SUPREME COURT, AUCKLAND.

Southland Times, Issue 1086, 8 January 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, AUCKLAND.

(Abridged from the ' New Zealand Herald ') TiIUJIdDAY, DECEMBER 17. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice and a Special Jury. His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o'clofk. KNOX V. HUNT. BREACH OF PKOMISE OF MARRIAGE. Pannages laid at £s<JuO. Tiiis, wliicn may bo regarded as the first cause celehre of the kind in tiiis ; province, wi.< irie.i yesterday, ihe large now U'.un, was* crowded to excess during tae proceedings, /hero could not have been iesa than from 10U" to 1500 persons present at one time. The following gentlemen were c lied on to serve on the special jury : — Uaptaiu Daldy. (foreman) AltSßra E. L. Huehulz, Porter, (Jharies Wavis, W. Grranam, E. Isaacs, VV. £. i'.iyloi , 0 J. Stone, Alexander Kennedy, J. Newman, K. VVallace.

The counsel for the plaintiff were Messrs Whitaker, lleskoth, and Mucdonal.l. Messrs Gillies and Joy were counsel for defend int. Mr Mac lon iU opened ihe pro-endings by reading the declantions and pleadings. Tlie issue 3 were — (1.) Di I the plaintiff and defendant, in November, 1867, or any time subsequent thereto, agree to marry one another. (2.) Was the plaintiff always ready and willing to marry the det'en lent till the broach of the siil agreement. (3.) D'd the defendant, after the agreement, marry another person. (-4.) What sum, if any, is the plaintiff entitle! to for damages. The declaration set out that the plaintiff, about November last, and at other times subsequent thereto, agreed to marry the defendant, and the defendant agreed to marry her ; that after th-» said agr-ement the defendant rn.irrie 1 another person, wherefore the plainriff claimed damages The defendant pleaded that he di i not make the premise set out in the declaration. Mr Whitaker, in stating the case to the jury, said that the plaintiff was a young lady about twenty-two years of age, living with her aunt us guardian, her parents being both dead. If the jury found that there waa reasonable inference from the facts adduced in evidence that su«h an engagement as was set out existed, although there mighc be no express pronvse, still they would find a verdict for the plaintiff. The young lady became acquainted with the defendant about the month of October, 1867. In November the jury would find that the conduct towards each other was su -h as to lead everybody to believe that they were engaged to be married. The marriage was actually fixod to take place on the 18th of March. It would be proved that on the 28th ot February the defendant expressed his anxiety to be married, as he ■ was goi-'g to Melbourne, and he wanted to take his wii'e with him. Owing to some circumstances which would be explained — -he did not proceed to Melbourne. He had intended to purchase machinery there, but he found that machinery to answer could be found elsewhere. The engagu-m-mt was broken off, but it would appear that in August following the engagement was renewed. It would be shown that rhe circumstances of this ease brought great trouble and pain of mind on the plaintiff. Evidence would also be adduced to show what were the means of the defendant, and the jury tfould say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to. Thomas James Dixon, examined by Mr Heske'h: I am at present unemployed. The last situation I ha, I was with Mr S. H. Smith. I know the plaintiff. lam her uncle. I know the defendant. I arrived in the colony on the 22ud March, 1865. Plaintiff came out along with me. Uoth her parents arc dead. Myself and wife are her guardians. We became so a short time previous to her coming out here. The plaintiff and defendant were acquainte I with each other. I became acquainted with the fact about the latter end oi last yoar (1867). I heard it lirst from the plaintiff. I first saw the defendant on Boxing Day last year. I saw him at the North Shore. My niece and a number of his friends were with him. Mrs Dixon wis with me. Nothing that lam aw ire of took place then. I was introduced to him by the plaintiff in the action on that day (26th December). i saw defendant also n the evening of that day. I saw him at my own house. Hh came there, as lun iorstood, at the invitation of my niece. Mr and Mrs Clarkson, Mr Brock, and "Miss Cray came with him. They stayed and had tea, and spent a short time after tea. His friends went away first. He remained a short time after they went. On his going away I asked him back the following day to dme with us. He came, and spent the afternoon and evening with us. He might have left about 10. or between 10 and 11. I had conversations with defendant. The first conversation w is the day after Boxing Day. We spoke of nothing very particular ou'that" occasion. I fell out of employment an I became his clerk, fie male mo an offer to sot me up in business. I declined. He asked me before I becume his clerk if I would remain in Auckland a fortnight, and see about selecting _ a place for him to live. I remaine i in town a fortnight. I went to several land agents in the town to see what properties they ha I to dispose of. tie came with me to Mr 8.