BREACH OF PROMISE

Hokitika Guardian, 28 February 1931, Page 2

BREACH OF PROMISE

MR G. O. BLACK M.P., SUED. (By Telegraph —Per Press Association) WELLINGTON, February 27. Further evidence in regard to the breach of promise case was brought today by Edna May Bartlett, spinster, of Wellington, against G. C. Black, of Motueka. The Chief Justice (Sir M. Myers).is, on the Bench. The claiiii is for £IOOO. Opening the case, Mr Gray, K.C., said the parties became acquainted at the Government Hostel at Waitomo in 1926, while Black was a clerk there, and plaintiff waitress. They were thrown a great deal into one another’s company, and became quite attached. So much so, that Black proposed marriage in January, T 927, and was accepted. He was still clerk at' the hostel, and his prospects not bright, although he was an ambitious young man, and, as would be shown, possessed considerable ability and energy. His idea was that they should, get married when his prospects improved, and he could get on hotel, he was, counsel thought, very fond of- the girl, and she was certainly fond of him In 1926, said Mr Gray, Block was a committee clerk during the sessions of Parliament. Counsel read a number of affectionate letters written to plaintiff, between June and the end of the session. Afterwards, Black returned to Waitomo, and they became for* mally engaged in January, 1027. The state of his feelings was disclosed In a! letter to her father. He asked for the loan of £2.3 to buy the engagement ring. The father replied that the idea did not appeal to him, and he advocated postponing the marriage till defendant’s prospects were brighter. The cold touch from the father apparently did .not suppress defendant’s ardour. More than once, the parties visited Hamilton, and Black priced a ring there. As the time approached for Black to come to Wellington for the sessions in 1927, he said he hated' the idea of leaving her behind, and it was arranged that she should- come to Wellington. He took 'her ,t 0 his aunt’s house, and introduced her as bis. affianced bride. She took employment in various shops, and one afternoon defendant took her for a walk in Central Park, and gave her a ring, which he said had belonged to- bis,"mother. She later spent , some months in Mar. tinborough. Letters passed between them, and on her return, the same affectionate relationship existed between them.

CASE FOR PLAINTIFF. Counsel traversed Mr Black’s - ambition to become a Member of Parliament, and his accomplishment of his desire, Counsel said that after his election Mr Black had introduced plain, tiff to members as the lady bo -was going to marry, and she was received and accepted as his intended wife, Sometimes she sat in the gallery re* served for the wives ‘of members, through a special arrangement by Black. Mr Gray went on to say. that soon afterwards the plaintiff went to Auckland, parting. on affectionate terras,. Mr Black was not at; the station to meet her on her return as. promised. She was loth to think that ■ he had forgotten. He explained later that he had thought she was coming by another train. On August 2S, ho' had failed to meet her after the House, adjourned. He subsequently explained . that ft friend had taken him to’ 1 Bellamy’s. She still thought in October that he was obsessed by Parliamentary duties, and had not lost affection for her. She was wearing his ring, and. was preparing for the wedding directly the session was over. However, defendant left for .the West Coast. He did not write to her, nor did she write to him. She looked forward to the 1930 session to resume an affectionate relationship, but she got the shock of her life on opening u newspaper on the morning of June 27, to find that lie had married the previous evening. The name of the bride was not stated. Her friends naturally thought it was she. She had to endure numerous inquiries for a long time. She returned the ring to defendant’s father, and wrote to him setting out the position. She was advised later to see a lawyer, and did so, and there proceedings were then taken.

Mr Gray, for plaintiff, suggested that defendant's conduct had been very remarkable. One would have thought, he said, that if he had tired of the association with plaintiff, he would have had the manliness to indicate in some definite way that he had changed in liis feelings toward her, and would rot have allowed her to go on and t' ink she was going to be his wife. It might not have been an easy task, but it would have softened the blow which ultimately fell. Counsel said he would d>aw attention to the fact that the original statement of the defence was simply a denial that lie had offered marriage. After the discovery of the documents in the case, it must have been obvious that the defence of no engagement could not stand, and so a fresh defence was filed as recently as the 20th of this month. The alternative defence was, counsel suggested, an afterthought. Plaintiff gave evidence. It was along the lines of Mr Gray's opening remarks Continuing her evidence the plaintiff said that she got a very big shock when she saw the announcement of Mr Black's wedding in the “Dominion.” She had heard nothing whatever to lead her to believe that be was paying attention to another girl.

PLAINTIFF CROSS-EXAMINED. When cross-examined by Mr O’Leary, the witness said that the next step that she took after hearing of the defendant’s marriage was a letter she Wrote to the defendant’s father, on August' ; 21 Mr O’Leary:—“Returning the ring which had belonged to George Black’s mother?” Witness: —“Yes.” ; Mr O’Leary :—“The next communication was-, a solicitor’s letter on December 6?” ; s ' Witness.:— “Yee”! Mr O’Leary:—“Did you desire to have the proceedings .taken to get damages, or show .him .up ?” Witness:—“Well—to show him up!” Mr O’Leary:—“Ruin him if you could?” Witness:—“No—not exactly; but to let everybody know, how he had treated me.” ... SIX MONTHS’ ABSENCE. Mr O’Leary:—“lt took . you sir months to make up you mind to do that?” Witness: —“Yes.”

Counsel then questioned the plaintiff about her failure to communicate with Mr Blnclc during the long period that she was in Carterton and Wellington. “After a month or two, why didn’t you communicate with him?” asked Mr O’Leary, Witness:—“l was waiting for him to communicate with me.” Counsel: —“Another month went by, and did your attitude change?” Witness:—“No.” Counsel;—“Did .you love him,” Witness ; —‘Yes, very much.” Coumel; —“Mr Black did not make a change of religion a condition of his relationship with you, did he?” Witness;—“He did .say. that ho thought the world of me, hut he thought more of his religion; and that, if I entered his religion, we would be happier in our married life.”

Mr O’Leary said that the defence would be that the change in demeanour fiy the plaintiff was more evident than that of the defendant. Counsel mentioned Mr Black’s surprise on his finding that the plaintiff bad left Wellington, and that she was not at her mother’s in Auckland, but was at Carterton. By -her failure to keep an appointment, she had walked out of his life’ The cessation of the .correspondence at least from August showed , that the engagement had terminated.' Counsel mentioned their quarrel on due night that they went to the pictures, the plaintiff having asserted'that the defendant left the theatre without her: because lie'was so proud that he was afraid that the Gov-ernor-General, Sir Charles Ferguson, who'; was at. the performance, would see • them -Together, That, combined with her . retreat to Wairarapa, led to the quarrel, and to their leaving each other without saying “Good night.” In explaining a post script which she had sent him subsequently, counsel said that it contained the words: “What does this mean? Defeat or victory and the first step to Premiership?” . The Court adjourned until Monday morning. ~ -■