Person Page - 500

While travelling an the night express from Paris to Marseilles, Dr. Daniel Rees. of 12, High Wickham, Hastings, died suddenly from heart failure in the early hours or Saturday morning. Dr. Rees, who was 72 years of age, was on his way. with his wife, to Tunis. His death came as a shock to those of his friends who had seen him off at Hastings Station on Friday morning, when he was then apparently in the best of health.
The train was halted at Lyons and the body was taken off and arrangements were made to convey it to Hastings, where a funeral service is to be held to- day (Saturday) at All Saints' Church.
Dr. Rees was a Master of Arts and a Doctor of Philosophy, and before coming to retire at Hastings in 1933 he had been headmaster of Cardigan County School, Wales, for 32 years. During his stay in Hastings, Dr. Rees identified himself with the Twenty Club and the Egyptian Society, and was one of the managers of All Saints' School. Hastings and St Leonards Observer, March 05, 1938
Tribute to the high sense of honour and intellectual gilts of the late Dr. Daniel Rees, whose death was reported last week, comes from Mr. Herbert M. Vaughan of Tenby, a great friend of Dr. Rees and a writer of distinction.
Writing in the "Western Mail," Mr. Vaughan says:- "I was both grieved and shocked to read the notice of the death of my dear friend. Dr. Daniel Rees, late headmaster of the County School at Cardigan. He died suddenly on February 26th in his seventy-second year near Lyons, in France, while touring with his wife, Mrs. Elisabeth Rees. for whom special sympathy will be felt in her grief and loss.
It was, I think, in the summer of 1904, on the occasion of the visit of the Cambrian Archaeological Association to Cardigan, that I first made the acquaintance of Dr. Rees, then headmaster of Cardigan County School. He was of a retiring and modest nature, so that it took some time before I got to realise his high scholarship or to win his intimate friendship. But I do not know anyone for whom I have felt greater affection and respect. The sad news of his death brings back memories of pleasant days long ago in old Tivyside, when Dr. and Mrs. Rees's house, Belmont, in Cardigan became the central point of meeting for their many friends.
Dr. Rees never obtained the academic or educational awards to which he was most certainly entitled by reason of his high sense of honour and his intellectual gifts. He was too modest a man for this pushful world of to-day, which could not appreciate him at his true worth. Yet I am sure many of his old pupils, both men and women, will grieve sincerely, as I do, over his passing and will recall the deep debt they owe to Dan Rees, of Cardigan.
Yes, Dan Rees had a distinguished career in London. Paris and Leipzig; he was a ripe scholar in English, Welsh, French and German literature, yet he never became head of one of our university colleges, nor was he chosen director of education in any of our counties. But he was always happy and contented; fully satisfied with what Cardigan town and district had to bestow. It was only on his retirement from the headmaster-ship of Cardigan that Dr. Rees and his wife retired to live at Hastings."


The following appreciation comes from the Rev. E. Iliff Robson:-
" The passing of Dr. Rees, of High Wickham, deserves more than a brief mention. Though not long resident in Hastings, he was one who came here with a fine spell of work behind him, but still found work before him, whether in educational and literary spheres or in genuine philanthrophy, as evinced by his interest in, and work for, the fishermen. His was a rich and varied training - at University College, London; at Oxford, as Hibbert scholar; Berlin, Leipzig and the Sorbonne. Of his career, Mr. H.M. Vaughan writes eloquently in the Western Mail, but fragments from personal letters will better give the estimate which those who knew him had formed.
One correspondent writes: 'I have always had a deep respect and affection for Dr. Rees ever since I first knew him more than 30 years ago. I admired his unselfish nature, his sweetness of disposition, and his extreme modesty, for he was, I know, a scholar of high repute.'
Another writes: 'He was one to be proud of. Both physically and mentally he towered. Scores of young people will be feeling this week that they are the better for having come under his influence.'
Yet again: 'A rare and beautiful character. One had only to know him to become his devoted friend and admirer.'
And another: 'There was not one blot upon his escutcheon: he always played the game, and well they called him "The beloved headmaster.'"
His epitaph may well be adapted from a well-known Oxford epitaph, ' In Siciliam profectus migravit in coelum' - ' he set out for Sicily, but went instead to Paradise.'
'Hastings has lost in him a good citizen.'

Flags on the fishing boats were flown at half-mast as a mark of respect on Saturday, when the funeral service was held at All Saints' Church. The Rev. P Bickford Heard officiated, assisted by the Rev. A W. Van den Bergh and Canon Nance.
The body had been cremated at Lyons.
The chief mourners were Mrs. Rees (widow), Capt. and Mrs. Vivian Rees (son and daughter-in-law), Mrs. F. Gower
(sister). Mr. David Rees (brother), and Miss Florence E. Davis (sister-in-law). Others present in the church were Colonel and Mrs. E.P. Sewell, Mrs. Andrews, Miss Hilda Ward, Mr. and Mrs. Thornley, Mr. and Mrs. J.O. Huntrods. Mr. J.W. Huntrods. Mr. Anthony Belt and Mrs. Belt. Professor Bompas Smith, Mr. William Slade, Miss Child, Mrs. Jack Pritchard, Miss Price, Mr. E. Tapp, Miss Baumgartner, Miss Gwyther, Miss M. Grahame. Capt. A. J. Parkin, Miss Clarke, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Byard, Mrs. Plowright. Lt-Col. C.H. Young. J. P., Mr. E. Stanger, Capt. A.H. Dawson, Councillor A.O.R Hickes, Capt. T. Dannreuther (representing the Twenty Club). Mr. and Mrs. N. Scarlyn Wilson, Mrs. Bickford Heard, Dr. T.N. Kilner, Mrs Kilner, Miss Reed, Mr. W. Alexander, Dr. Charnock Smith, Miss Furniss, Miss Fletcher, Miss Atter and Miss Chick.
