WOMAN CLAIMS £l0,000

Hokitika Guardian, 1 March 1922, Page 4

WOMAN CLAIMS £lo,ooo

ALLEGED BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY..

TRIAL OPENS AT WELLINGTON

WELLINGTON, Feb. 27. Onje of New Zealand’s biggest breach ; of promsie actions in view of the damages claimed, £IO,OOO, commenced at the Supreme Court to-day before his Honor Air Justice H.osking. The parties are Eileen Frances Tate, formerly in business in the city as a beauty specialist, plaintiff, and George Winder, gentleman, defendant. The body of. the Court was crowded when the case opened and the women’s gallery was very interested. M,r T. -U. Wil-

ford appeared for the plaintiff and Mr A, Gray, K.C., with him Mr J. G. Watson, for the defendant. The .statement of. claim was brief, setting out in half a dozen paragraphs the main allegations of plaintiff, i.e., that she and Vpnder had agreed in June last to marry; that she had sold her business, stock and goodwill in the following month; that she had spent £IOO in clothing suitable for the delebration of the wedding, and that in November Winder refused to go on with the wedding. Her claim was made un of £I,OOO damages for loss on sale of the business, £IOO in respect of trousseau, and £OOOO for loss of marriage and injury to her feelings. Plaintiff, said Mr Wilford, in opening the case, was formerly a toilet specialist in Lambton Quay and defendant was a gentleman possessed of considerable property. In June, 1021, plaintiff and, defendant agreed to marry but on November 9 defendant refused to carry out the contract and broke off tjhe engagement. Counsel said he hoped to j trove that in a slim, almost sly and artful way defendant was moving for a smash from October 15, which would he the date on which counsel proposed to rely. On October 15 defendant started to build a castle of prejudice against plaintiff which assumed enormous proportions prior to the break. Plaintiff’s business had been a payable one and it was safe to say that she made £5 a week clear out ol it. At Winder’s request, one of the first, made to her, she had given up business. “He was a wealthy man,” remarked .Mr Wilford, “who did not want her to work for a living. At that time he wanted her —-and 1 believe he was genuine in his affections, and she in hers —to get out of the shop, stop till kinds of trade in which sin' was interested, and he his and his alone. She agreed.” Having sold her business plaintiff had nothing to do, Win-

der, who was paying her constant attention, meeting her regularly, taking her out and behaving as others heliayc and as one hopes they always will. They did not want these things to b j run on commercial lines. Hie result was that she had nothing to do except pass tho time between her collage at Lyall Dav and keeping him company. Air Will old stated that plaintiff spent about £IOO in preparing her trousseau, not an extravagant amount for a girl to spend on her trousseau when she was going to marry a wealthy man. Defendant admitted that ho was engaged to plaintiff, but bis defence was that he had never broken off the engagement, a clever defence, commented Mr AVillord, because while all letters prove that he agreed to marry he naturally did not put anything into writing to show that ho had broken the engagement off. Correspondence would show plainly that there was genuine affection between the two. Like all correspondence in breach of promise cases with which counsel had ever had anything to do, it was to a certain extent what as a matter of fact the world would call “sloppy.” (Laughter.) All through Winder had carefully saved himself along certain lines. He never had fixed an actual date, but all along had mentioned that the wedding would come off soon. He had instructed the lady to interview a Presbyterian parson and ask how long it would be necessary for him to reside at Palmerston North, where the ceremony was to taiie place, before the wedding, and a form was obtained 1 from the registrar hut never a date was fixed.

The correspondence, letters and telegrams, would he difficult indeed for the jury to follow, said Mr Wilford, for the reason that both plaintiff and defendant frequently signed the same name. Winder’s signatures were several: “Blarney,” “Georgie,” “True Blue,” “ Fluffems,” “Georgie,” “G. Storey” and “ Mac Leary.” The 1 signature “ Storey ’ was used by both, except that lie was “G. Storey” and she was “D. Storey.” The origin of that name, Counsel explained, was that on ono occasion defendant had asked plaintiff to pose before some of his friends as my niece, Miss Storey. That she had done. At times Winder referred to Miss Tate as his private secretary, for, said counsel, he had arranged that she was to have 6d per hour all the year round, though she never got it. “Ho Avas not a good giver,” said Mr Wilford, “though on ono occasion lie did give her £2O with a promise that if she did not spend it she could let him have it back. He wag fairly close.” In letters Winder was particularly strong on religion and poetry, and one of his favourite scriptural lines was “Whom the Lord loveth He Chastiseth.” He referred to Miss Tate in various terms—“ Fan-ay.” “ Fair One,” “ Little Fraud,” ami “Someone with a childlike a;ir ami saucy dimple.” (Laughter). Contributing counsel said that although Winder give Miss Tate no presents, not even an engagement ring till very late and then one which he had apparently had on hand, since it Avas very much too large, still be treated her to many motor rides. The engage-

