FARM LABORER AND SERVANT

Taranaki Daily News, 9 December 1922, Page 6

FARM LABORER AND SERVANT

CASE IN SUPREME COURT. PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS. A case presenting some unusual features was heard in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when Hannah Gavin, a domestic servant, of Takapau, Hawke’s Bay, sued Edward Elliott Snowball, a farmer of Lepperton, for £lOOO damages for alleged breach of promise of marriage. Mr. D. J. Dolan, of Napier, represented the plaintiff, and Mr. A. A. Ben- ,r nett appeared for the defendant. The following jury were empanelled: Messrs. J. F. Crothers (foreman), G. E. Furniss, G. Tremlett. H. E. Bennett, W. T. Bishop. S. Bollon. 0. Peat, A. E. R. Gilbert, W. Crockett, J. Lowe, E. C. Horton, and A. E. Hurley.

“I do not come before the court with the usual accoutrements of counsel in such cases—letters breathing love and devotion and that sort of thing” said Mr. Dolan in commencing his case. The plaintiff relied on the verbal promises of marriage made by the defendant. The facts were that the plaintiff was a simple country girl living near Takapau, in Southern Hawke’s Bay, who had been seduced by the defendant when he had promised to marry her. thus blighting her prospects and impairing her career by his conduct. The plaintiff, in August, 1918, went as a domestic servant to the home of Mr. Brewer, near Takapau. The defendant was employed by Mr Brewer, and was learning farming, there being Another man named Hunter also employed there. The parties were therefore at the Brewers together, the plaintiff being the only female servant on the place. They beeanfe more than acquainted, and the defendant visited Miss Gavin at the home of her mother, partaking of their hospitality week-end after week-end. He sat at their table and ate their salt, and then seduced the girl and became the father of her child, which was born in October, 1919. THREE PROMISES ALLEGED.

When 'Miss Gavin knew her condition (in January, 1919) she felt desperate, and expressed intentions of taking her’ life. At this time the defendant went away to Wmganui, returning on Januarr 6 with a proposal that plaintiff should visit Wanganui with a view to seeing a medical man whom he had consulted, and who was going to write to him as to where plaintiff should come He received no such communication, and the plaintiff never visited Wanganui. Defendant promised that n she would make this trip to Wanganui he would marry her in six months time. Subsequently in July, 1919, she told her mother of her condition, and this was a great shock to a widowed woman who had brought up her family of children in decency. A brother of plaintiff's went and got the defendant and. brought him to Takapau, and he promised to marry the girl. There were said counsel, three distinct promises'of marriage made —one in January and two in July. At this time the defendant promised to marry Miss Gavin on July 23, but be subsequently had the date changed to July 214, giving as his reason that Brewer had invited him to a “hunt” on the 23rd. and he apparently preferred this to the keeping of his promise of marriage. .When July 24 came the defendant had decamped, but he was subsequently arrested at Dannevirke and ! brought before the Magistrate, when an order was made, with his consent, on August 6, adjudging him the father of her child. This was followed by an order for maintenance at the rate of 10s per week, which he had paid regularly ever since. Counsel said, as at the opening, there was nothing in writing as to the promise of marriage, but there was a letter from defendant to plaintiff on July 23, 1916, in which he asked her not to do away with herself, and not to think him hard, but saying it was impossible for him to do otherwise than he had done. He suggested that marriage between them would only mean the ruin of both, and he begged her not to force that. He promised to pay her £lOO or as much more as he could get together, but not less than £lOO. A loveless marriage could not be entertained, and “I could not be true to one,” wrote the defendant. He said he was going away, that it would be no use trying to find him, and he begged her to forgive him the sin he had done. This letter, said counsel, reached Miss Gavin just before the pro. ceedings in the court at Dannevirke.

Miss Gavin saw her solicitors after the child was born and negotiations took place, but without result, and in consequence the present proceedings were commenced. Dealing with the claim itself, counsel said damages were claimed in respect of the promise of marriage of January, 1919, which had not been fulfilled, and alternative claims for like amounts were made in respect of the two promises made in July. In these cases, it was said damages were not on the same footing as in ordinary cases, and they had to be computed in respect of wounded feeliings, blighted prospects, and an impaired career. THE PLAINTIFF’S STORY. Hannah Gavin, plaintiff, deposed to going to service at Mr. Brewer’s place at Takapau in August, 1918. The defendant was a farm worker there at the time, and he became attentive, to her and they kept company, lie used frequently to take her to Takapau. Familiarity took place between them in November, and when witness’ condition became known defendant promised in January to marry her in six months if she would go to Wanganui and see a certain medical man. No advice was j received from the doctor and she did not go. Defendant, continued to visit witness at the home of her people, and on July 19 he said he would marry witness on July 23. Two days later he said he wanted to change the date of the marriage to July 24. On the day for the marriage witness and her two brothers went to Dannevirke, where the wedding was to take place. Defendant could not be found, and on returning home the letter referred to by counsel in opening was there waiting for her. The defendant was arrested on warrant and brought before the court at

Dannevirke on August 6, when an affiliation order was made against him. Witness received a letter from the defendant after he returned from Dannevirke in which he referred to his sufferings after spending a week in gaol. She went to see him at his whare at Brewer’s, but he would not speak to her. He said she should not have come to him there. His brother was with her, and when defendant sprang off his bed and grabbed a bottle of poison from the table and was going to drink it, his brother caught hold of him and prevented him.