A number of local fishermen were also present.
Instead of flowers a number of friends sent donations, which were sent to the Hastings Fishermens Protection Society, for which Dr. Rees was a keen worker.
The funeral arrangements were ably conducted bv Messrs. J. Vine and Son. 46, High-street, Hastings.
Hastings and St Leonards Observer, March 12, 1938.

Wedding.—At Carmel Congregational Church, Treherbert, on Wednesday, the Rev. J. Pethian Davies officiating, the marriage was solemnized of Mr. David Rees, son of Mr. John Rees, Union Hotel, Llandyssul, and Miss Elizabeth Morgan, daughter of Mr Rees Morgan, Treherbert. The bride who was given away by her father was attired in voile with hat to match, and was attended by Miss Myfanwy Charles, Haelfryn. Treherbert, Miss Maggie Maud Jones, Tynewydd, and Miss Mia Davies, Treherbert. The best man was Mr. Edward James Davies, Treherbert.^3,4

The family of the late Major David Noel Rees, Solicitor, Tremyglyn, Treherbert, wish to extend their heartfelt thanks to his colleagues in the legal profession. and all friends, for letters of sympathy, floral tributes, and attendance at the Crematorium last Saturday morning. Western Mail, 12 January 1956.⁴

Considerable interest throughout West Wales centred around a civil action opened at the Carmarthenshire Assizes at Carmarthen on Saturday, in which Frances Rees, of the Union Inn, Llandyssul, claimed substantial damages from Dr. A.T. Evans, also of Llandyssul, in respect of alleged breach of promise of marriage. Mr. J. Lloyd Morgan, K.C., M.P., with Mr. W. Llewelyn Williams. M.P. (instructed by Mr. D. Roy Evans. Newcastle Emlyn), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ivor Bowen, with Mr. Bowen-Davies (instructed by Messrs. Evans and Thomas, Llandyssul), appeared for the defendant.

Mr. Lloyd Morgan, M.P., said plaintiff at present resided in France, where she had held a position as governess for the last two years, but at the time with which the jury would be concerned she lived at Llandyssul with her father, who was a licensed victualler at the Union Inn. The defendant a doctor practising at Llandyssul, and parties practically lived at that place all their lives, and had known each other for a number of years. They had been on friendly terms for a considerable period, and on January 1, 1899, the defendant made a proposal of marriage to the plaintiff, which she accepted. It was arranged about that time that the marriage should take place in October of the same year. After this they walked about together, he took her for drives, they went to dances and they were generally regarded as engaged lovers. In September of that year it was mutually arranged that the marriage should be postponed, no date being fixed as to when it should take place. She was about nineteen or twenty years of age at this time and defendant said he was very anxious that she should have a better education than she apparently had had, and he was also very anxious that she should learn more about housekeeping. He, therefore, suggested that she should go to school and also go to her brother's house in order to know how to look after a house when he made her his wife. She positively refused, however, to go to school, as she thought her education was good enough, but she did go eventually, although staying at home the whole of that year, until September of 1900, being constantly visited by the defendant. In September, 1900 she went to Cardigan where she had a brother, and during the absence of his wife at Borth she attended to his domestic affairs. Shortly after she got there the defendant wrote her a letter from Llandyssul, on the 20th of September. He addressed her from the first in endearing terms. Learned counsel said he was not going to read the whole of the letters. If he did the case would be an unusually long one. The defendant addressed her in some of his letters as "My dear honey little kiddy"—(laughter)—and on the 20th of September he addressed her as "Dear old kiddy." Learned counsel explained that about this time defendant had ordered a Cardigan coachbuilder to make him a gig or a dog-cart, and it was he whom he was referring to when he mentioned James. In his letter defendant continued to say:-
Next Saturday week will be the 29th of September, and September has only thirty days—(laughter)—so I don't see why you and I should not have a drive to Fishguard or elsewhere on the 30th. I am dropping James a p-c. by same post to tell him it (the gig) must be complete by the 29th. That is right, isn't it? I enclose James's letter and samples of cloth for cushions and padding. I do not like blue cloth. (Laughter). . . . . I chuckled over the idea of your telling James about it. Did he call you "Missus" —(laughter)—and does he guess how the land lies by this time? (More laughter.) I am glad you have fallen in love with the gig. I am looking forward as anxiously as I can possibly be expected to seeing it. Of course, I don't want you to see it. Oh. no!
Counsel said there was a postscript at the end of the letter:—"I have not anything very poetic to say this evening"—(laughter)—and it concluded, Fondly yours, Tom." (Laughter). Proceeding, learned counsel said:—In December of that year defendant became very ill. Plaintiff returned home at this time, and defendant sent for her. A second pencil letter sent to the plaintiff was as follows: It isn't typhoid, my dear Fanny. I don't want letters. They hurt my head, which is awful at best. Come to see me to-night. My sister will be out from seven to 9.30.— T. E.
