COURTSHIP AND COOKERY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3336, 30 September 1911, Page 3

COURTSHIP AND COOKERY.

AN AMUSING ACTION.

Much amusement was created by a breach of promise case heard in tho King’s Bench Division during Coronation week. Miss Jessie Ellen Oampj bell, of South Hackney, was the plaintiff, and Mr. Henry Hill, chemist’s assistant, of the same town, the defendant, who pleaded that the engagement was terminated by mutual consent. Counsel, in opening, said that tho plaintiff was 30 years of age, and had for many years assisted her mother, who was a widow, carrying on the business of a manufacturer of ties. The defendant assisted his father in the business of a chemist andi druggist. The parties had knowmi each other for 9 or 10 years. On February 2, 1910, Mr. Plill promised to marry Miss Campbell, and afterwards gave , her an engagement ring. A little ©lend appeared on the hoirizctni i : n. the shape of Mr. Hill’s mother. (Sometimes,' counsel continued, a parent 1 placed too high a value on “her boy” or was too critical of the lady he proposed to miake his wife. Mr. Hill was about 40 years of age, and the mother appeared to have retained her parental power in full force over her boy. (Laughter.) Mrs Hill began to say that Miss Campbell did not pay her sufficient attention. Miss Campbell did all in her power to commend herself to her perspective motlier-in-'law, and when she went to the mother-in-law’s house, instead of courting in tho drawing room Miss Campbell was dusting in the dining room- and became a kind of maid of all work. At last Miss Campbell’s position became almost unbearable, “PLENTY TO DO.” The correspondence, counsel said, was not of a very fervd kind, but anyone reading it would say that the engagement would 1 result in a. very happy marriage. On Christmas Day, counsel mentioned, when Miss Campbell expected to go out for. a walk with- Mr. Hill, his mother greeted her by saying there was “plenty to do” and that she “would find 1 a. duster and a big apron upstairs.” (Laughter.) The son took a lonely walk, leaving his fiancee to do the dusting for bis mother. (Laughter.) The next day the couple went out together for a walk. Mr. Hill said that Miss Campbell must pay his mother more attention. Sh-6 replied that she was doing her best. A little quarrel arose, and Hill said they had better go back. He told Miss Campbell it was a pity she could not cook like bis mother, and eventually be demanded the return of the ring. She held out her hand and Hill took tho ring off her finger, remarking “That settles it; you had better go home.” Concluding, counsel remarked that the defendant in liis defence said that the plaintiff had an imperfect knowledge of the domestic duties necessary to be performed by a wife to a man in liis position of life, and that in particular slie had an imperfect knowledge of cookery. That, counsel remarked, was hardly a. defence in this imperfect world. (Laughter.) Evidence was given by plaintiff in the terms of the opening speech. TO KEEP THE PEACE. Cross-examined, Miss Campbell said that she did not know the market value of “a gentleman in Mr. Hill’s position.” Slie dusted the drawing room and did other work for Mr. Hill’s- mother in order to keep peace. She assented to counsel’s suggestion that it was a case of “peace at any price.” Mr. Justice Scrutton: I think our great-grandmothens used to dust their drawing rooms, and were very proud to do it. but a great change lias taken place since then. Miss Campbell said she bad no objection to dusting in her own house, and she bad always helped l her sister in housework. Counsel said that in view of that statement by tlie -witness lie could not reply on the defence of implied conditions as to domestic duties. In re-examifiation plaintiff was asked : Are you t-oo fine a Ladv to do dusting and cooking?—Certainly not. Can you boil an egg—l ann told that is the axial test of cooking? (Laughter.) —yes. Does the egg come out neither hard nor soft? — It comes out just right. (Laughter). Counsel for tlie defendant: l understand that the potato is the real test v Mir. W. H.. Campbell, tlie plaintiff’s brother, said be bad an interview on behalf of his sister with the defendant, who said to him: “When I became engaged I did not ask your permission, so there is no need making any remarks to you.” CAKES AND PASTRY. Mrs Campbell, the plaintiff’s mother, spoke of the plaintiff ’s ability to do domestic duties and her willingness to cook. When the defendant said to her, “Your daughter has deceived me all throiugh; why, she can’t cook,” the witness replied “She can cook as much a® you can pay for. and as far as cakes go she can make quite as good cakes as your mother can make pastry.” Counsel: I understand it was only Adam, who did not tell- liis wife how his mother cooked. Cross-examined : You told him* so much that he could not get a word 1 in edgeways?—The witness: Oh, yes, I gave him breathing time. Is it not tlie fact that you made some insulting remarks about the defendant’s parents?—l did, and I meant it. The defendant was called. He stated that while they were walking on Hackney Downs he had a “not very[pleasant conversation” with- the plaintiff. She had previously told him/ that she had no knowledge of certain household matters, and he remonstrated with her for not doing anything to make herself competent. He said to her : ‘ ‘From the way you’re going on I should think you -wanted to break off the engagement ; perhaps it would be better if tli-o engagement were broken off.” She hesitated, but evntually, said : “I suppose if the engagement lias to be broken off it must be.” On the way borne she admitted that what had happened was her fault. Cross-examined: The defendant said lie was given £6 per annum pocket money by his father, whom he assisted in the business of a chemist and druggist. You did not propose to keep a wife on £6 per annum? —I did not' propose ■to marry for 9or 10 years. It was arranged there should be no- speedy marriage. , V Counsel: You would then be 48 and she would be 40. Mrs Hill, the defendant’s mother, an elderly woman, who was assisted into the witness box by a nurse, denied that slie asked the plaintiff to do housework for her. Slie did not think the plaintiff loved her. If a woman loved her sweetheart she would love his mother if she was a right-minded and God-fearing woman. The plaintiff had to be content with £35 damages and judgment was entered accordingly.