Witness then told a long story, of how she set out on April 21 with her child from Hastings to find the defendant. She searched in Wanganui and then came on to New Plymouth, where she knew he had a brother-in-law. She found Mi*. Fairbrother, but learned that Snowball refused to see her. An appointment was made for a. meeting at Fairbrother’s office on a Sunday morning, and there she met defendant’s father, whom she told she had come to find “Ted.” She was in a nervous state, having been six days and nights searching for him and had had little or no sleepi She said if she could not see Ted she would go back to Napier and let her solicitor go on with the case. Fairbrother told her she could not make a ease. 'She replied that she nad some letters which would be useful, and she showed one of the least important of these to Snowball senior. The father said that she should accept the offer made in that letter, but her reply was that it was now that she needed the help. She did not accept the offer. She returned to her lodgings, and in the afternoon wrote a letter which she put under the door of Fairbrother’s office, in which she said if defendant would pay her solicitor’s costs,. the £lO expenses in eom■ng over from Napier, and £lO a year for the child, she would stop the case. She left New Plymouth on the following morning and returned to Hastings. No reply was received to the letter she put under Fairbrother’s door for about a month, when a letter was received consenting to the terms. She had lived with her mother ever since, and her child was with her.

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. Answering Mr. Bennett, witness denied that defendant had objected, to going to her people’s place, or saying that the other man on the farm had been more attentive to her than he had. She denied also any recollection of defendant telling her in January, 1919. that he would not marry her. There was a definite promise of marriage on July 18 or 19 made by defendant to witness at Brewer’s house. On July 21 another promise was made in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Brewer and witness’ mother, defendant saying he would marry her in a couple of days. After this, defendant and Hunter came with witness to her mother to Takapau. She remembered writing to her mother in July saying that Snowball would not marry her. She denied that he had refused to marry her before July 24, and said that if he had not promised to marry her there would never have been anything between them. She was not aware of correspondence between her solicitors and the ■ defendant between February and April of 1921, and did not ask them, or the court office through which the piay-\ ments were made, if they could tell her his address. After his arrest and before the hearing of the case Snowball returned to Takapau, and witness saw him, with his brother, at his whare. She went there to see if he would marry her. but he simply said she should not have come there, and would say nothing more to her. He jumped out of bed and picked up a bottle of poison which he threatened to take, but his brother prevented him. She admitted making no suggestion that bis promise to marry was still binding either at the affiliation proceedings or the subsequent proceedings for confinement expenses and maintenance. Further cross-examination took place with a view to showing that in the interlocutory proceedings witness was aware that there had been a revocation of the promise of marriage between July 19 and 24.

THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTHER. Nikoline Gavin, mother of the plaintiff, said she met the defendant for the first time in August, 1918, and he was frequently in the house between that date and the following July. She thought Snowball was “walking out” with her daughter, who first told her of her trouble on July 18, 1919. She saw defendant next day, when she said he was sorry for the trouble he was causing her daughter. Witness asked: “You are marrying her, are you not?” Defendant replied, “Yes,” and he added that he would marry her any day the following week.

Witness met him at Brewer’s house on the following Monday, when he repeated his expression of sorrow, but added that he had found he could not marry the plaintiff. Witness asked, “Why? Is she not good enough for ydU?” Snowball replied: “Oh, yes’ She is a good worker.” He then went outside with Brewer, returning in a few minutes, when he went up to plaintiff and said, “I’ll marry you.” That night he came up to her house and asked if she objected to the wedding being postponed until the Thursday, as he wished to go to Brewer’s hunt on the Wednesday. That was agreed to. Next night he was at the house again, and, in discussing the wedding, Snowball stipulated that it should be solemnised in Dannevirke. He had then gone away, and she knew no more of him until he was arrested. The child was bom in October, and, for ten weeks before then, she had a nurse in the house, as she | was frightened of being alone with her. To Mr. Bennett: Defendant had not told her that he would not live with her daughter. Jarries William Gavin, a brother of the plaintiff, said he met Snowball when he returned from the Front in January, 1919, and he had often met him during the recent. few months, when he brought witness's sister in to his mother’s house froin Brewer’s in the gig. He corroborated his mother’s evidence regarding Snowball’s promises to marry his sister. When he failed to turn up on the date set for the wedding, witness said he made inquiries for defendant, but was unable to locate him, and subsequently a warrant was issued for his arrest. Before the case came on in court his sister insisted on seeing Snowball, ami witness and his brother-in-law took her out to see him at his whare. Snowball declined to speak to his sister. He saw him reach out for the bottle of poison, and he took it from him. This eloitd the obm f®B the elaiatifi.