-idgmm's, and also to Mr Hah's house at Remui-ra. We drove out. We first -aw Me Hall's place. Nekher of us approved ot it. We wenr next to Mrs Bridguuiii's. Mr Hunt was told the price, and I believe Hunt made an of?'r. Mrs Bridgman said she was sorry dey tidant 1 1 ad not brought thj young laiy wati him, as Miss £nox was remarkably pleased w.tb. the ho aeon the previous occisiou he came ouo. Had he brought the young lady oit, Mr Hunt uould have bought the house she felt »ure. Mr Hnnt and Miss Knox had been out a few days previously. We walked ovor the ground. I next w.;ut to the Thames with Mi- Hunt, to ba employed as his clerk. Defendant was living in my house previously to goiug to the t names. He caiue to live at my house about the beginning of February this year. Previously to i-omiug to live at my hou-e, he cam<3 in tha morning and breakfasted with, us, aud took his meils during tne day. He continued to do so, sleeping at the " Army and Navy" until the beginning of February. I had a conversation relative to his paving for his board there. I said it was a piece 0! extravagance to go there. I offered htm a bed which he accepted. I made no terms with him. He was treated as a member of the family, tie was so treated by all of v*. He was so treated from the first introduction. After h iving gone to the Tham s I came back to Auckland about the 26th of February. The next day at bivakfast 1 hal a conversation with the deiendanfc. All the members of my family excepting, I tiiiak, my wife were present. My wife was not present all the time. She was going in and out of the room. It was introduced first by Hunt saying he was going to Melbourne, aud intended to take " Maggie" with him. He made an appointment with her relative to his marriage. He said it was the best time he could take her, as there were no children to obstruct their pleasure. He made an appointment with me to come and attend his wedding. I was about to go to the Thames a <lay or so afterwards. He said he would arrange the matter about getting married with Mr Joues. He said he must see about getting a piece of land at Taraiu, which he wished to build on. He direute 1 that Mr Mackay should be written to about the land, and invited tenders for the house. That was just before my going to the Thames, aft r the 27th of February. It might have been at the beginning of Febru ivy. He desired me to see that the house would be ready to receive hitnsslf and Mrs Hunt, on his return from Melbourne. I was to return to the Thames, and be back again in time for the wedding, which was to take place on the 18th, provided that the Phoebe should sail on the 19th Irom Manukau. He was to go by the Southern ports to Melbourne. He was sitting beside Miss Knox. They were sitting on f.he couch ; he had one arm round her neck and her other hand clasped in his hand. I went to the Thames. I was only a day or so there. Next time I cam? up I'came to inform him of the 'jumping of his claim." I w. Nt back to the Thames tne day following. 1 did not come before the time appointed lor his wedding — tlie 18th of M ireh. I came up about the middle of April. The marriage I thought might have been put off in consequence of his cL'iim bi'ing "jumped.'' I came up in April in consequence oi what took place between Uunt and myself. He called me into his bed-rooui. He lold me that he had broke i off liis engagement with " Maggie " (the plaintiff). 1 lelt surprised, and said, "You don't mean t> stand up there and tell me that" H. said " Such is the case." I asked him his reasons, and he assigne l them — on? was of Miss Kuox having told a story relative to Mrs Cobluy's mother-iu -law. I told him I did not think t iat Miss Knox would be capable of such a thing ; I heard what it was ; it was that Mrs Cobiey's mother-in-law drank. He assigned the reason that no otli.'i* person could have told it, and he regarded it as a breach of confidence. He said