Proceeding, learned counsel said that at first plaintiff did not go round to see the defendant, because she thought it was not a right thing to do to go to his home, but later on she went, and took a female friend with her. It was in July of 1903 that it was arranged that the marriage should take place, and the plaintiff went to Carmarthen to see a milliner, in order to get her wedding clothes made and to give instructions to get everything ready for the wedding. On one of these occasions defendant went with her, and he was present when the materials for the wedding dress were selected at the milliner's shop, where he made reference to his approaching marriage. However, when the time came he backed out of it, and he did not carry out his promise. This distressed plaintiff very much, and it gave rise to some rather painful scenes. Then the defendant said he would marry her after his return from Scotland, where he was going in order to pursue some course of medical study at Edinburgh, and he said that within three weeks of his return from Edinburgh the marriage was definitely to take place, and all preparations were made for the marriage on that basis.
From Scotland he wrote her:- Now tell me what do you say to coming up and seeing Edinburgh the same time as I shall have considerable leisure to show you round the city. We can take an occasional steamboat by the Forth, and see Forth Bridge, Queensferry, Stirling, if you like, and may, perhaps, take a flying visit to Glasgow, down the Clyde; perhaps even flying trip to the Highlands. I was careful to make arrangements in finding rooms for additional bedroom for accommodating a lady friend in case she should come, and I am sure you will be very comfortable, even when I am out working. I shan't press the question, but if you care to come I can get off easily. I shall be delighted. You might stay a week or even four weeks. You can get a return tourist ticket at Carmarthen for 30s. . . . . You are quite fit to travel alone, and I will meet you here (Caledonian Station). There are some lovely things going on at the theatres next week —" San Toy" and also Forbes Robertson in "The Light that Failed," and Mrs. Patrick Campbell in "The Second Mrs. Tanqueray" and "The Joy of Living." It will be a grand chance for you to see Scotland and the theatrical world. Of should you come, knuckle under to Landyssul public opinion, and give out Carmarthen, Cardigan, Dowlais, or London as your destination. Come when you like. Wire me as follows: Evans, care Block 47, Forrest-road, Edinburgh." Writing soon.—Rees. I shall take that to mean that you shall be coming there five o'clock that day, and shall meet you here next morning. Bring your very best clothes—(laughter)—as Edinburgh girls very swagger (Loud laughter.)
The letter concluded with "lots of love. — F. only your sweetheart, Tom."
Learned counsel said he did not think it was necessary for him at that stage to make any comments. It would show the character of the man with whom the jury had to deal in that action. Having put off the marriage, which was to have taken place in July, he returned to Wales to fulfil the promise, but once more he backed out of it, and there was another very painful scene. In January, 1904 defendant went for a trip to Spain, and during the sea voyage wrote:—
It is no earthly good for anyone to think of parting us dear. We have had too much outside interference to stomach already, and a little more or less is neither here nor there. —(Laughter.)
Learned counsel said it was obvious that the defendant did not intend to act the part of an honourable man, and her relatives got her to go to Cardigan, and that was what the defendant meant by the above letter when he spoke of parting. He wrote when he was on a steamer in the Mediterranean:—
This is the second night (the night before last) that you have kept me awake for hours after turning in. What is it, dearie? (Laughter.) Are you in trouble or pain? I hope not, old girl, now.
He ended the letter with a Good-bye, dearie, and lots of kisses. (Laughter). —Your old sweetheart, TOM.
Then he said, "to wind up, dearie":— I am now concentrating my thoughts of sweetness—(laughter)—for the 20th of February. I want to be home several days before you come home for the week-end, which you must, of course, do on that date. . . . . Good night, dearie. I stretch out my arms for you—(laughter)—and dream of you every night. (Loud laughter.) Don't you feel it? (Renewed laughter.) Good night, and lots of kisses. . . . . I believe you can safely arrange to visit home on the 13th of February, that is, if you are anxious to get your statuette and get your views. I am eagerly looking forward to seeing you and to feeling your dear little arms around me once again. (Loud laughter.) Don't put off your visit home, but do try to meet me there as soon as possible after I arrive.

