THE NEW ZEALANDER AND THE GREEK MAIDEN.

Otago Witness, Issue 2813, 12 February 1908, Page 15

THE NEW ZEALANDER AND THE GREEK MAIDEN.

CURIOUS CASE.

(Prom Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 6.

An action was brought by Mr George Papazoglou, Bradford, and Catherine Papazoglou (his daughter), who is 21 years of age, for the recovery of £500 which had been advanced to Sugden Keighley and Co., worsted spinners, Bradford, in somewhat singular circumstances. Mr E. Shortt appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr J. A. Compston for the defendant company. The plaintiffs are Greek, and it was stated on their behalf by Mr Shortt that in November, 1905, Catherine Papazoglou became engaged to Mr Arthur Sugden Keighley. now 24 years of age, who was then a director and shareholder in the defendant company. He was anxious to put more money into that firm, and Catherine and her father consented that £500, which would eventually have been settled on the lady in the event of marriage, should be put into the firm to the credit of Arthur Keighley. The first letter of the father informing the firm of the terms on which he was prepared to advance £500 was on May 5, 1906, and to this Alexander Keighley replied, agreeing to the terms and guaranteeing repayment of the sum in the event of the marriage with Arthur not taking place. After receiving the letter Mr Papazoglou sent a cheque for the amount. Eventually Arthur left the defendant firm, and Mr Papazoglou and his wife determined that th« marriage with their daughter should not take place. Mr Papazoglou wrote: — "I am very sorry to have been informed that Arthur is no longer in your firm. Therefore I beg you to return me the £500 I placed to the credit of Arthur." To thi6 a reply was received: — "We beg to remind you that we agreed to be responsible for repayment only if marriage to your daughter does not take place. For anything we know this marriage may take place some time in the future." On February 4 Mr Papazoglou wrote that the engagement had been terminated by consent of both parties, and he again asked for the return of the money. Arthur, it appeared, had agreed to go to New Zealand. Mrs Papazoglou and her daughter were in London prior to going on the Continent, a-nd Arthur saw "them there just before he sailed. It was then finally determined that the engagement should be at an end. On February 7 Arthur wrote to the firm: — " I have to inform you of the breaking-off of the engagement. We have both agreed to consider ii-"Sr an end.'' On February 9 the defendant J^m wrote to Mr Papazoglou: — "Our undertaking to return the £500 was conditional on the marriage not taking place. We can only have your guarantee that if we give it up you should return it if the marriage took place." Correspondence between the parties' solicitors was read by counsel, defendants' solicitors writing that the defendant company " firmly believe that the marriage will take place as soon as the parties see their way to effect it." Mr George Papazoglou, one of the plaintiffs, was called, and bore oilt counsel's statement. His daughter Catherine, he said, was engaged to Arthur Keighley, and on February 7, the day before Arthur sailed for New Zealand. Arthur said the engagement must be broken off. Mr Compston : My point is that the engagement has never been broken off. (To the plaintiff): Was not the £500 to discharge Arthur's liabilities at the bank — not to be put into the firm ? The plaintiff, who did not seem quite to understand come of the questions^, made no reply. By the judge : When I lent the money I knew that Arthur owed some thousands of pounds. He gave me a statement of his debts. I cannot tell whether he owed the bank money.

Mr Compston : I suggest to you that the engagement was "never broken off? — The encashment was broken off. Did you know Arthur was going to New Zealand?— Yes. Did you not promise to help him with m-onev when he got there? — No. Did you not promise that your daughter should follow him out there ac soon as he got into a position to maintain her? — Not at all.

If Arthur succeeds in making a position in New Zealand would you have any objection to your daughter marrying him? — Th«t i* not my bueinea*

Do you believe that the marriage will never take place ? — Yes.

Miss Catherine Papasoglou said she was 21 last May. On the visit of herself and her mother to London prior to going abroad they met Arthur at the Hotel Russell a day or two before he sailed. He then said that his position was not a good one, and he and she agreed together that the engagement should be broken off. There was no arrangement that 6he should go out if he should get into a position to maintain her. There was no agreement to send the £500 out to him.

Mr Shortt : Dd you know his addrees in New Zealand? — No, I know nothing.

Cross-examined by Mr Compston : Was it not understood that you should follow and be married to him?— No, nothing of that.

Mr Alexander Keighley, director of the defendant company, said he first knew of the engagement in" October, 1905. ArtVnu-'s conduct had created great uneasiness. Witness placed before Mr Papazoglou a statement of Arthur's failure'- before the engagement was sanctioned. That •.{■atement showed him to be solvent, with a balance of £1500 or £2000 on tho right side, but th« second statement, made in January, 1906, showed him to be insolvent. In May in that year it came to witness's knowledge that the bank was threatening Arthur with proceedings. The £500 cheque wa« paid into the bank to ArthurV .credit. In no way did the firm derive any benefit from it. Witness added that he believed that tho marriage would vet take place, in spite of what Mr and Mrs Papazoglou had said. Mr W. H. Stops, Daventrr. Northampton, and Mr W. G. Prince, Menston, having given evidence for the defendant company the learned iudge (Mr Justice Phillimore), after hearing Mr Compton, held that the agreement of marriage had been rescinded by mutual consent, and. finding for the plaintiffs, gave judgment for £500, with costs.