he could not trust to her after thvt. I underb"oo I that Hunt had told her, aud that she (Miss K'iox) told Mrs Oobley. By His Honor : Tho rae.ming of this was, I presume, that Miss Knox had a scandalous tongue. Examination continued : I told him I did not think that Miss K-iox would have said anything derogatory to any person's character. I had heard him make the same statement before a number of people, and I told him I had heard the words fall from his own lips. I asked him whether this was said when Mrs Cobley was yet Miss Penman. I asked him whether he had broken olf hi* engagement before thi3 story. He said he had. I said if he had been in the position of Miss Knos he might have done the same thing. I said that was a lame excuse, and asked him°whether he had any reasm. He said he had on account of her conduct at Mr Clarkson's weddin". I asked him whit that conduct was, ani lie said she ha I kissed Mr Brock. 1 asked him if that were so why he did not cease his acquaintance at the time. Clarkson's wedding was a day or two previous to Christmas. Ho spoke about his having known the Russells for a length of time, and he did not think that Miss Knox ; loved him ; I said that he must know very little ■ about love himsslf if he did not know that Miss I Kaox did love hitn. (Laughter.) I said he I would never have entered my house hid I not i been fully aware of Miss Kuox's feeling towards him. To his Honor : All this took place when he called me into his room. To Mr Hesketh : I thought it not pleasant to remain with him in the situation I held under him. He talked about compensating Miss Knox., and promised to buy me a share in a good claim. I told him I had only heard his story. I declined making any arrangement with him until I saw my niece. He and I came up to Auckland from the Thames. He did not on that occasion come to my house. It was about a month before he was married. It was in August, I think. Ho came to my house along with Miss Kuox. It was in the evening. He stayed to supper, and remained some little time afterwards. He treated Miss Knox as he formerly did before he broke off his engagement. He sat beside her and put his arm about her. Before leaving, Miss Knox having asked him to stay the night, he replied that she " might trust him now." She and he went on to the verandah. He shook hands with her aud kissed her. They usually parted by shaking hands and kissing. That was nothing new. I asked him when we should see him again. He said he would be up ia a few days, and would come up and see us. Cross-examined by Mr Joy : 1 1 was in April that I gave Mr Hunt the dissertation on the p )wer of love (laughter). I never heard that Miss Knax said she dii not like Mr Hunt ; that she did not like the color of his hair or the shape of his whiskers ; that she liked somebody fclse better, and would not have anything to do with him (laughter), aud that he did not talk enough to please her. His Honor : Might not that be an index of the lady's affection ? Mr Whitaker objected to the line of examination as mere rumor or hearsay. Mr Gilles said the defendant was cross-examin-ing. He was not tendering evidence. It might be possible to trace the rumor. His Honor refused to receive the answer. Cross-examination continued : I never heard of Mr Hunt b>ung displeased about Miss Knox kissing Mr Brock. 1 was not present at Clarkson's weddin.;, and could not say how many she kissed. I am not aware Miss Knox ever 'old Mr Hunt. I nuver succeeded in worming Mis 3 Knox's age out of her. I believe she will bo 22 sometime in February. Miss Knox was left pretty much to herself by myself and wife. I remember the night they parted and kissed. That was in my presence. Me Joy : Were you in tb.3 habit of seeing that sort of tnin^ ? (Laughter). Witness : During their engagement. There was one evening I was there. Mr Joy : And he sene for you. (Loud laughter.) Cross examination continued : I remember telling him about; the extravagance of living at the Army and Navy. I asked bin to come and stay at my house. I remember on two occafions borrowing ten pounds from him. Once while ho was at my house. It is a misstatemeut that 1 did not think it extravagant to borrow of him. None of my family that I know of ever received any money from Hunt for his Ooard at my housa. In the month of March last I di I not receive money from Hunt for board while he was in my house. I know the Waiteinata Hotel near the wharf. I have received a £10 note there which I have told you about. I never got a sum of £30 through Miss Knox. Miss Kuox told me she had received £30, but it was not borrowed. I had no benefit, directly or indirectly, from that £30. Not to my knowledge. None of that money went through my hands. Mr Joy -. Nor your wife's ? Witness : Not to my knowledge. Mr Joy .