Learned counsel stated that in February defendant returned to Llandyssul, where he saw plaintiff again. They paid a visit to a Carmarthen milliner to select some things preparatory to the wedding. This was the third preparation which had been made for the marriage, and he refused once more to carry out his promise. The plaintiff got into a very distressed condition owing to this repeated cruelty on the part of the defendant. On the 9th of March defendant wrote “What on earth can we do for a house, Kiddie." The letters that afterwards passed between them were very few. Plaintiff refused to be influenced by anyone, and in August, 1904, in consequence of a letter defendant sent her, she met him by appointment at Cardigan, near the garden of the place where she was staying, and the plaintiff would detail the meeting. There was some suggestion that she should run away with him and get married, and another that she should go away for a couple of years, and afterwards he would marry her on her return. That latter suggestion she accepted, and later on she went to France. On her way to Llandyssul from Cardigan preparatory to going away she passed through Cenarth and there saw the defendant in the company of a lady named Miss Lloyd and the defendant's sister. When he saw plaintiff he ran into a public-house simply to hide himself, and plaintiff went on to Llandyssul, and sent a message round to the defendant asking him to call before she went away. To the messenger defendant said, "Good God, is Fanny Rees come back to-day. Defendant also went to France, and from Paris she wrote to him again, but no notice was taken. On her return to Llandyssul in 1906 plaintiff heard that the defendant's banns of marriage with another lady had been published, and shortly afterwards she went back to Paris, where she had remained ever since. Learned counsel could only say that the defendant's continual ill-treatment of the plaintiff had brought her into a very distressed condition. Her health completely broke down, and on one night, when she was locked in her bedroom upstairs, plaintiff jumped out of the window. She had been in a very bad state of health, and the defendant advised her to take certain drugs, and he injected cocaine. That reduced her failing physical constitution, and one night she did jump out of the window after she had been shut in. She was partially dressed, and there could be little doubt that at that time she intended to do away with herself. Learned counsel asked for substantial damages because of the ill-treatment which plaintiff had suffered, and pointed out that she had spent over Cao in preparing her marriage trousseau and things for the household. He contended that defendant had treated plaintiff in a cruel and brutal manner.
His Lordship (Mr. Justice A.T. Lawrence) at this stage adjourned the hearing until Monday morning.

The Carmarthenshire Assize Court was again densely packed at Carmarthen on Monday when the action for breach of promise of marriage was resumed.
The plaintiff, wearing a heavy sealskin jacket, bore out Mr. Lloyd Morgan's opening statement on Saturday, in which it was suggested that the defendant, who is a district councillor, put off the wedding three times, and having got her away to France with the asserted purpose of bettering her education, got quietly married to another lady. Plaintiff alleged that she had spent about £80 in preparation for the marriage, and in consequence of defendant's behaviour towards her she became seriously ill, suffering from insomnia, and had to get cocaine, morphia, and doses of chloroform, some of the injections being professionally administered by the defendant. On one occasion, when locked in her bedroom by her sister, who was opposed to her having anything further to do with defendant, she jumped out of the window, and was making her way to the Teify River to do away with herself, when she was prevented by a tailor named Davies. She had many quarrels with the defendant, but she loved him, and she thought he would be an honourable man. The reading of defendant's letters to her in court caused repeated roars of laughter.
Plaintiff said it was a deliberate falsehood for the defence to suggest that she was intoxicated outside the Union Inn on March 3, 1900. She took nothing to drink herself. Defendant, she said, became very suspicious in his demeanour towards her after his recovery from the illness.
His Lordship: How did he show his suspicion?
Plaintiff: He used to think I liked other men and did not care for him sufficiently. Continuing, plaintiff said that he brought charges of immorality against her with men with whom she was not on speaking terms in the neighbourhood. She could not say what kind of medicine he used to give her on those occasions, but he used to give her cocaine in little tabloids and tubes. He also gave her some spirits of chloroform. Defendant used to inject the cocaine himself and also morphia. (Sensation.) He used to drug her in this manner from January up to July or August of that year (1902). On his advice he took her to Swansea to see a specialist, but when they got to Swansea he advised her to keep the £5. On her return from Swansea he kissed her, and subsequently wrote to her asking her to come home soon as he wanted more. (Laughter.) On first occasion upon which the cocaine was injected in January she was suffering from insomnia. Defendant used to inject the cocaine when she was ill about three times a week at Llandyssul. Reverting to her return to Llandyssul in 1903, she went at defendant's request, as he informed her he had taken a house at Llandyssul for her called Glasfryn, as be intended to get married to her shortly. She found out, however, soon after her return that this was a falsehood, and that he had not taken Glasfryn at all. She admitted that about that time, when left in charge of the Union, she did take something—she did not know what—to drink, as the defendant had driven her into such a desperate state by being dishonourable, backing out of his promise marry her, and alleging that she misconducted herself with other people. Soon after his arrival in Scotland he wrote her "Cheer up, old woman, there is a good time coming." (Laughter.) After his return defendant again put off the marriage for another fortnight, and this led to a quarrel. The effect upon her was that she had another breakdown, and she became very ill. She stoutly denied again allegations of drunkenness, and said that she must have become hysterical under the painful worry to which she was subjected. From Swansea in January he wrote her as "Poor little darling," and enclosed something for her "dear little throat." She remained at Cardigan with her brother until she left for Queenstown in the autumn of 1904. By appointment with the defendant she met him at the back of the garden of her brother's house at Cardigan. She was in evening dress at the time, and defendant took off his coat and put it over her shoulders, fearing she would otherwise catch a cold. Defendant begged her to leave her brother and go away with him the next day to London and get married quietly. She told him she could not leave her brother at such short notice, and informed him that she had received a post as governess in France, and she would go away for a time. She could return to him and get married in a proper way. Defendant thought it was a very good plan, and consented to her accepting the position. He then promised to go to France and meet her in about six months' time, and get married quietly at the British Embassy in Paris. There was no conversation about breaking off the engagement. He gave her a sovereign at the time, and promised to send her more money on the morrow, but she had meantime left for Newtown, prior to going abroad. She wrote him from France, as he did not fulfil his promise, asking him for an explanation of his conduct, but she received no reply. She again wrote him in twelve months' time in regard to a pencil case which he had written about. Defendant also wrote for the return of his presents, but she replied that she would keep the gifts. Later on, when she wrote to him in regard to his conduct, he wrote back a nasty and curt letter, alleging that she had held him up to public ridicule and that her letter called for no reply. Upon her return to Llandyssul she found that the defendant's banns of marriage with another lady had been put up.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ivor Bowen, plaintiff said she never took defendant's request for the return of his presents to imply that he wanted nothing more to do with her. She thought this request was made in one of his mysterious moods. (Laughter.) She got to know a good many of the gentlemen who used to frequent the inn, although they did not kiss her and propose to her—(laughter)—as suggested by counsel. She did not suggest in the whole of the letters written by the defendant that there was anything of a dishonourable character in them at all. At all events, she did not when she received them, but she now adopted her counsel's suggestion that there must have been something wrong in them. She now also thought that defendant's invitation to Edinburgh was an improper one, as it was intended to deceive her people. She wanted to marry the man whom she thought was guilty of those dishonourable actions because she loved him. (Laughter.)
