LOVE IN HOTEL

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 946, 12 April 1930, Page 27

LOVE IN HOTEL

WIDOW SUES FORMER EMPLOYER £IOO FOR HEARTACHE Sweet nothings that were whispered between an hotelkeeper and a widow in his employ -were echoed in an action that aroused interest at Northamptonshire Assizes. Both people were long past the usual age of romance when the lady took up the situation of resident manageress, but so well did they “hit it” that the relations of master and servant developed, according to the lady, into much closer terms. A proposal of marriage -was alleged to have been made in her bedroom, and afterward, she said, to all intents and purposes they were man and wife without the legal tie. This state of affairs ended rudely with the widow’s dismissal, and a few months ago her former master married someone else. She now sued him for breach of pro mise, and the jury found in her fav ! out to the tune of £IOO damages, j The fact that the defendant is well i known among Third Division footballj ers, and to county cricketers in all ; parts of the country, added to the ini terest of the action which was fought ! lie tween Mr. Henry Thomas Marriott, j licensee of the County Cricket Ground | Hotel, Northampton, and Mrs. Louisa j Hussey, widow of Shakespeare Road, Northampton, who was formerly employed as resident manageress at the hotel. In seeking damages for alleged breach of promise, Mrs. Hussey contended that in June, 1924, and at Easter, 1927, she and Mr. Marriott verbally agreed to marry. Defendant, in a letter from his solicitor, refused to wed plaintiff. In his defence he denied that tie promised to become her husband, and he counter-clamed for the return of jewellery he lent her, and for damages for detention or conversion, the return of the jewellery having been demanded by letters in May, 1929. Plaintiff declared that the jewellery —a gold dress-ring, set with opals, and a gold bracelet, with lock and chain—had been given and not lent to her. “The action differs from most breach of promise proceedings in that the parties are both of mature years,” began Mr. R. C. Vaughan, for plaintiff, j opening the case before Mr. Justice j Finlay and a common jury. “My client j is now 52 and Mr. Marriott is about GO.” Mr. Vaughan added that Mrs. Hussey took employment as manageress of Mr. Marriott’s hotel in 1924. “In June of that year,” he said, “a proposal of marirage -was made in her bedroom. For five years she was nominally a paid servant and manageress of the hotel, but actually, in all but the legal tie, she' was Mr. Marriott’s wife. They lived together openly. Mr. Marriott was a widower, and on an occasion in 1927 he opened the jewel box of liis late wife and gave Mrs. Hussey a ring. She wore this openly on her engagement finger. There was a correspondence between them, but the letters do not exhibit exuberance, and

j resemble the letters of a married I couple. Mr. Marriott ends most of I them with ‘Lots of love.—Tom.’ In | May, 1929, their association suddenly I ended when Mr. Marriott told Mrs. Hussey to clear out of the hotel. He accused her of bad management and insobriety, but these allegations -were totally false. In October of last year he married another woman. The jury,” concluded Mr. Vaughan, “may think that he had no genuine belief in the allegations he made against Mrs. Hussey, and that his action was merely a trumped-up method of getting rid of her.” Plaintiff, who wore a black, closefitting hat and a fur-trimmed dark blue coat,* displayed deep emotion when she entered the witness-box. While giving evidence she nervously fingered a blue bag which she carried. Witness explained that she -went to the hotel a fortnight after the death of defendant’s first wife. “The place was very dirty,” she added, “and I cleaned it all out.” Describing a conversation between her and Mr. Marriott shortly after she took the post of manageress, she said: “He told me that in me he thought he had found a jewel.” He frequently bought her presents, Mrs. Hussey declared. When her daughter’s -wedding reception was in progress he was asked by a relative when he was going to get married. He replied, “Lu and I are going to get married quietly without all this fuss.” Witness said she did not leave the hotel on the day she was dismissed, but remained there until taken to hospital for an operation on her neck for gland trouble. “Mr. Marriott used to rave at me,” she said, “One dav, however, lie brought the wireless into my bedroom.” Mr. Vaughan: And did you think the bringing of the wireless into your bedroom to be a “sort of offering the olive branch?”—“Yes,” answered witness with a smile. Defendant, on oath, said he never promised to marry Mrs. Hussey. “I never thought of such a thing,” he declared. “She got the jewellery because she asked me for it when she was going on holiday. She said she had no jewellery and I lent her the ring and the bracelet. She wore them on her “nights out.’ ” When he dismissed her she begged to be allowed to work in the kitchen, but he would not have her “at any price.” Mr. Justice Finlay, summing up, said if the ring was habitually worn by Mrs. Hussey on her engagement finger when in the hotel, in the presence of Mr. Marriott, then that would constitute evidence corroborating her contention. Referring to the question of damages, lie remarked, “In all cases of breach of promise the jury is entitled to look at the position of both -parties. Broadly speaking, the damages in all breach cases are intended as far as may be to compensate the woman for whit she lias lost. If Mrs. Hussey’s story is right, she would have become the wife of a licensed victualler, who, you may think, was in a substantial way of business.” The jury found for Mrs. Hussey, and awarded £IOO damages. They also found for her on the counter-claim.