Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page

LU\NTW!T VARDRE SCHOOL BOARD…

Advertising

New Schools for Treherbert.

CAERPHILLY DISTRICT COUNCIL.

Advertising

!—————-A CAERPHILLY BREACH…

News
Cite
Share

—————- A CAERPHILLY BREACH OF PROMISE ACTION. AN AMOROUS ARCHITECT. AMUSING LETTERS. At the Glamorgan Assizes on Monday (be fore Justice Darling) Emily Thomas sued Wm. Phillips for breach of promise of marriage. Mr S. T. Evans, M.P. (instructed by Messrs George David and Evans), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Arthur Lewis (instructed by Mr J. H. Jones) for the defendant. THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE. Mr S. T. Evans said that the plaintiff was a single woman living at Caerphilly, and defen- dant during part of tile time of the courtship was engaged in various employments, ll!: was now an architect at New Tredegar, Plaintiff was 25 years of age and defendant 29. The parties met in 1890 at the Casde Hotel, Caerphilly, which was at that time kept by relatives of the plaintiff. The friendship rapid- ly developed into courtship, and defendant promised to marry plaintiff as early as the first t-l July, 1890, a promise that was renwed from time to time. Defendant had subsequently written to ask plaintiff to go and live with him at a seaside place for a week. Plaintiff natiu. ally refused, but she was very fond of the de- fendant, and still corresponded with him. Sub- sequently in 1895 defendant seduced plaintiff, but there had been no child. Defendant had repeatedly promised to marry plaintiff. and gave her an engagement ring. Mr Evans read very amusing selections from the letters sent by 'defendant to the plaintiff. The earliest of these were begun, "Dear Miss Thomas," sub- sequently thev began, ('My dearest Emily," On June 19th, 1830, defendant wrote, "I have been trving all the week to try and distinguish your photo. but am not quite satisfied until I have another promised, because I feel lost without bavin" a look oJ, those eyes of vojrq and see tllO pleasant snnws, 3,wayS make me feel a bit off. I am wlJrliii alone all dav. and the only thin" that I-ecns me R IVP is ibinkiriT of cniovable we bn l ht Knudnv and those 10viD, em^ex I Win" to S'indiv nrvrwor pn.-thor piessant walk and a good old hugging, just to show Here's no ill-feeling." A HOLIDAY AT BOURNEMOUTH. Another letter was as follows: — "Bournemouth, August 10th, 1896. "Dear Emily,-Your most loving letter to hand, and very gfad to hear you have conclu- ded to come to Bournemoutn for a holiday. I have persuaded the landlady I am a mar- ried man, which she thoroughly believes, and that my wife is coming down to spend a week. Therefore you must act fly over it, and we can both stay together comfortably. Try and come down on Friday next; if not. let me know when, and I shall meet you. Hoping you are wel". and lontring to see "our loving face again, —T am. as ever, Willie. x x x x x x "P.S.—Put a wedding ring on your finger." "THOSE BEAUTIFUL EYES." In another letter the following passage oc- curred "After spending such a delightful few hours, dear, with you on Sunday, and coming up to this uncivilised, outlandish part of the globe for a week without even liaviiir a glance into those beautiful eyes, really makes a fellow feel n. bit off, in fact. very much off; of course you know what I mean." A FRONT DOOR INCIDENT. In Januarv. 1894, defendant wrote from the Isle of Wight: — "I felt awfully harassed in not having an opportunity of conversing with you alone. I felt. rather unset over it when I felt those arms entwining my neck at the front door. I felt a pang pierce me iliroiith; I mean a rang of envvness to replenish the same, but unfortun- ately there was someone in the passage behind me. Never mind, Emm. the time will arrive when one of those as of old will meet vour lin-, again. I am full of work at nresent, but will never forget you as long as I live." In another latter asking plaintiff to meet him at Ystrad. he wrote:—"We can discuss pollitics and Church Service together." In other letters statements were made concern- iiiz the position of the defendant, and lie told the plaintiff that his grandfather had died nmfl i III tI-ie would soon be able to marry her. He flVIr Evans) felt bound to sav that defendant hiad produced two letters which he said had been written bv plaintiff t^lin^r him that a child had been born. Plnintiff de.ed that she bad ever written these letters. In er-nchisio'i r-Mi^el asked the jury to find for substantial damages. THE PROMISED ADMITTED. Mr Arthur Lewis said that the promise to marry was admitted. His Lordship said that would shorten mat- ters considerably. Mr S. T. E vans: If the breach is denied how is it that they have not been married? Eindit years is rather a lonz time, isn't it? His Lordship: Probnblv he was wai'ing for the other grandfather to die. (Laughter). PLAINTIFF IN THE BOX. Plaintiff, a pleasant looking young lady,neat- ly attired in a