Mr. Ivor Bowen: And do you seek these damages from him because you love him?
Plaintiff (turning to his lordship): Am I supposed to answer him?
No answer was given, but there was great laughter. When asked when she bought her "bottom drawer"—(laughter)—implying her trousseau — she said it was after defendant first proposed to her. She did not know that defendant only earned two guineas a week at the time he promised to marry her, as he had given her to understand that he was very wealthy. She said defendant was addicted to drink before he promised to marry her, but she re-claimed him. She emphatically denied having herself been found lying across a bed in an old lady's house at Penstar in a drunken condition in 1902. It was also false for Mr. Enoch Thomas to suggest that on one occasion late at night in the same year he found her in her nightdress in the garden drunk. She could not make out why it was that so many people from Llandyssul were coming forward on behalf of defendant to make statements that were untrue.
By his Lordship: The occasion upon which she must have been seen in her nightdress —or dressing-gown it was, in fact—in the garden, was when she jumped out of the window to make for the river.
Further cross-examined, she said she had threatened on more than one occasion to do away with herself, not on account of drink, but because of the defendant's conduct towards her. She denied running to Mary Goch's house, out of her sister's sight, in a drunken condition a few months before going away to Paris, and that her uncle had to come and take her home.
The names of several people were cited as having alleged to have seen her drunk, and the invariable excuse which plaintiff put forward for them appearing against her was that they had quarrelled with her sister, Mary Anne. There was a good deal of chaff by counsel in regard to "Sister Mary Anne," which raised many a titter in court.
She denied that Police-sergeant Lewis on otic occasion in 1900 went to the inn and found her lying drunk on the floor, with defendant endeavouring to get her to her feet; also the police-sergeant's allegations that in 1901 he found her partially dressed outside the Union Inn, and also on another occasion in broad daylight in her nightdress at the back of the yard of the King's Head. These statements were deliberately and wilfully untrue. She remembered being distressed through a quarrel with her sister in regard to defendant. On that occasion she refused to go home, and her uncle sent for the sergeant. Defendant was a hard drinker before she re-claimed him, but she had not seen him drunk since. Her people tried to prevent her marrying defendant, and it was for that reason she went away to Paris. The meeting at Cardigan when she last saw defendant before going away, lasted several hours, and although they discussed the subject of their marriage, it was not arranged that the engagement should be broken off as her people were opposed to the marriage, nor that she was sick and tired of his "cantankerous ways." Although she knew after her return from Paris in December, 1906, of defendant's approaching marriage with another lady, still she never thought it advisable to write to him for an explanation.
Closely questioned as to her not writing for nearly two years "to the man who had promised to marry her," plaintiff said she did write, but received no reply from him.
Re-examined she said that the reason why her brother sneered at the engagement was because he did not care for self-made men. (Laughter.)
This concluded the evidence of the plaintiff, who had been under examination for four hours and a half.
Rachel Jones, dressmaker, Aberystwyth, formerly of Guildhall Square, Carmarthen, spoke of the visits of the parties to order the trousseau and sundry things for plaintiff, and of references which were then made to the intended marriage. When defendant went to Edinburgh witness travelled up with plaintiff and defendant as far as Pencader, and on parting at the station he kissed plaintiff and said "Brave up, little one." He spoke of his wedding, and said he hoped everything would be ready on his return three weeks hence. She referred to the blouse incident and the selection of the pattern.
Mr. Ivor Bowen questioned witness amid great laughter as to what wedding dresses were made of, suggesting that they were a lot of white useless things put on. (Laughter.)
Plaintiff's sister, added witness spent £43 on dresses, although she was not going to get married. (More laughter.)
Mary Anne Rees, elder sister of the plaintiff and licensee of the Union Inn, Llandyssul, said she remembered the defend giving the plaintiff a gold bangle. As he came backwards and forwards witness regarded him as plaintiff’s sweetheart.
The Judge said there seemed to be no question as to the promise to marry.
Witness stated that she perceived that defendant was deceiving plaintiff, and for that reason she was opposed to the match from the beginning. She corroborated the incident of her sister jumping out of the window, and said her sister was in a weak state of health at the time. She was suffering from worry.
Mr. Ivor Bowen: You objected to this marriage from the start?—Yes.
I suppose you object to marriage on general principles, don't you?—Well, I have stuck to it so far. (Loud laughter.)
You have not been to Downing-street ? —No. (More laughter.)