- Mrs Dixon keeps her own secrets. Witness : I am still the young lady's guirdian. I cannot gay wh ther I should like to see Mr Hunt married to my niece. I am no prophet. Hunt was manager in his claim. I swear ho was a fortnight at my home together before the engagement was broken off. Re-examined : The £30 received from Hunt by Miss Knox was expended in buying wedding outfit. I have marked some of the under-linen. That was on the day that Mr Hunt said he arranged about getting the license from Mr Jones. Mrs Anna Dixon, examined by Mr Whitaker, corroborated the evidence of last witness. Mrs Jane Ruth Messenger, wife of J. W. Messenger, examined by Mr Hesketh : I live in Wakefiuld-street. I know the plaintiff, Miss Knox, and the defendent. I remember the first time they met ; it was at Mrs lord's house. It was at a party given there. It was given by myself, to get some young ladies together, in order that Mr Hunt might seject one of them (loud laughter). It was his object to get the wife, but it was my idea to give the party (laughter). The party took place. The plaintiff and defendant were present. I saw Mr Hunt the morning after the party. He called on me. I asked him whether any of the young ladies had taken his fancy. His Honor: Then you felt certain that your selection was successful in some way. Witness : Yes. He said there were two (laughter). Mr Hesketh: Two? (Laughter). Witness : He said he saw two whom he should like — Miss Lilewall and Miss Knox, anil if Miss Lilewall were not in the way he would have selected Miss Knox at once. He asked me to get Miss Lilewall. to go a second party, but I failed. He said he would take eight seats at the Nathan Troupe. To His Honor : He did not go with us. We saw him there. He was with Miss Knox. Miss Knox was with him as his partner. I had some conversation with him the following day. He called at my house. I asked him if he was sutitfd with a young lady. (Laughter). He said he was. I told liiiu not to be in too great haste. He told me he had fixed his choidfe on Miss Knox. I told him not to be in too great haste, there was plenty of time, and I could have auother party. He said he was quite satisfied, and if lie had a thousand to pick trom he could not have had a better. (Laughter). He called during the week and introduced Miss Knox to me. He called her in aud said, "This is the young lady 1 selected." The next time I saw them together was the following Sunday at Mrs Ford's. He said he got very iond of her during the month (laughter), and expressed his surprise that he should have done so in so short a time (laughter). I asked him if he made her a form^i otfer of marriage ; he said he had, and was accepted. I aske i him if he had placed a token of the pledge on her

finger. (Lmghter.) He told me he had not, but he would do so. He told me a few days after-wn-ds that he had demo so. He told me he had purchased the ring at Mr Beck's for £14 10a, and placed it on her finger, and he added, " She it mine now." (Loud laughter.) He said he was very anxious to get married, and he wished he could persuade her to marry at once. He said in my presence that he would marry her " tomorrow" if she was willing. It was in^ Mii» Knox's presence he spoke. Miss Knox said she could not think of such a thing, she did not know sufficient of Mr Hunt to marry him so soon. I bad no other conversation with Mr Hunt at that time. He said he would like to get married at Christmas time. The first party I gave which I adverted to was the 28th of October. I know Mr and Mrs Dixon. I hare seen plaintiff and defendant there (at their house) together. That was after Christmas last. It was arranged during the week that Mr Hunt and Miss Knox should take tea with us at Charle* ton Lodge — His Honor : Where ? If it were Charlton Lodge in England we might know. Witness : In Ponsonby Road. Charlton Lodge was our private residence at the time. We called on Miss Knox. We took them both to Charlton Lodge. She showed me a ring on her finger— it appeared to be a diamond ring. When Miss Knox showed it to me Hunt smiled. They were oq the couch together reading a book upon marriage. (Laughter). Mr Hesketh : Have you had any other con* versation with Mr Hunt ? Witness : Oh ! yes, I have had a twelvemonths conversation with Mr Hunt. I became aware of the engagement being broken off in October. I have seen Mr Hunt a groat many times since. I have seen him and the plaintiff together in my house afterwards. That waa about a month or &v weeks before he was married. They met there. Miss Knox was in the room when Mr Hunt came in. We were rather taken a-back when Mr Hunt came in I thought he was at the Thames, fie did not know that Miss Knox was to be there that afternoon. Neither did I know. When Hunt came into the room I looked rather stupid ; Miss Knok hung her head down. Mr Hunt looked rather white. (Laughter). I introduced them as well as I could, and left them together. They remained altogether about four hours. We took tea together. They eat in a loving position. Mr Hunt eat with a chair by her side. Sbe hung her head on his shoulder, and their hands were joined together. Mr Hesketh : Is that the way they passed the evening ? Witness : Yea. When they left, Mr Hunt demurred about going that night ; that he did not want to go to Russell's any more, and if he went out with Miss Knox he would be watched. Mr