engagement between Shand and Miss Hughes. No hint was ever dropped excepting what Mrs Wilson had told him about the attachment. In April Mr Shand and I went to Mr Grant’s, and stayed there for some time in the evening. Mr Barton wished to know whether witness had had any conversation with old Mrs Shand respecting the engagement, but .Mr Smith objected on the ground that the question was unfair. . Nis Honor did not think the question admis■ibls.

Mr Barton: Aro you able to say from what passed between you and Mrs Shand’s mother that morning whether she was aware of the engagement between Mr Shand and Miss Hughes ? This question was likewise over-ruled, his Honor taking a note of it. Witness continued: In April I requested Mr Shand to drive Mrs Wilson and me to Grant’s. He did so. He saw Miss Hughes there. I had lots of conversation with her. I saw the letter produced (March 17) oh that day. I don’t recollect whether it was at Grant’s or Shand’s I saw the letter. I had conversation with my wife respecting that letter. It was taken to town. I saw Miss Hnghcs after she got the letter back—a mouth or two after. When we went over in April, I particularly watched Miss Hughes and Mr Shand. I observed more than particala 1 1- , so as to see if they were lovers. I was satisfied before that that Mr Shand did not intend to marry her. Mr Smith: So wore otheis. Witness: They did not act the least like lovers. By Mr Smith: When we visited Giant’s in Febbrnary I did not take notice of Miss Hughes and Mr _ Shand, for the purpose of forming an opinion whether they were engaged or not, I looked upon Mr Shand as a man I could take a deal of liberty with; but on this occasion he seemed to resent my chaff, and gave me pretty hard replies. I don’j remember anything being mentioned that night about a widow at Green Island with a brick house in town, which would be convenient when he was married. I know who you refer to. Mrs Shand has also known her fur a considerable time. Other Indies’ names were mentioned that night t® whom Mr Shand might be married at any time. Mr Smith: Oh, he’s a man of such vast importance and means that he could buy a wife at • ny time.

Cross-examination: lam quite certain Mrs Grant diet not say that night, “Oj, it is no good teasiag Mr Shaud about the widow; he’s got a younger wife, and not a widow.” Mr Shaud did not behave like a lover. I have seen him behave like a lover to -his present wife. This was before he was married. Mr Smith: I suppose so. I hope it may continue. Witness: And so do I.—(Laughter.) I fancy Mr Shand was paying his addresses to Miss Duncan a year or tws ago. I have never heard it mentioned that he was refused by Miss Duncan. The present Mrs Shand is my niece. I have a doubt whether the letter of March 17 is the one Miss Hughes showed me.

Re-examined: It was both before and after Miss Duncan went to California that I saw Mr Shand making love to her. Barbara Shand: I am the mother of the defendant and live at Green Island. I never heard of an engagement between my son and Miss Hughes. My eon always made me a confidante on matters of that IdnJ. He made mo his confidante before the 13th November, 1871. In consequence of that I entered into conversation with some one. It was not with Mias [Hughes. From that correspondence something resulted, i [Mr Smith’s objections to the line of examination were sustained.] I have been at my son’s house as chaperone to his parties. Ho gave more than I should like to have in my house. I have seen. young ladies there—some residents from the Taieri Plain, Dnnedin, and Fort Chalmers. I never saw Miss Hughes there. By Mr Smith.- I never knew that my son was well acquainted with Miss Hughes. He never mentioned her name to mo. I am quite satisfied no never mentioned her name to me. He never told me about meeting Miss Hughes at the "old place.” _ [Letter read ] I was not aware of any such intimacy as this letter implies between my sou and Miss Hughes. The last time I presided at my son’s house was in September or October last. It was at a sale of cattle, and about 200 sat down. Ido not recollect presiding at my son’s house between January 1, 1874, or September, 1875. I think I have been there when there were a few friends. I remember being there between tho.-e dates with Mrs John Stephenson and some others nrom town. Mrs Gall was there, Ou that occasion I stayed for a day or two. Jessie Proudfoot, residing in Dunedin, said she had known the Shand family ever since she was a chud. She was on terms of great friendship with Miss Shand. She had been to parties at Mr Shand’s house, and used to go out there when there were not parties with Miss Shand. She had been out there for days together before the parties took place. She hod never seen Miss Hughes at any of those parties. Witness had been at parties when young ladies were there. One New Year’s Day he gave a large party. She was at it; so was the present Mrs Shand. The latter went for a drive with Mr Shand that day. Miss can went to Cal'fornia before November 13, 1874. Witness had correspondence with Miss Duncan while she was in California. Cross-examined: Miss Duncan was an intimate mend of mine before she went away. Did she inform you if she was engaged before she loft Dunedin? [This was objected to by defendants counsel, but ultimately al'owcd.] I don’t think she was engaged, I am sure she was not. Miss Mary Shand's evidence brought the defendant s case to a close.

Mr Stout proceeded to address the jury. He finished at 3 p.m., and was followed by Air Smith in a very powerful speech for the plaintiff, in which he characterised the case for the defendant as‘|rne of the most dastardly defences that ever disgraced a court of justice,” and said ho would press for ample damages “to punish tho man who inspired such a dastardly of Miss H« W ghes a ” empted * U cross-exain mation

[Left sitting.]