His Lordship: You haven't had cocaine, have you —No.
Counsel directed witness's attention to some receipts for household linen, but witness denied knowledge of them, and he suggested that if she touched them she might get married. Asked in regard to the goods purchased in preparation for the wedding, she said they were in the press, but if she knew counsel wanted to see them she would have brought them down. (Laughter.)
Mr. Ivor Bowen: They are no good to me now. It is too late; but you might bring them down for my friend, Mr. Lloyd Morgan. (Loud laughter, in which the judge heartily joined.)
Asked with regard to other articles in the account, witness said, "They, too, are in the press."
Mr. Ivor Bowen: You're waiting for the return of the fashion, I suppose? (Laughter.)
Witness, under further examination, declared that the reason why so many people were coming forward against her sister was because they were all under the defendant's influence, except the police-sergeant, who was straight enough. One of the others was the worst man in the village.
Dd. Lewis, Cambrian-place, Llandyssul, spoke to delivering a message from plaintiff to the defendant in September, 1904 at the receipt of which defendant exclaimed, "Good God, is Fanny Rees come back!" (Laughter.)
Mr. Ivor Bowen: You were only the winged messenger of love. (Loud laughter.)
This closed the case for the plaintiff, and the court adjourned until Tuesday.

Mr. Ivor Bowen, in his address to the jury on Tuesday, claimed that the plaintiff had not suffered one pennyworth of damage. He contended that this case was not put up by her, but by those who were behind her, whoever they were. The defendant had never made a promise to marry plaintiff within six months, and when he became engaged to his present wife he believed that everything was over between him and Frances Rees.
Defendant, called, said he was a medical bachelor, and started practice as a doctor at Llandyssul in 1895. About 1899 he became friendly with the plaintiff, and subsequently engaged to get married. Shortly before the beginning of 1900 plaintiff informed him that she had been suffering from horrible neuralgic pains, and had been in the habit of taking laudanum. He prescribed for her. In 1900 he became engaged to plaintiff, and shortly afterwards, upon finding that he had reasons to suspect that she was giving way slightly to drink, he spoke to her in regard to the matter, and suggested that she should leave the bar at the Union Inn, and if possible adapt herself to become a doctor's wife. She seemed averse to going back to school to improve her education, but consented to go to stay with her mother at Cardigan. Some time afterwards he became seriously ill with typhoid, and after his recovery resumed his connections with Miss Rees in May, 1901. He had no large practice, as there were three doctors at Llandyssul.
Turning to May of 1901, defendant said that he had to attend one of the orphan children at the Union Inn, and was thrown into contact again with the plaintiff. They discussed the question of their engagement again, and he continued to write to the plaintiff until February, 1903. Unfortunately, he took too much to drink at this time, and, on the advice of a London specialist, he took a sea voyage. He proceeded to Edinburgh on one occasion for a three weeks' medical study, and when he wrote the letters referred to plaintiff he had no dishonourable intentions. Questioned in regard to the drug injections, defendant said he attended plaintiff professionally during her illness, and gave her a cocaine injection on the occasion of a tooth extraction. He also gave her some spirits of chloroform when she had a bad stomach complaint. He prescribed for the plaintiff in a strictly professional manner, and was paid for his services to her by the family. On one occasion he took plaintiff to see Dr. Elsworth at Swansea, as she was very ill. She was allowed to travel alone with him, with the consent of her parents, and he behaved properly towards her. When he made the observation in his letter written from the Mediterranean, "I can't bear the idea of your being behind the bar," he referred to the surroundings of a public-house as being not congenial to a woman who was endeavouring to give up the drinking habit. There was no mistaking their engagement. Everyone—Tom, Dick, and Harry—in the village knew of it. He referred to the last interview he had with the plaintiff in the garden of her mother's house at Cardigan. On that occasion plaintiff informed him that she was going away, as she had received a proposal of marriage from a gentleman, and she did not want him (the defendant). Defendant asked her whether she was serious and she replied, "Yes." He came away from Cardigan that night with the engagement broken off. He gave an emphatic denial to plaintiff s assertion that he promised to marry her at the British Embassy in Paris. He never saw the plaintiff for two and a half years after their final meeting at Cardigan, when the engagement was broken off. The only letter he wrote to plaintiff in France was asking for the return of a pencil-case which an aunt had given him. He denied ever receiving a letter from the plaintiff from Paris. He became engaged to Mrs. Evans in 1905 or the beginning of 1906, not having heard anything from the plaintiff for over eighteen months. He recollected the witness Lewis bringing him a letter on September 10, 1904, from the plaintiff, in which she asked him to come over and wish her a last good-bye, as she was going away for good. He never went in response to the letter. Referring to the letter in which he wrote, "You must carry out the programme, kiddie," defendant said it referred to a promise plaintiff had made to keep away from a bar for twelve months. During the years 1901-2-3-4 defendant said he had occasion to speak to plaintiff several times in regard to her drinking habits. He saw that she was addicted to drink, and insisted upon her giving up the habit.
Mr. Lloyd Morgan: Did you intend to strike in this case without mercy?
Defendant: I did strike without mercy—in the way one would hook a fish. (Laughter.)
In the course of further cross-examination defendant admitted that he had been rather fond of drink, but he was not a heavy drinker.