meiit, when there was an engagement, was conotealed by Winder from his friends and when later he went to see plaintiff at Polmertson North he used to write first to ask if the const was clear. The engagement he admitted, yet it had been practically unknown to his immediate friends. He had proposed again and again to Miss Tate. Tt was not till June that she accepted him, following a proposal at her business rooms. At the beginning of September he sent Miss Tate to Palmerston North to stAy at the Commercial Hotel with a mutual friend, the intention being that he should visit her during the week-end, while he stayed at the Club Hotel. Three weeks' of September v. re gone, but there was ho jiiove ‘ on the part of Winder beyond

constant references to the wedding in his letters. The vital point of fixing the clay was never settled, said counsel, and on October Ith he dodged again. Truly he was an artful dodger. Meantime Miss Tate was beginning to wonder if Winder wanted to get out of marriage and was worried indeed. .She had sold her business and had £2lO in the blink. She was paying her own way and was fast coming to the end ol her resources. Then a, niece of plaintiff’s was to be married at Napier to a Roman Catholic and Aliss Tate was asked to lie bridesmaid. Both Miss Tate and Winder and the niece were Protestants and Winder had a rabid detestation of Roman Catholicism. That feeling was expressed in letters to Aliss Tate, and though lie sent a travelling hag to the Napier bride he wrote to Miss Tate two days before the wedding expressing a hope that she “would not be affected by the Mick business.” ALiss Tate acted as bridesmaid and wrote to “My dear Georgia” stating that the wedding hail goiio off splendidly, and though weddings had their drawbacks there was nothing like gaining experience. That wedding, said Air AVilford, opened up trouble. Winder wrote expressing himself as grievously disappointed that Aliss Tate should have taken it leading part’ in such a ceremony. Her conduct, lie wrote, vas entirely aginst his principles and he concluded by saying that he doubted whether ho knew what Aliss l ate s convictions were partTcnlnrlly in view of the fact that she had not gone to church at Palmerston. In that letter he suggested that her sympathies were with Roman Catholicism, and he ended his letter “t now remain your disappointed C.eorgio Blue.” The honeymoon tour, Air AVilford explained, was to begin with a trip to Wanganui, then to Australia, and then to the North of Ireland. Counsel detailed the tentative arrangements made by Winder for the occupation of his house during his absence. His prejudice against Roman Catholicism was the subject of a conversation he had had with Airs Afacleay, to whom lie stated he had intended to make plaintiff independent for life, hut “now he would sooner commit suicide than go on with the wedding, for he would 'turn in his grave if his money were to go to Catholics.” He threatened to commit suicide then and there, but Airs MaeIp ay advised him to go down on his knees and ask -for guidance. Before plaintiff took ill she saw Winder, who side-stepped the question of marriage. Plaintiff drew attention to the fact Chat she had not received a ring, and rings were exchanged for the purpose of securing the size. On five nights in November Winder sat with plaintiff, and every time lie introduced the question of religion. Plaintiff was brow-beaten on the religious question. Winder played with plaintiff, fondled and kissed her.

and then tired of her or else the other question loomed bigger than ever. After the final break the girl was heart-brok-en. Everything for her had gone. AH promises had been broken. Winder finally admitted to her that lie had finished with her—that - all was off. On the question of damages. ?Jr AVilford said it depended upon the ciicumstanees of the case and upon the wealth of defendant. Defendant was a wealthy man, just how wealthy they could sec when he entered the witness box. Mr AVilford concluded by referring to a. letter which Winder said lie had sent to plaintiff immediately after the final break, hut which P.aintiff never received. It was, said counsel, a. clever letter, AVinder was no fool. It commenced by suggesting that plaintiff had given hiln a hostile reception, and I thought it better to clear. I had had better not call again until invited. I will ho pleased to see you at the office, and there are several matters I would like to discuss with von.—Geor-

gie.” Counsel alleged that that letter was a pure and simple fake. It had never been received by plaintiff. Had it been received a. different story might have been told. It was a faked letter for the purposes of the case now befor e the Court. Plaintiff, aged thirty, gave evidence on the lines indicated above. THE DEFENCE OPENS. AVELLINGTON, Feb. 28. Tho breach of promise case Tate v. Winder was continued at the Supreme Court to-day. Due o\witness told how one night in October, AVinder talked of suicide because plaintiff had taken part fn a ceremony of marriage in the Catholic Church. Plaintiff’s ease is closed.

Mr Gray opening for tho defence, said that it was certainly a remarkable thing for a young and attractive young woman, who should be able to do- very well for herself in a matrimonial market, to ask the jury to endow her witli a fortune at the expense of a gentleman old enough to be her father.