The Tailor Who Tarried—and Lost

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1022, 12 July 1930, Page 18

The Tailor Who Tarried —and Lost

Widow Given £SOO in Amusing Breach of Promise Suit . . . Courtship on 2d. Park Chairs . . . Judge and Counsel in Humorous Vein . . .

MNVESTING in two twopenny chairs in Hyde Park, an elderly tailor spent many happy hours in wooing a winsome Economical though this method of courtship was, he. however, was generous in other ways, but the ardour of his lovemaking contrasted strangely with his reluctance to take the plunge into matrimony. The widow waited, hut the tailor tarried. Twice notice was given at a registry office, and twice he backed out, pleading in the end that he was not a suitable subject for marriage because of illhealth. Thus, in lieu of wedding bells, the idyll ended eventually in a breach of promise suit. Despite an announcement in coiyt that this laggard swain was prepared to marry the-lady, £SOO damages were awarded against him. One of the principal questions j raised in this piquant action, which ; came before Mr. Justice Swift and a common jury in the King’s Bench I Division, was whether sufficient time had elapsed to enable defendant, Mr. Maurice Bird, 64, tailor. Kensington,! who has a business at Hogarth Road, 1 Earl's Court, to carry out his alleged j promise to marry plaintiff, Mrs. Yetta 1 Joseph, 47, widow. Mrs. Joseph came to England from Poland when she was 16 years of age, and a year later married. Her ■ husband was killed at Mons during! the early days of the war, and she | was left to maintain three children, j Mr. Bird is a widower, with six children. The widow's counsel, Mr. Charles Doughty, K.C.. declared that Mr. Bird had admitted there had been a promise to marry, and he had raised the curious defence that he was not a suitable subject for matrimony because of ill-health. Such a matter, observed Mr. Doughty, was more for the woman to decide. If she was willing to marry the man, it was not for him to object that he was unfit. Is was a frivolous excuse. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bird was the possessor of a. robust and vigorous constitution. and his plea of ill-health was an effort to save his pocket. "It has been said in the leading case on the subject,’’ remarked Mr. Justice Bwift, "that the lady might like to be Ills widow.” “That is the classic answer to the plea,” returned Mr. Doughty. "It is founded on a very great truth, but my client would prefer to be the wife of Mr. Bird for many years.” Continuing, Mr. Doughty observed, "This is not a boy and girl affair, yet it has a great deal of hardship in it, because it is ihe woman who has suffered.” Mrs. Joseph, who was still the possessor of considerable personal charm, met Mr. Bird in. 1926. when she was introduced 10 him in Hyde Park by a cigar mer- • chant:, who was an admirer and had proposed marriage to her. She did not, however, admire him. She sat with Mr. Bird in the Park for some lime, the other man having gracefully retired, leaving Mr. Bird in sole possession. He made himself extremely agreeable, and pressed her not to niarry the cigar merchant.-"I will mak£*ypu happy myself,” he remarked, indicating that he would marry her. So 'he became an aspirant for her hand from the first day fie met her. He took her out to tea and cinemas, and eventually introduced her to his sou and five daughters in his large house iu Cambridge Gardens. He was a

tailor, and informed plaintiff that he sometimes made £IOO a week. Most of his family received her with greet cordiality, but the eldest daughter was hostile, and showed it. However, they met regularly. He went to her flat and had dinner, taking her out to some amusement afterward.

Sometimes they had a meal in a Soho restaurant. But, remarked counsel, amid laughter, when the weather was fine they sat in Hyde Park. His reason for sitting in Hyde Park was that, for a small sum of 2d each, they could sit and talk for three houis.

"Frugality may be reprehensible in a lover,” commented counsel, “but it is often a virtue In a husband, so Mrs. Joseph did not complain about his little economies. He was generous in some ways, because he gave her several presents, and helped her with the rent of her flat." In 1927 they became on very intimate terms, but when the date of the marriage became near, he pleaded that his daughter had threatened to commit suicide if another woman was brought into the house.