Counsel directed defendant's attention to a letter in which he wrote to the plaintiff in 1900, in which he said he was giddy, drunk, and headachy.
Defendant: My dear sir, those were the preliminary symptoms of typhoid fever. (Laughter.)
Mr. Lloyd Morgan: What? Get drunk. (Laughter.)
Defendant: On the following morning I was laid up with typhoid.
Mr. Lloyd Morgan: Do you mean to suggest that you went so far as to come up to Carmarthen and select the wedding dress, and that the one question —when the wedding was to take place was overhanging?— And any transgression of that one question was to break it off. At the time he went away his health was not good. His condition was probably due to excessive drinking. It was on account of plaintiff's drinking habits that he put the wedding off on that occasion, as he realised that if a husband and wife drank they would make a fine couple. (Laughter.) He thought it was quite proper even for a medical man to invite a young lady to come up to Edinburgh and stay in the same house as himself provided they were going to get married. Although he was engaged to get married in three weeks after he went to Edinburgh he refused to carry out the promise, as the plaintiff had disgraced herself whilst he was away. This he found out upon his return home, although there were no allegations of drunkenness in the particulars of defence at that time. His object in asking plaintiff to send an elusive telegram to Edinburgh that she was going to Dowlais, whereas in reality she was going to Edinburgh, was to prevent the village wagging. (Laughter.) Defendant said he had not gone outside for information about the plaintiff's drinking habits, but contented himself with his diary of entries. He had a double objection to the plaintiff being behind the inn bar, as he did not think it a right thing for a lady who was to become a doctor's wife to be in such a position, neither was it a proper place to keep a woman who was addicted to drink. The reason why he went to meet the plaintiff at night at Cardigan was because she could not meet him by day. He was a bit irritated at the time he went down, as he had received no letters from her, and he went down with a view of getting some settlement.
James Thomas, tailor, Bradford House, Llandyssul, stated that on one occasion in 1900 when he visited the Union Inn with plaintiff's cousin, he found the plaintiff too drunk to be able to light a lamp, which she attempted to do, but failed.
Cross-examined, witness said it was at defendant's representation a fortnight ago that he came forward to speak of an incident which took place seven years ago.
Mr. Lloyd Morgan: You don't spend the whole of your time in following your employment?—I do.
Mr. Lloyd Morgan: But you are a bit of a sportsman?
Mr. Ivor Bowen (interposing): And some lawyers are, too (Loud laughter.)
Witness later stated that in 1904 he was for trespassing in search of game, but was bound over in his own recognisances.
Margaretta Jones, wife of Mr. Arthur Jones, Paris House, Llandyssul, stated that she formerly resided next door to the Union Inn. On one occasion, about March or April of 1900, witness said she saw the plaintiff pass her window in a very wild manner. Plaintiff’s sister asked witness to assist her in catching the plaintiff. The latter at the time was very shaky and wild-looking, and had nothing on her head. She had the appearance of being under the influence of drink.
Mary Jones, of Penstar, an old lady dressed in typical Welsh garb, stated that upon going home one day, about September, 1902, she found the plaintiff lying across her bed in her nightdress in a drunken condition. At sight of her she exclaimed, "Ach y fi." Plaintiff asked her not to be alarmed, as it was she and not to make a noise. She insisted upon her going home, and subsequently plaintiff's uncle, Mr. Edward Davies, fetched her, saying, "Here you are. I've been looking for you everywhere." The uncle caught hold of her arm, and took her back to the Union, which was about twenty yards away. As Mr. Davies entered her house witness heard some noise outside and people shouting.
Elizabeth Jane Thomas, spinster, of Church-street, Llandyssul, said that in 1904 she saw the plaintiff drunk and her arms bruised. Plaintiff informed her that her sister (Miss Rees) had been beating her, and while she was preparing some food for the plaintiff the sister entered, whereupon the plaintiff rushed out through the back and ran into Mary Jones's house. Witness went after her, at Miss Rees's request, and whilst she was in the house Mr. Davies, her uncle, entered and informed the plaintiff that unless she went home he would use a stick upon her. Plaintiff was in a wild and distressed condition.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lloyd Morgan, witness said there had been some litigation between her and plaintiff's sister, and for that reason they were not then on speaking terms.
Mr. Ivor Bowen said he had a number of other witnesses, but he would call no more. He submitted to the jury that the evidence of the five witnesses he had called had not in the least been shaken, and they were all respectable people. It had been proved conclusively, outside Dr. Evans's evidence, that, unfortunately, the plaintiff had on many occasions between 1900 and 1904 been under the influence of drink. The inane way in which people in court had laughed when the witnesses for the defence were called showed how public sympathy had been worked up for the girl. And some of the people would go back to Llandyssul laughing over the fact that Dr. Evans had admitted that he had been the worse for drink. If there was anything dishonourable about defendant taking plaintiff to Swansea or asking her to go to Edinburgh, why did she not bring it out? Why did she want to marry him? Counsel made much of the fact that his learned friend for the plaintiff had not examined the defendant with regard to the promised marriage at the British Embassy in Paris, and submitted that the engagement was mutually broken off at the garden meeting at Cardigan, and that this miserable business should never have been brought forward and made the gaping curiosity of people. There could be no doubt that the main instigator of this action was Miss Mary Anne Rees. Plaintiff was still in a good position in Paris. What about the dresses? Was there any woman in the county of Cardigan who would resist wearing beautiful dresses and blouses, and keeping them in the press? As defendant had rightly stated, the dresses were ordered for the marriage, but this marriage was broken off owing to another drunken outburst on the part of the plaintiff. Counsel asked the jury to put all sympathy aside, and said that if the jury ordered costs for the solicitor and a few golden sovereigns to the members of the family for an alleged wrong that had been done. they would not be doing justice.