black costume, with sailor hat and white neck kerchief, then entered the box. She gavo her evidence clearly and with perfect self-possession. After bearing out the facts as stated by her counsel, she was cross- examined at considerable length by Mr Arthur Lewis. She idenied ihavin? w^cn some of the letters put. in by the defendant as having been sent bv her. She had never told defen- dant that she had had money left her *nd she denied ever having said or written that- she had had n, child born as the result of her seduction by the plaintiff. THE DEFENCE. Mr Arthur Lewis then addressed the jury at some length for the defendant, and in the course of his remarks pointed to the fact that plaintiff had said that she had never said one word about the seduction until she mentioned it to her solicitor. Ho (Mr Lewis) would call the defendant and his father and mother, and they would say that plaintiff came to their house on a Sunday afternoon in 1897 and told them that she was in the family way. DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE. Defendant, a slim, light-complexioned young man, was then called. He swore to having received letters from plaintiff in which she stated that she had had a child. He ad- mitted having once hod improper intercourse with plaintiff. Mr S. T- Evans: How is it that your feel- ings for this young ladv have undergone such a change?—Because I have proved her telling such awful untruths about her having had a child. Defendant further said that /he thought ot marrying plaintiff up till the time that she told him untruths at Barry. It was in 1890 that he seduced the plaintiff. Mr Evans: Did you hiear my learned friend say that it was in 1896?-Yes. Well, how do you explain it?—I might have done it again in 1896. Oh, you have done more than once?—Yes. Did you hear what Mr Arthur Lewis said?- Yes. I told my solicitors that I had not se- duecd her. fell- why did you .ell your solicitors an untruth? His Lordship: Why did you tell a lie to rour solicitor? You did not think lie would believe. n' f 1 .Jkoud laughter). No .answer. Defendant said that plaintiff wanted to go to Bournemouth to live with him ns his wife, and that she asked him, to take her. Defendant was thsn cross-examined regard- in the letters, the authorship of which was in dispute. The two envelopes of the two most important letters lie had lost. Mr S. T. Evans: Why you keep them if you ever received them?—Because I thought it was not necessary. Then why keep tine res; 0—Well, I d^ln'tv happen to tear them up. Some fun followed over the question of the "NICE QUIET SPOT" in the Rhondda Valley referred to in one of the letters. Mr Evans: Oh, there is a nice quiet spot m the Rhondcia Valley, is there? Where is it; is it on a mountain top?—I thought it would be some quiet little vilia e. Laughter). His Lordship: Am I to take it that the Rhondda Valley is always in a slate of tur- moil? (Laughter). Mr S. T. Evans: I think it is about the busi- est place in this kingdom. His Lordship (smiling: Oil! (Laughter). Mr Evans (to defendant): I suppose you have never been up there?—No I haven't. U. Evans: Ah, then your education has been sadly neglected. (Lauphter). Now, I ask you, did you write eilher of those letters which y6u say plnintiff wrefe to yon ? No. You are clear about it?—I swear I did not. Why should she write yen such letters?—I cannot make it out. Have you no idea?—I s"npcse it was because she wanted me to marr- h or, Defendant admitted flit ¡, ha'1 seen nJain- tiff within a month of reeling the letter to say that she had had a eMd. DEFENDANT'S PARENTS EXAMINED. Evidence was given by Mrs Phillips, mother of the defendant, concerning the visit of plain- tiff to her. She told witness that she was -in the way," and witness told her tj go and see her son, that shi (witness) knew untiling of it., and that she (plaintiff) didn't look as if she was with child. Thomas Phillips, contractcr, Maesycwmmer, defendant's father, gave his version of the interview with plaintiff on the Sunday after- noon in question. By Mr. S. T. Evans: He listened in the pas- sage to what plaintiff said to his wife. Why didn't you go into the room?Because I wasn't asked. You were interested in itr-I was. Why?—The girl was continually molesting our son. She Wa3 always sending letters and telegrams to my son. Do you think he meant to marry her?—I don't believe he would marry a girl such as she is. Why ?—Simply because of her conduct. How did you know of that?—Public gossip, mv dear sir, told us all a'bout her. Why, yon onlv wanted to go to the railway station. Everybody would come and tell you abaut her conduct and how she was running after our son. Mr Arthur Lewis then addressed the JUry for th" defendant. Mr S. T. Evan-s then addressed tho jury, and ni" Lordship having summed up the iury re- tired. THE VERDICT. The jury, after having been absent for half an hour, returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff for £ 100.

Advertising