WOMAN'S WORLD

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 231, 4 February 1911, Page 6

WOMAN'S WORLD

(Conducted by "Eileen"). SOCIETY NEWS. NEW PLYMOUTH. Miss Katherine Grey, the heroine in the "Lion and the Mouse," is very en- : tliusiastic over New Zealand, especially the scenery. While in Christchurch, she hired a motor-car and journeyed to Akaroa. Before finally leaving this island she intends going up the Wanganui river. Miss Bedford has gone for a trip to Christchurch. Miss Jean Maekay, who has been on exchange in the New Plymouth Post Office for the last six months, returned to Wellington by the express this morn- ' ing. Mrs. Davy and Miss Carte leave for Wellington on Monday morning. BREaCH OF PROMISE. AUCKLAND LADY CLAIMS £IO3O. DEFENDANT TO PAY £350. Auckland, February 2. The breach of promise action, in which Dora Knight claims £IO3O as damages from George Andrew Lawcock for breack of promise of marriage, was heard today. In opening the case for plaintiff, Dr. Bamford stated that the plaintiff, Miss Dora Knight, was a spinster, residing with her parents at East Tamaki, while the defendant, who was considerably older than plaintiff, was a farmer residing at Matamata. The promise of marriage was first given in June, 190!), aud it was then arranged that the wedding was to take place at Easter. The promise, it was alleged, was repeated verbally on many occasions, and ratified in letters written to plaintiff by defendant. Plaintiff maintained that from the letters themselves it was quite clear that a binding engagement, existed between the parties, but later on defendant suggested tnat the marriage should be postponed for twelve months, and it was clear from his conduct that defendant had all along endeavored to shuffle out of nis engagement. Eventually when he received the writ he told the plaintiff that if he had broken on' the engagement he was willing to marry plaintiff. Naturally the plaintiff was unwilling to marry defendant on such terms, especially as in one of his letters defendant had suggested that there was a third party mixed up in the matter, inferring that he had a rival. THE PLAINTIFF'S STORY.

Dora Knight, a prepossessing and neatattired young woman, zi years of age, said that she first met the defendant in January, 1007, and he came to see her at her parents' place at East Tamaki. In 1908 she became engaged to him, and received a ring from him in June, 19118. She had never at any time released Mr. Lawlock from his promise to marry her, and was not desirous of breaking off the engagement, but she was annoyed at the tone of one of his letters. She was aware that her m'other had written to him and demanded £2OO compensation, and threatening in the alternative to take proceedings, claiming £1,500, as her daughter was not afraid to face a jury, and informing him that he had reckoned without his host when he ran against her (witness') mother. "ACTUALLY IN LOVE."

Examined by Mr. Gillies, the plaintiff said she could not explain why there was a delay of 13 months in the issuing of the writ, but she was actually in love with defendant when she became engaged to him. She herself was bringing this action, and not her mother. She remembered defendant writing to her, saying he thought she should write two letters to his one, but sue had never kept him waiting two months for a letter. He wrote saying that if she loved any youug man better than him she "could have him by all'means." Witness felt too much hurt to answer the letter, and she returned the letter, asking him to read it as if it had come irom a third party, and give his opinion oi it. This closed the evidence for the plaintiff.

Mr. Gillies comir.enced his opening address to the jury by commenting that it was singular that the plaintiff's mother had not been called to give cvuience. Or. Bamford replied that he had not the slightest objection to Mrs. Knight being called and cross-examined by Mr. Gillic3.

WHAT THE MOTHER THOUGHT. Mrs. Mary Knight, in answer to Mr. Gillies, admitted having written to defendant demanding .C2OO compensation, and threatening to sue him for £ISOO, and expose him, as he bad made a fool of them, and also stating that she had never thought he was a marrying man. •She had never been consulted, nor had her husband, in regard to the marriage, but she thought it was her duty to loot after her daughter's interests an the matter when she learned how the defendant had treated her. Witness had nothing to do with the engagement, as her daughter was old enough to please herself. •Mr. Gillies: If my client goes into tlifc box and swears that he is willing to marry your daughter now would you give her your blessing? Witness: No, indeed, T would not. (Laughter). Nothing would induce me to consent now, as I don't think it would end in their mutual happiness. DEFENDANT "HAPPY" TO MARRY. Mr. Gillies' opening address to the jury was very brief. He simply said that his client was now, on February 1, 1911, as he was on September 10, 11)00, prepared to marry Miss Knigiit; in fact, at this moment he actually wanted to marry the plaintiff. Me was ready, willing, and would be happy to do so. George Andrew Lawcock, the defendant, said he was 41 years of age, and held a lease-in-perpetuity which carried an encumbrance of £2OO. After his engagement he used to write to plaintiff about once a month, and received letters from her once a month or five weeks, lie admitted that he wrote the letter to Miss Knight which she said had offended her, and when she returned it with a request written on it stating that it was only adding insult to injury, and asking him to read it as if it had come from a third party, and give her his opinion

of it, as she could not understand it, he tnought by her returning his letter that she intended to go no further. His Honor: Do you swear uiat you thought tnat she was breaking off the engagement when she wrote those words to you? Witness: Yes. I do, sir. Ins Honor: Well, then, I think you are very much mistaken. Mr. Gillies: You are prepared to marry her now? Witness: Yes; to-morrow if she likes. The jury returned, a verdict for plaintill', the damages being assessed at £350.