At this stage, Mr. Bennett applied for a non-suit and judgment for the defendant, on the grounds that the alleged cause of action had been discharged by the agreement of the plaintiff made in Fairbrother’s office and by her letter of acceptance of the terms, and, secondly, that the plaintiff, by her conduct and demeanour, had exoner- 1 ated and discharged the defendant from any promise to marry. His Honour said he would not deal with the points raised at that moment. DEFENDANT IN THE BOX. Mr. Bennett then called the defendant; who said it was true that he hc.d gone to Wanganui in December, 1918, but he had returned before Christmas. He had gone to see about getting her into a nursinghome, and she agreed to go and stay there until after the child was born, after’ which he was to make arrangements to have it adopted. Plaintiff afterwards refused to go. It was not true that he had tried to make arrangements to have an operation performed. He had admitted paternity, and, as proof of his admission, he said he had sent plaintiff £l5 in a letter he wrote her before he left the district in July, 1919. He first walked out with plaintiff on November 5, buAdid not go with her again until the 21st, when he met her again. They went for a walk, intercourse took place, and shortly afterwards plaintiff told him she was in trouble. He remarked that she was as much to blame as he was, and declined to marry her. He met her again a number of times, “but under compulsion,” witness said. If he declined to meet her, she threatened suicide and “raised a row generally” when he contemplated going out anywhere. Of tert plaintiff had come at night to his whare, which he shared with another man, and on those occasions she was clad in merely her nightgown and a coat. He and his friend used to hear her crying, coming across the paddocks any time after midnight; but it subsequently turned out that she was not in trouble at all. At Christmas, 1918, defendant continued he was left in charge of the farm while his employers were on a holiday. Miss Gavin being sent to her own people. One day she came out to the farm and walked about the verandah very lightly clad. He next saw her on January 5, when intercourse took place From that date July 19, plaintiff continued to put notes in his lunch-basket, threatening suicide; while she also followed him everywhere he went. On the latter date he met her brother and accompanied him and plaintiff’s mother, who begged him to save her daughter's life. “I didn’t jump at it,” said defendant, “but her mother continued to beg me to save her daughter’s life, and I said, ‘Yes, Mrs. Gavin.’ ’’ Next day he saw plaintiff and told her he could not marry her. Her mother again begged him to give her girl a name, but he replied that he could not marry her as he could not live with her at all. The entreaties were continued, the mother saying that she was sure that her daughter would commit suicide, and finally he agreed to marry the girl. On July 23 he wrote the letter enclosing £l5, and rode 200 miles to get away from the girl, as he could not marry her, He was later arrested at Stratford and taken back. He gave his account of the interview at the whare before the court case came on, stating that he refused then to marry the plaintiff. When the case was brought on the magistrate suggested a settlement, but counsel, on his behalf, declined. Marriage was not mentioned then, and the next thing he heard about it was in a letter he received from plaintiff’s solicitors at the end of 1920.

OTHER EVIDENCE. Answering Mr. Dolan, witness said he had had intercourse with the plaintiff several times after she had threatened suicide. He had not gone to Wanganui to ask a doctor to remove the child by illegal means. He. had not seen anyone at a nursing-home. He admitted writing to the plaintiff, when he went away, that he was “an absolute waster,”' that his sin was greater than hers, and that he would send her £lOO as soon as he could. He would have taken the poison in the whare, had not Gavin stopped him. He had not promised the girl that he would marry her; he had promised her mother. He made no promise in January, 1919; the promises were made in July of that year. He intended the promise to reach the girl. The agreement reached when the plaintiff came to New Plymouth was that her solicitor’s expenses be paid to date; £lO be paid her for travelling expenses, and £lO per year until the child reached 21. The payments of 10s per week under the maintenance order were to go on at the same time. The father of the defendant, Edward Snowball, related the interview he had had with the plaintiff at Fairbrother’s office. Plaintiff told him that she wanted some money from his son, and after a short discussion he told her that he would pay on behalf of his son another £lO per annum, and £lO as a contribution to her travelling expenses. Plaintiff had demurred, saying that she could not make an answer until she had’ consulted her solicitor and he had agreed in this course. Plaintiff had mentioned at that time something about a breach-of-promise action.

To Mr. Dolan: He did not care whether he paid the £lO per annum in advance or at the end of the year, but he considered his offer a very generous one under the circumstances.

Corroborative evidence of the discussion in his office was given by Charles Richard Fairbrother, land agent, New Plymouth. The plaintiff had mentioned then that if an offer was not made to her she would have to sue for a breach of promise. He thought Snowball had refused to pay plaintiff's legal expenses, as he did not know what they would be. In his summing up, His Honour put the issue to the jury: “Was a promise broken?” leaving them to decide whether a promise existed, or whether it had been rescinded by the mutual wish of the parties. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. The jury retired at u. 55 p.m., and returned at 7.35 to ask His Honour for a direction in the matter of assessing damages. His Honour dealt with the matter of damages in various classes of actions, and explained that in the present class there was no money measure by which the actual amount fo be awarded could be gauged. It rested with the jury, he said. They thereupon retired again, returning 20 minutes later with a verdict for plaintiff for £275. Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the Registrar. Mr. Bennett indicated that he intended to move for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence as to a settlement before an action brought.