AMOROUS ADVENTURES OF CONSTANCE DYER

NZ Truth, Issue 1143, 27 October 1927, Page 5

AMOROUS ADVENTURES OF CONSTANCE DYER

Clewer Thought Her Sweetest Little Waitress In Sweetshop

AT one period this was the position m which Constance Evelyn Dyer and Sydney Clewer, of Wellington, found themselves. Since then both have passed through troubled waters. Sydney's father has a refreshment and sweets shop m Willis Street, Wellington, and it was there the couple met, Connie being employed to dispense tea and soft drinks to thirsty people. This was m 1925 and 1926. Connie subsequently found herself m a certain condition and wished to saddle Sydney with the responsibility. Some months ago she took him to the Magistrate's Court to have him adjudged the father of her child. But her application for an affiliation order failed. Not satisfied with this decision, Connie took the matter to a higher court. It was a feature of the proceedings that just as strenuous as were the girl's assertions that Clewer was the father of her child, so was there a complete denial on his part. Last week the whole case was again threshed out before Mr. Justice MacGregor m the Supreme Court, when several new witnesses for the appellant were brought forward. With dark brown eyes to accentuate her pale features, the girl offered an attractive picture as she stood m the witness-box, attired m a dark costume and broad-brimmed hat.

She gave her evidence clearly and stood up to the gruelling crossexamination of defendant's counsel with fortitude.

To Lawyer Jackson, her counsel, Connie stated that she first went to work for Clewer's father m August, 1925. She later became friendly with the young man and misconduct occurred. It was early m July, 1926, that she first became aware of the fact that she was m a certain condition and she spoke to her lover about it on July 5. He said there was only one thing to do and that was to get married. "I told my mother what was wrong," said Connie, "and she wanted to see Clewer. He said I should not have told her." She went down to the shop and told him, taking him back to Perretfs corner, where her mother was waiting-.

Promised Marriage

Sydney had then stated that he would marry her, but m answer to her mother's question as to whether this desirable state of affairs could be reached within a week, he said the marrfage could not take place for a fortnight. She then left her mother and went to 'the pictures with him, it having been arranged that the wedding should take place at the registry office on July 28. The day after this meeting her mother broke her leg and was admitted to hospital. She visited her Ihere m company with Clewer. They were at the hospital together on July 28 and her mother wanted to know if they had been married. She told her mother they had not, as Clewer's father had called up the registry office and cancelled the arrangements on account of Mrs. Dyer being m hospital. He thought it was not the right thing to get married when her mother was ill, affirmed Connie. Sydney bought her the engagement ring on August 2. "He bought a cluster ring the first time," said Connie, "and I did not like it. "We both went to the shop then, and I waited whilst he changed it. He came out and told me to go and choose one myself." To Lawyer Jackson, she said it cost £9/15/-. There was a sale on at the time. It was on August 20 that Clewer encountered her at Island Bay with Mullis. She had met him outside the hospital, where he was ah out-patient. Mullis had asked her to go for a run out to the Bay with him. He had business there and was coming straight back. Sydney had said, if she did not give the ring back he would go to Mrs. Mullis. "I gave it back to him," she said. Counsel: How do you know it was on August 20?— Because it was the day the schools broke up. During the next three weeks she met Sydney two or three times a week. She saw him until September 15, when her mother came out of hospital. Their meetings then were not so frequent. , , .. i However, she remained perfectly friendly with Clewer and m October she went into the confectionery business which Mullis financed at Hataitai.

Mullis was to pay her £2 a week and a half-share m whatever profits were made m the business. Clewer used to come and see her, and misconduct continued. He generally stayed until about 9.30 p.m. About a fortnight before she went into the nursing home, she 'phoned Clewer and told him. She went m under the name of Mrs. Clewer.

Counsel: Why did you use that name? — Because I was known as Mrs. Clewer for some time before that.

What name did you use ajt Hataitai? — I used the name of Dennis there. This was the name she had used when her first baby was born at Palmerston North m 1925.

