STRANGE ADVENTURE.

Otaki Mail, 20 March 1922, Page 4

STRANGE ADVENTURE.

REMARKABLE STORY TOLD IN I COURT. DEAL IN CARS. London, January 24. day, before Mr Justice Salter, Mrs day, before Mr. usticej Salter, Mrs Gwendolyn Falcke, of .105; Regent , street, W., told a remarkable story of' adventures in India in a claim for damages for breach of agreement which she brough'against Mr Herbert Minck, said to be a wealthy merchant, with an address at 35, Albert Hall- ‘ , mansions, Kensington, W. 1 > The defence was a repudiation of any j agreement, and a counter-claim for ! £IOO, money paid to the plaintiff, and the value of or return of certain ar- . tides the plaintiff held, including a gramapliono, Persian carpet and a i camera. These things, plaintiff alleg- < ed, were gifts. ! Mr J. B. Matthews, K.C., for the j plaintiff, said his client was orphaned when she was 13. In the early part of j 1020 she was unmarried, her namo being Gwendolyn Maynard, but was en- ! gaged to a Mr X, in India. She went j over to that country to marry him, but when she reached there, he reluctantly excused himself from an immedi- 1 ate wedding because he had incurred financial losses. While she was in Bombay she tvas introduced to Mr Minck, who took an interest in her and her fiance, and she said she would have to do something to earn a living. A Plucky Englishwoman. She suggested acting for the fdms, but defendant said: “Oh, no, you can demonstrate aud sell a number of cars - I ltavC'in Calcutta." He promised her 1 half the profits on the sale of fourteen cars, aud a written ' agreement was signed at the suggestion of Mr X. They went to Calcutta, where the plaintiff was “boosted," big advertisements appearing in the newspapers de scribing Miss Maynard as “a plucky and enterprising young Englishwoman, who was engaging upon the new business of dealing in good class cars." She was photographed sitting at the wheel of “her 12-cyclinder Packard," although the car really was the defendant’s. She arranged practically for tho sale ] of four cars at a profit of £250 each. and could have sold the rest. ■ But, directly her fiance left Calcutta . to go to Assam, the defendant threw off his mask, said counsel. He told her the agreement was only signed to camouflage hie affections for her, and to- throw dust in the eyes of her fiance. He asked her to become his mistress; promising her plenty of money, and a good time. Meanwhile, said Mr Matthews, the defendant had a wife and two children, and also boasted of other “girl" named Heloieo in Paris., Plaintiff repulsed him repeatedly, and eventually went back to Bombay. Defendant paid her passage home to 1 England, and since issuing the writ J against the defendant she had married ‘ her present husband, Mr David Falcke. | •j Mrs Falcke gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement, j In cross-examination, Mr Given sug- ' gested: You have not suffered damage . ; if you are now happily mraried to a j man you otherwise would never have , met? —I might have made the mone; and met my husband as well. (Laugh ter). * * Plaintiff admitted that the defendau j gave her presents, including a greei j jade necklace, a dress, and some dres: material. She agreed she knew noth j ing about motor-cars except that shi could drive one, but’ she successfully demonstrated those the defendant ad vertised. air Given: You were to be rhe shoj window? (Laughter). You did not en courage the defendant in his alien tious I agree, but you took a lot? ’ It came out of the business. Counsel: Oh, no; out of the defeat | ant’s pocket. J Sent for a Chaperon. Plaintiff said she was more or les? - stranded in India and defendant paid her passage home. It was a fact that he sent £IOO to a nurse- the plaintiff knew in England to come our to India to chaperon her. She had since kept that money, and the defendant had now claimed it back. For the defence evidence was given that the defendant only had the right to deal in four cars, for the sale of which he was an agent, Mr Justice Salter said he thought defendant misled the plaintiff in more wavs than one. because the cars were not his property, although he might hove been the agent to »o]J them. However, there was an agreement for the plaintiff's emplnymnt. and as defendant had not appeared to say he had not repudiated it. his lordship must hold that there had been a breach. He thought the plaintiff could not be entitled to more than £l5O damages, and judgment would be entered for her for that amount, with costs; while defendant would get judgment for £IOO on his counter-claim, with carts.