STRANGE ADVENTURE.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 April 1922, Page 12

STRANGE ADVENTURE.

CUPID* REMARKABLE STORY TOLD IN COURT. A DEAL IN CARS. London, Jan. 24. In the King’s Bench Division yesterday, before Mr. Justice Salter, Mrs. Gwendolyn Falcke, of 105, Regent Street, W., told a remarkable story of adventures in India in a claim for damages for breach of agreement which she brought aginst Mr. Herbert Minck, said to be a wealthy merchant, with an address at 35, Albert Hall mansions, Kensington, W. The defence was a repudiation of any agreement, and a counter-claim for £lOO, money paid to the plaintiff, and the value of or return of certain articles the plaintiff held, including a gramophone, Persian carpet and a camera. These things, plaintiff alleged, were gifts. Mr. J. B. Matthews, K.C., for the plaintiff, said his client was orphaned when she was 13. In the early part of 1920 she was unmarried,- her name being Gwendolyn Maynard, »but was engaged to a Mr. X, in Indfa. She went over to that country to marry him, but when she reached there, he reluctantly excused himself from an immediate wedding because he had incurred financial losses. While she was in Bombay she was introduced to Mr. Minck, who took an interest in her and her fiance, and she said she would have to do something to earn a living. A PLUCKY ENGLISHWOMAN. She suggested acting for the films, but defendant said: “Oh, no, you can demonstrate and sell a number of cars I have in Calcutta.” He promised*-her half the profits on the sale of fourteen cars, and a written agreement was signed at the suggestion of Mr. X. They went to Calcutta, where the plaintiff 'was “boosted,” big advertisements appearing in the newspapers describing Miss Maynard as “a plucky and entertaining young Englishwoman, who was engaging upon the new business of dealing in good class cars.” She was photographed sitting at the w’heel of “her 12-cylinder Packard,” although the car really was the defendant’s. She arranged practically for the sale of four cars, at a profit of £256 each, and could have sold the rest. But, directly her fiance left Calcutta to go to Assam, the defendant threw off his mask, said counsel. He told her the agreement was only signed to camouflage his affections for her, and to throw dust in the eyes of her fiance. He asked her to become his mistress, promising her plenty of money, and a good time. Meanwhile, said Mr. Matthews, the defendant had a wife and two children, and also boasted of another “girl” named Heloise in Paris. Plaintiff repulsed him repeatedly, and eventually went back to Bombay. Defendant paid her passage home to England, and since issuing the writ against the defendant she had married her present husband, Mr. David Falcke.

“HIS DARLING CHILD.” Mr. Matthew’ added that the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant in which he called her “his darling child.” “I know I have never been anything to you,” he werote. “I notice that the touch of me disgusts you. It may be my ugliness. I have decided to stick to Heloise, who does not think me ugly—or, at least, does not show it.” Mrs. Falcke gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement. In cross-examination, Mr. Giveen suggested: You have not suffered damage if you are now happily married to a man you otherwise would never have met? —I might have made the money and met my husband as well. (Laughter.) Plaintiff' admitted that the. defendant gave her presents, including a green jade necklace, a dress, and some dress material. She agreed she knew nothing about motor-cars except that she could drive one, but she successfully demonstrated those the defendant advertised. Mr. Giveen: You were to be the shop window? (Laughter.) You did not encourage the defendant in his attentions I agree, but you took a lot ? It came out of the business. Counsel: Oh, no; out of the defendant’s pocket.

SENT FOR A CHAPERON. Plaintiff said she was more or less stranded in India and defendant paid her passage home. It was a fact that he sent £lOO to a nurse the plaintiff knew in England to come , out to India to chaperon her. She had since kept that money, and the defendant had now • claimed it back. For the defence evidence was given that the defendant only had the right to deal in four cars, for the sale of which he was an agent. Mr. Justice Salter said he thought defendant misled the plaintiff in more ways than one, because the cars were not his property, although he might have been the agent to sell them. However, there was an agreement for the plaintiff’s employment, and as defendant had not appeared to say he had not repudiated it, his lordship must hold .that there had been a breach. He thought the plaintiff could not be entitled to more than £l5O damages, and judgment would be entered for her for that amount, with costs; while defendant would get judgment for £lOO on his counter-claim, with costs.