Clewer came to see her four or five times, and later the nurse wanted to

Keeping Company

know who was going to pay the expenses. . Counsel: Was there any mention of marriage? — Nurse Cronin wanted him to marry me at the home. He said he would think it over. After Connie came out of hospital and was staying with her sister-in-law at Berhampore, Clewer came to see her and talked the matter over. He said there was only one of throe things to do. Either get married, have the child adopted or have, it maintained. "I said to him," remarked Connie, " 'Are you going to get married?' and he said: 1 refuse to answer that."' He would neither admit nor deny th*t. the child Avas his. Counsel: Did he ever suggest that anyone else was the father of the child? — No, he did not. He kept company with her after that right up to within two days of the lower court hearing. He told her he thought she had played him a mean trick by going out with him and at the same time serving him with a summons. "He could see," said Connie, "that if he went into the witnessbox and told the truth ho would not win the case." Since the case was heard on July 11 she had met him at Perrett's corner. It was one day m August when she rang him up and asked for the return of her photographs, as he had no further use for them. To her counsel, Connie admitted that she knew Mullis and that he was the father of her child born m Palmerston North, 1925. After then she went to Auckland to live with lwr mother. In June, 1925, she came back to Wellington. Connie located the time she met Mullis again by saying that it was a month after August 28, 1925. He came into Clewer's shop for a cup of tea and was on crutches. That was the first time he knew she was working there. He came several times, but later the visits ceased. She met him again m the following February and stood talking m the street with him for a few moments. Counsel: Did he know you were going with Clewer? Did he know you were Clewer's girl? — Yes, I told him. When did you next see Mullis again? — Not till the following July. I. met him outsidje the hospital. Why did you get out of the Aro Street tram at Dixon Street that night and get into Mullis' car? — He had n parcel of clothes belonging to me. I saw his car standing m Dlxon Street and then come down into Willis Street. Questioned concerning her search for a confectionery business, Connie stated that she went to Large and Co., followingl upon an .advertisement she had seen m the paper.

Connie Under Fire

Counsel: "Were you bearing m mind that Mullis had said at Palmerston North that he would put you into a business? — Maybe that was the case, but I had not seen Mullis or put the matter to him. Mullis paid £150 for the business. She had no money. Connie's' cross-examination at the hands of Lawyer J. B. Dolan proved to be a trying ordeal, but she stood up to it well. Lawyer Dolan: When did the first act of impropriety occur between you and Clewer? — I could not say. Can you give me a single date when such occurrences took place? — No, I don't remember. Where did these alleged acts occur? — In his room at the shop. Didn't you approach Mullis m May, 1926, about putting you into a business? — No, I did not. You were working for Mullis' wife when he first betrayed you, were you not? — Yes. Did you have any photograph of yourself taken with Mullis 1 baby? — No, I never saw the baby after it was a fortnight old. Did you tell him you were going to marry a soft boy m the shape of Clewer? — I certainly did not. Didn't Mullis ever take you out for a drive m his car? — Just before the baby was born he took me for a few drives. About this engagement of yours m June? — It wasn't m June. Clewer swears that it was m June? — I swear that it was on August 2. When you were out driving with Mullis, did he ever put his arm round you? — He could not do that and drive the car, too. Oh, but he might- stop occasionally? — Oh, but he didn't stop occasionally. When did you know Clewer had money of his own? — It was before July. Yes, he loaned your mother £20 ?— Yes, and got her jewellery as security. To Lawyer Dolan, Connie said she called herself Mrs. Clewer when she went to see Large and Co. m June, 1926, about a business. Gbunsel questioned her at some length regarding her meeting with Clewer, as she said, m the Botanical

Supreme Court Judge Hears Fresh Evidence, But Decides Against Girl

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Wellington Representative.) It Was m the springtime of youth that he wooed and won her. They loved with ardor. Finally they became engaged and life took on a joyous hue. But the shadow of an earlier indiscretion on the girl's part cast itself upon their happiness and he thrust her from him.