Twice he put up the marriage announcement, and twice he backed out. On the first occasion he went off to Brighton three days before the date of the wedding. Mrs. Joseph was the victim of a taxicab accident, and broke an ankle, and Mr. Bird informed her that he did not want to marry a cripple. He had also falsely accused her of being of violent temper, which had caused him to rupture an artery Attractive, smartly dressed, and looking much younger than her 47 years, Mrs, Joseph then told her story in the witness-box. She stated it was an error to say that she was 43, and when Mr. Doughty explained that he got the information from a statement made to the registrar, his lordship aroused laughter by remarking, "There are some things about which 1 understand women do not speak the truth, even to the registrar.” Proceeding, Mrs. Joseph declared that she liked Mr. Bird a great deal more than the cigar merchant who introduced her to him. He had written to her:—

"You look after my interests and save my pocket to the extreme.” He persuaded her to change her home to a flat at Baron’s Court, paid a part of the rent, and told her he had fixed .the day for the wedding. But when the date was near he stated that his daughter stood in the way. He had written many' letters to her. One ran:

The sun will shine again for you, my dear. t shall see that your troubles will cease at any cost. You will find me a helpful husband. You will have no cause to regret this step, as what I possess will eventually belong to you. but you must not be extravagant or wasteful. “In the end," remarked Mrs. Joseph, "as he always put off the wedding, 1 considered he had made a fool of me, I put the matter in my solicitor’s hands.” Replying to her solicitor’s letter, Mr. Bird had written: “I have been seriously ill since last November, and am at present suffer Ing from high blood pressure and haemorrhage, and I am medically advised that I am physically unfit to marry.” ”, He also wrote: “I have a very soft corner In my heart for your, client.” Replying to questions in crossexamination, Mrs. Joseph averred that Mr. Bird took a note of everything he

Mrs. Joseph's daughter approved of the proposed marriage. In.fact she had. read all the letters . . .

spent on her, even to a cup of tea. lie had helped her financially, but never to the extent of £3OO. "He has not spent more than £SO on me altogether,” she exclaimed with some emphasis. "He has given me nerves. He told me he did not want my children, but I never reproached him about his six.” Miss Netta Joseph, plaintiff’s daughter, informed the court that her mother had told her she was going to marry Mr. Bird.

"It is turning the world upside down when a mother confides these things to her daughter,” exclaimed his Lordship. “Were you angry?” “Not in the least,” replied Miss Joseph, amid laughter. "I read all the letters.”

Judge: And you said, “Bless you, my children?” The Judge instructed the jury at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case that the fact that a man was ill was no reason for a refusal to marry. Opening the case for the defence, Mr. Infield asserted that Mr. Bird was still prepared to marry Mrs. Joseph, given the time, but when solicitors were on the warpath it was not easy for people to come to an' amicable settlement. ,

With a smile, Mr. Justice Swift asked: "Would you like an adjournment for the parties to get married? That is a tempting bait to the jury. It is a seductive proposal. Are you making plaintiff another offer of marriage?” Mr. Bird, a sport, thick-set man, then gave evidence. Mr. Infield: Is it your intention now to marry plaintiff? Mr. Bird, with a laugh, replied: “Oh, that is a very great question to answer. She has taken action against me. 1 still have a certain regard for her, and would not-like to see her hurt. But these proceedings, you know . . he added reflectively. Mr. Doughty: When did you make up your mind not to marry plaintiff?— I have never made up my mind not •to marry her. His Lordship: Then when did your daughter make up your mind?

Mr. Bird: 1 have never refused her marriage, and cannot understand her taking these proceedings. Mr. Infield had a brief consultation with his client. Then counsel announced that he had previously indicated, rightly or wrongly, that Bird was afraid to get married. He was now very considerably reassured.

"I am instructed to say definitely on his behalf,” went on Mr. Infield, “that he is prepared to marry the lady, and, for alll practical purposes, immediately.” There was loud laughter, and the judge. Who joined in, remarked: “Do you think Mr. Dpughty is likely to give the bride away?” "Mr. • Doughty would make an extraordinarily charming best man,” returned Mr. Infield. There was renewed merriment when his Lordship added that there would be no objection to Mr. Bird marrying the lady after a verdict. If it came to a substantial verdict it might be the best way. The jury returned 4 verdict for plaintiff, awarding her £SOO damages.

Judgment was entered for this amount with costs.