Hunt went home to her aunt's with Miss Knox. Mr Hesketh : Now did you do anything before they left ? Witness (demurely) : Yes : I put their hand* together ; kissed them both, and bleased them. (Loud laughter.) Cross-examined by Mr Gillies : Was Mr Hunt very much gratified when you kissed him on that occasion ? (Laughter.) Witness : I can't say. I knew Mr Hunt through my son, who used to supply Hunt's Claim with butcher's meat. I knew nothing of his riches before I gave the party. My son has some interest in claims. There ia a hill called Messenger's Hill. My husband has become in* solvent. Mr Whitaker : That is not relevant. Mr Gillies : I will show the Court the rele* vancy of it presently. Witness : i never "urged that Mr Hunt should get a wife. Mr Gillies : You were the great matchmaker ? Wituess : I do not know. Mr Gillies : It is not the first matchmaking you were engaged in. Witness (indignantly) : I beg your pardon, sir. Mr Gillies: You hat something to do with Cobley's affair — you were the " go-between" in that matter ? Witness : Never. Mr Cobley met Miss Smith at my house. That match is broken off. Mr Glides : And Mr Cobley had to pay a sum of money to get out of it. Was not that your party ? Samuel Alexander, examined by Mr Hesketh : lam a miner in the Bandigo Claim. I know Mr Hunt and Miss Knox. I have seen them to* gether. I whb one evening in company with Mr Hunt up Wakefield-street. It was sometime in October last year. We got as far as Messenger's. I knew the Messengers. Did not know whether he knew them. We both went in together. We saw a young lady — Miss Knox. He sat down beside her and I left. I had pro* viously advised htm to get married to some " respectable yifung woman." He said he intended to marry ''Miss Knox. I saw him sometime afterwards, and said, " T. say, you're a nice young chap, you might have told me about your 1 sticking-up' to Miss Kaox." He asked whether I knew her. I said E saw her at Vaile's. I told him I thought she would make a nice little wife, and advised him to marry her: Had a conrersation with him about the time the engine was started. 1 had heard ot his falling out with Miss Knox. I asked him the reason: He told me he went home one evening and opened the door, and caught Miss Knox sitting on a man's knee. I asked him who the man was. He said it was Mr Vaile. (Loud laughter). Mr Whitaker said he proposed to adduce a new class of evidence, namely, as to the defendant's means. George Clarkton, examined by Mr Whitaker, -said he was a shareholder at Hunt's claim. I cannot tell exactly the amount I hare received from the claim — it was about £8000. I hare a seven-eighth share of a fourth part. Mr Hunt has the same. The prospect of the mine looks as well as it used. I cannot fix any value on my share. I have had an offer of £30,000. I was willing to sell but the purchaser could not fimd the money. Joseph Howard : lam an accountant in the Union Bank of Australia. lam a shareholder -in Hunt's claim. My interest ia a sixteenth. I became a shareholder on the 19th September, 1867. 1 have received over £3300 for my interest. I believe Mr Hunt has received over £12,000 from his 3hare. I do not think I would take £LO,OOO for my own interest. The yield last month was over 5,000 ozs, equal to £12,500. Mr Hunt's share of the last dividend was over £2,000. I bought my interest of Mr Hunt in September, last year (1867). I gave him £100 for it. By Mr Gillies : In November following, 1867, I would have given £500 for a similar interest. By Mr Hesketh : I cannot say what would be the fair value of a similar interest in April. It might have been £10,000. -. , Daniel Joseph O'Keeffe, examined by Mr Macdonald: I am a sharebroker, carrying on business at Shortland. My experience of the Tiiames Goldfields is of about thirteen months. I had some twelve years previous experience of goldfield shares in Victoria. I know Hunt's Claim. In September, 1867, a quarter-share was sold to Mr Howard for £100, and to Mr Christy for £100 and £100 additional out of the profits. On tne 17th of August l-22ndof the whole claim was sold for £I,</OJ cash, and £2,500 out of the . profits of the mine. At that rate the T»lue of the whole claim would be £112,000. One full share would be the fourth of that. It would be extremely difficult to say whether the prospect of the claim next year is as good as the yield last. The marketable value of one full share would be £15,000. The yield for the last twelve months was about 25,000 ounces. The average value of the gold is about £2 13s. I was offered my self a share by H. R. JJartlett forj £100. I did not know anything about the mine at the time, and declined to accept the offer. This ended the case. The Judge summed up, and the jury, after some deliberation, returned s> verdict for the plaintiff for L 1,300.