Gardens" before the case came on m the lower court.

Her statements, she declared, concerning what Clewer had said, were perfectly' true. Counsel: Did he cuddle you on these occasions ? — No. Not at all? — Only when we parted. And since then you say you have been out with him? — I told you what I went with him for. He was untruthful before and I wanted to trap him this time. Oh, 1 see, you wanted to trap him. Was that your object all along? — It | might have been. Lawyer Dolan: "The old dodge ot iEve, eh!" And you say Mullis never cuddled you m the car? — No. • I suppose he "would go anywhere for you? — I couldn't say. Which is the softer of the :wo? Mullis or Clewer? — I don't know. Have you been out m the car with Mullis since the Magistrate's Court hearing? — No.

Why wasn't Mullis called as a witness m the lower court? — I don't know. It was none of my business. Mullis said Mr. Jackson knew what he was doing. "I quite agree with you. Mr. Jackson always does know what he is doing." The letter from Mullis, which her mother had forwarded to Mrs. Mullis, was not sent, she asserted, with the object of Mullis getting a divorce so that be could marry her. To Lawyer Jackson, Connie said Clewer showed her a photograph of himself when he was 16. It. was sent out to him from a gir! m the Old Country. On the back was: "Show this to your wife; 3he might like it." The reference she received, from Clewer had been given her after she had left — not as a joke while she was employed at the shop. When Connie's mother entered the box to corroborate her daughter's atory, she went through the incidents leading up to the engagement and afterwards.

Referring to their meeting m Manners Street, she declared Clewer was "an absolute liar if he denies the meeting," and she glared at the defendant from the box.

Lawyer Jackson : Did he ever come to the hospital to see you when you were there? — Yes, he did. He always kissed me when he came with Connie. Kissed you? — Yes. It was the

proper thing to do, as I was his future mother-in-law. To Lawyer Dolan, witness said Connie had told her afterwards that there was a conditional promise on the part of Clewer that he would marry her if anything: went wrong. Counsel: White your daughter was the potential mother of Clewer'a child, you and she were making arrangements with Mujlis about a business? — I was not. Mullis is a rotter! And I suppose Hermansson is a rotter, too? — Yes. "And who else?" There were two others, Mrs. Dyer said. Lawyer Dolan: "I see. There were four rotters — two m the family. We men are getting a rough spin!" Was Hermansson like a friend or a husband? — He was more like a husband than a friend. There's a distinction with a difference, Mr. Dolan. ! (Laughter.) You knew Clewer had money? — Yes. He lent you £20, didn't he?— Yes, but I don't call that money.

I You don't call £20 money? — No. Well, it's a tot to some of us. What do you call money? — Oh, about £2000! Lawyer Dolan suggested that Mrs. Dyer had given Mrs. Mullis the letter with the idea that she might divorce her husband. This m turn would allow Connie to marry him. "I'd sooner see my daughter m her coffin than' married to Mullis, even if he had thousands and thousands!" replied witness. Didn't you think it -your duty as a mother to stop your daughter from going out with this Clewer — this betrayer of your daughter? — No, I didn't. Lawyer Jackson had something to say to witness concerning "this plot" to get Mrs. Mullis to divorce his wife. The witness did not want her daughter to marry him. "Mullis!" she said, "Mullis! I wouldn't use Mullis for a doormat; I've more respect for my boots!" Ethel Wallace, sister-in-law to Connie Dyer, detailed how — on the morning the baby was born — she rang Clewer. She described subsequent events. To Lawyer Dolan she said that only once had she seen Mullis and that was at the shop at Hataitai when she went to deliver a message. Who sent you and what was the message? — I don't know. Is the rest of your evidence as true as that? — No answer.

Was it Mrs. Dyer who sent you out to Mullis? — I haven't spoken to her for three years.

