OUT OF STEP

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10607, 4 June 1920, Page 6

OUT OF STEP

DANCERS DISAGREE THEATRICAL BREACH OF PROMISE CASE. •' DAISY AND SYDNEY YATES. Damages in the amount of £2OOO are being sued for in the First Civil Court, Sydney, before Mr Justice Mann and a jury of six, by Ellen Maingay Daniels, a theatrical artist and dancer, known as- Daisy Yates, fAm Sydney C'ulverhouse, also a theatrical artist and dancer, known as Sydney Yates, for alleged breach of promise of marriage. Plaintiff alleges that in Juno, 1917, she and defendant verbally agreed to marry each other. In October, 1918, the defendant verbally again promised to marry her. She was always ready and willing to marry him, but defendant had neglected and refused to ‘ marry her within a reasonable time, or at all. About December, 1919, the defendant repudiated his agreement to marry plaintiff, and became engaged to marry another lady. Defendant denied that he had made either of the alleged prom isos. He said he was, as plaintiff well knew at the date of the latter alleged promise, engaged to marry Mias Maggie Dickinson, a theatrical dancer, and that if he made that promise it was conditional upon his engagement to Miss Dickinson "being broken off, but that engagement was not broken off, and still subsisted. Defendant denied that he was engaged to tho plaintiff. THE PARTNERSHIP. Mr Hogan, in opening plaintiff’s case, said that the parties met in Paris in 1914. Plaintiff was then a married woman, and- had been deserted by her husband. At plaintiff’s suggestion defendant was engaged to bo her dancing partner at the Moulin Rouge, and he adopted her stage name Yates. Afterwards they entered into joint theatrical contracts as Daisy and Sydney Yates, performing always in one “turn,” and forming one theatrical unit, the joint pay being £l4 to £2O a week. While in England they became very friendly, and in 1915 decided that they would get married when plaintiff’s husband had been divorced. In 1916 plaintiff got a divorce in Melbourne from her husband for desertion by him. At the end of 1918 the two were separated as dancers. That formed the subject of another law action initiated by plaintiff. Yielding to persuasion, defendant had consented to cease ■ dancing with plaintiff, and to take as his dancing partner Miss Maggie Dickinson. In a letter sent by defendant to plaintiff, he described himself- as “a very desperate and worried man.” He referred to a breach that was likely to occur to prevent Maggie Dickinson and him dancing together. Defendant continued by saying he was “bound. tightly by a cord of honour to; two women,’’ and asked plaintiff to hear the appeal of his sorrow, and “get work.” (Laughter.) At the end of 1919 ho became engaged to Maggie Dickinson, and the engagement was publicly announced in society papers, and not contradicted by him. Plaintiff than took legal action for the recovery of damages. Pfainltiff, continuing her evidence, said that up t« the time she secured a divorce from her husband there had not been any improper intimacy between defendant and herself. After that there was, commencing in October, 1916. Defendant said they were going to be married. BROTHER OR LOVER ? In 1919 defendant said there was no truth in tho rumour of his engagement to Miss Dickinson, and he publicly contradicted it. She received some photography from defendant. One of these was endorsed. “To tho world I was your brother; teto a tet© I was your lover. If your tongue I could smother, there would never he* another.” Another was endorsed, “From the biggest' damned nuisance, with the heart of gold. I love you and shall never forget you. From the rotter, Syd.” Plaintiff, continuing, said that she rang up defendant in Sydney in August, 1919, and said that she wanted him to come back. Defendant replied that he could not possibly do so. a fi he intended to marry Miss Dickinson. Witness did not believe him. Defendant was ton months younger than she. They had stayed at tho sumo hotels in Pans and in South Africa and Australia. It was thought ©thing of to receive friends in “tho profession” in one’s bedroom. Sho had commenced this action because sho loved defendant, and had hoped thus to force him to marry her. Her motive was not jealousy or revenge. She still loved defendant, and would marry him. THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE. Sydney Culverhouse, tho defendant, stated in evidence that there was a quarrel between him and plaintiff in October, 1918, through • plaintiff having, when ho was at Chatsworth, Potts Point, with Miss Dickinson/ burst into the room, and caused scenes there. Plaintiff asked him whether, in tho event of his engagement to Miss Dickinson being broken off, ho would not really care what happened. Ho therefore promised that m that event ho , would marry plaintiff. She asked him to write a letter to that effect that sho might take away to America for her own satisfaction. Ho said he would do so. As he did not know whether it was to bo worded as a business transaction or otherwise, he asked her how it should be started. Sho said, “Put Dear Daisy.” He set that down, and then wrote the promise straight ahead. Then she asked him, “Will you take your Masonic oath to marry me?” He said. “I swear on my Masonic oath,” and wrote that. Then he signed tho pro r mieo. ' Cross-examined by Mr Hogan, defendant said he had heard his 'counsel describe plaintiff as. his (defendant’s) “rejected mistress.” That was nob his (defendant’s) expression, but ho certainly had said plaintiff wag suing him out of revenge. The ease stands partly heard.