Was it Miss Dyer? — I can't remember.

And you don't know what you went there for? — No. Mullis gave me 2/- to buy something for Connie m the nursing home. Fruit or cake or whatever she liked. Connie sent it back again. Lawyer Jackson: "It is really quite true, is it, that you can't remember what you went for?"

His Honor: "It would be a pity to cast doubt upon it now, Mr. Jackson."

Nurse Cronin, who controlled the nursing home to which Connie went, said she entered the place as Mrs. Clewer.

To Lawyer Jackson, witness said she sent for Clewer when she found out

Mullis In Box

that Connie was using an assumed name.

Clewer, when asked to marry the girl, said he thought there would be trouble over Mullis coming- between them after they were married. To Lawyer Dolan: "Clewer neither admitted nor denied being responsible for the girl's condition. "He once said he would take the child," added witness, "but I told him he could not do that unless he married the girl. She was a single girl and the baby was hers. "Miss Dyer then turned round and said to him: 'Oh, you admit your guilt, then? 1 " Counsel: You never told us this m the lower court, Nurse Cronin? — I wasn't asked. You were asked to speak the truth? — I did speak the truth. I wasn't to know what was expected of me. I thought Mr. Jackson would ask me. Edward Mullis, tall, thin and slightly bald, admitted to plaintiff's counsel the affair of 1925. He had mentioned at the time about putting Connie into some business. Counsel: After March, 1025, did you .see anything- further of Miss Dyer? — No. He next met her m September, 1925. and later m February, 1926. The next occasion was m July, 1926, at the public hospital. Twice he drove her back m the car to Courtenay Place. Lawyer Jackson: What was the dale of the Island Bay affair?— August 20. How do you know the date? — It was the night the schools broke up. Did you see her after that? — Yes, occasionally. | What made you put her m the business m October? — After Clewer turned her down. I could see she had nothing, so I thought it was up to me to stand by her, so I got the shop at Hataitai. Have you ever seen Clewer at Hataitai.?—Yes. Where did you see him? — Once I was at the back of the shop and he came m. Miss Dyer told him I was there, so he went. At the time the baby was born, the nurse rang him on the 'phone. "I told her it had nothing to do with me, but would discuss the matter if she came up to the shop." He owed Miss Dyer for six weeks wages and with £5 her mother gave him he paid the nurse. To Lawyer Dolan, Mullis said he did not correspond with Connie when she was m Auckland.

Counsel: See this letter?— Yes. Whose handwriting is it in?— Looks like Miss Dyer's. The letter read: "Dear Chum: Just a line to' let you know I received your letter and telegram. I do _n,ot quite understand your wire. "I am still staying at the home, but want to. get out as soon as I can. One.

Sleuth On Trail

thing I want to know is whether you have received your agreement with Egley." Counsel: Who is Egley?— The person who took the other baby. Continuing- with the letter: "... Well, I am very sorry to hear we missed you when you stayed the extra day. . . I am wishing I would recall time to about six months back and be where I was then. . .. "Well, dear, it will be one year next month since your greatest wish came true. . . I feel sorry for you to be m the position you are. I think I guess right when I guess you often long to . be free. . . "Yours as ever, "Kidd." Lawyer Dolan: Did you call her "Kidd" and is that what she signed herself? — Evidently. You were m Auckland? — Yea, but I didn't see her. Other letters between Mullis and Miss Dyer were also handed m, Mrs. Mullis having found them m her husband's pocket. Counsel: Have the girl's feelings changed since these letters? — Yes, they have. Shortly afterwards. Did afty cuddling occur since these trips round the bays?— No, certainly not. Can you imagine anyone on a Sunday afternoon being on the side of the road cuddling? Did you suggest going 50-50 with Clewer m the expenses? — No. You expect everyone to believe that nothing at all familiar took place between you and the girl during 192G? —No. Have you ever given Mrs. Wallace 2/- for fruit for Miss Dyer? — I cannot recollect having done so. I might have given her 2/- for lollies for her children. Lawyer Dolan wanted to know if a witness named Symons had ever taken Connie to the pictures. "I'm not m the habit of taking girls to the pictures," replied Symons with emphasis. Lawyer Dolan: There's nothing wrong with that? — Yes, there is. I have a girl at Home. "And you never took her out walking?" again asked counsel, referring to Connie. "No, certainly not," was the retort. When did you know of anything

wrong between Clewer and Miss Dyer? — After the lower court proceedings. And you never saw Miss Dyer alone or took her out? — No, I haven't; I've told you that' before.

There's nothing wrong with that?— Well, I think so. Connie's next witness, Samuel Free, an elderly inquiry agent, said he saw Clewer and Miss Dyer m August of this year. He followed them on the Terrace and then to the gardens. On September 6 of this year he also followed the couple from the same spot to the gardens.

To Lawyer Dolan, witness said he did not know that Connie, had a brother the same Size and build as Clewer.

Is your eyesight good? —

Counsel' Yes.

Isn't it possible you made a mistake? —No.

Have you ever made a mistake? — Perhaps I have. I would be a remarkable man if 1 didn't. When Lawyer Dolan placed his client m the box, Clewer denied the allegations of familiarity on his part with Miss Dyer. The episode at Island Bay occurred on August 13 — a Friday — not the 20th. He and two friends, Wallace and Clark, followed Connie and Mullis to Island Bay. „.'.'

At the time he heard Muiiis remark to Clark that he would be responsible for the girl. He admitted the engagement with Connie, which, he asserted, occurred m June. On those dates just before the lower court proceedings, he had been at his brother's house when Connie said he was out with her. To Lawyer Dolan, he said it was not correct that Free saw him with Connie on two occasions recently. Lawyer Jackson: You were particularly friendly m May and June, 1926? — Yes, that is correct. | When you took' her for trips, did you kiss her? — Yes. Put your arms round her? — Yes. He might have kissed her at the shop when saying good-night. Did you say if you didn't set the ring back you would tell Mrs. Mull is?— Yes, I did. You did tell Mrs. Multis and you got the ring back, too? — That is correct.

In Clewer's Opinion

Connie, averred Clewer, had perjured herself when she stated that she told him about her former trouble and that he promised to marry her. Mrs. Dyer was also untruthful m flower's opinion. Only Symons' friendship for the Dyers made him say that he was introduced to witness at Mrs. Dyer's house m September. The evidence of Connie and all her witnesses was false, added witness. Counsel: You are very unfortunate to have all these people coming here swearing against you? — Yes, I am, Mr. Jackson. A rather startling denouement occurred when Mrs. Mullis, a witness for the respondent, entered the box. Asked by Lawyer Jackson if she recollected the date of the 'phone call she received telling her about her husband being caught at Island Bay with Connie, she said it was the evening: before she took the children down to the train. It was a school holiday and they were going away. It would be August 20. The last witness called by the respondent was Clark, who stated that he followed Mullis and Miss ,Dyer from the hospital out to Island Bay. He had seen them together on numerous occasions, he asserted. At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Justice MacGregor intimated that he did not wish to hear either counsel, unless on a point of law, and after the luncheon adjournment he gave his decision.

The matter was an appeal for dismissal of a learned magistrate's decision, but it resolved practically into a re -hearing.

"It is not a question of agreeing with the magistrate, but of making up my mind on the evidence before me.

"The question to decide is whether respondent is the father. The evidence is conflicting and untruths have been told possibly on both sides. "The appellant seems an intelligent and fascinating young woman, but she failed to be off with the old love before she was on with the new.

"It is quite true that- I have heard additional evidence, but I do not think that is conclusive. Almost invariably additional evidence must be looked on with a certain amount of suspicion.

"I am not satisfied with the truth of the complaint, but I cannot say who is the father of the child." In his honor's opinion the appeal must fail and he dismissed it.