Mr. Lloyd Morgan, for the plaintiff, said he did not rely upon sympathy, as suggested in this action. Counsel said that if plaintiff had given way to drink, as suggested, it was done under circumstances of the greatest aggravation at a time when there was a breakdown in her constitution through defendant's ill-treatment of her. The fact that plaintiff was left in absolute charge of children was evidence that she was a person not addicted to drink. According to his own evidence in the box, defendant had not established sufficient grounds for breaking off the engagement, even if sho was an intemperate woman. It was an extraordinary circumstance that there was nothing said in a single letter in the nature of an appeal to plaintiff to give up the drink. There were some pointed references, but counsel suggested that these appertained to requests to continue to improve her education. Counsel said that the crucial year of this case was the year 1903. The proof he (counsel) put before the jury was that the defendant never intended to marry the plaintiff, and that from 1899 to 1904 he simply trifled with the girl and played fast and loose with her. Referring to the witnesses who had been called for the defence to allege intemperance against the plaintiff, counsel said plaintiff was under the influence of excitement, hysteria, and medicine administered from time to time by the defendant himself, which got her into a wild condition which might easily deceive anybody and lead them to believe that she was drunk. Defendant in the crucial year deluded the plaintiff into the belief that he had taken Glasfryn, and when she discovered that this was not so and that he had further put off the wedding she naturally got into a desperate condition. The treatment meted out to plaintiff from first to last was about as bad as it was possible to be. Did the jury think it was probable that a wedding which had been fixed to take place in three weeks' time, and for which money had been spent in the preparation to the extent of £80, was conditional on her becoming sober? If it were a matter of six or twelve months one could understand it. Referring to the night on which the plaintiff jumped out of the window, counsel said that it was evident, owing to the constant deception of the defendant, the plaintiff lost the balance of her mind.
Mr. Lloyd Morgan, continuing, said that the only occasion on which any admission of drunkenness was made was in 1903, when in a moment of desperation, consequent upon defendant's ill-treatment of her, she said she would drink anything, and she drank something, she knew not what. The occasions of drunkenness mentioned by the defence were of so vague a character as to date that it would be positively dangerous to accept such evidence. For some reason or other—a good reason, he had not the slightest doubt—(laughter)—his learned friend had refrained from calling Police-sergeant Lewis as a witness, as on the previous day his name was mentioned as one of the people who had seen the plaintiff in the intemperate state mentioned.
Mr. Ivor Bowen objected to his learned friend saying he knew the reason why Police-sergeant Lewis had not been called.
Mr. Lloyd Morgan: You can draw your own conclusion as to the reason why. (Laughter.)
Continuing, counsel said that the plaintiff had stuck to the defendant through thick and thin, and in spite of the objections raised by her people on account of his trifling manner. Counsel submitted that the promise had been proved, said it was in existence until the time he committed a breach by marrying somebody else. It was a perfectly straightforward action from the start, and he asked for substantial damages. (Suppressed applause.)
His Lordship, in summing up, said there was no dispute as to a promise to marry. It was one that existed for a period of nearly five years. The only question they had to consider was whether or not there was a breach of the contract on the part of the defendant—whether he broke his promise to marry her or whether it was actually rescinded by mutual consent of the two parties. Incidentally, there was the question of the temperate or intemperate habits of the plaintiff. It was evident that the promise was renewed from time to time, after defendant had full knowledge that she was doing strange sorts of things, such as jumping out of the window. It was curious that there was such a long lapse in the correspondence after the meeting in the garden between the parties at Cardigan. Which story were the jury going to believe—the plaintiff's, that they were to get married at the British Embassy in Paris six months after she left South Wales; or his, that the engagement was broken off, and that it was in the witness-box that day he heard for the first time of the proposed marriage in France? His letters were full of evidence that he was quite as devoted to her and as amorous as she was to him. His lordship, reviewing the evidence, asked the reason for the sudden change in the attitude. Why were those amorous letters discontinued? At the end of the six months, when the parties were supposed to have got married in France, plaintiff admitted she wrote to the defendant asking him to fulfil his engagement or even wrote to her solicitor, Mr. Roy Evans, asking him to institute proceedings. Plaintiff's explanation for this delay was that she was cross with the defendant. His lordship pointed out that the bills actually produced in court as having been paid amounted to £55 18s., and characterised defendant's suggestion in writing to the plaintiff that she should go and stay with him at Edinburgh as most unwise and improper, but it did not follow that he meant anything vicious.
The jury, after a retirement of fifteen minutes returned the following verdict.— "We agree there was a promise of marriage and that there was no rescission. We assess damages at £75."
Judgment was given in accordance, with costs and, upon application, his Lordship erased the jurymen from further service for a period of five years.
This concluded the business of the assizes.

On Wednesday in last week occurred the death of Mr. John Rees, The Union Inn, at the age of 77 years. Deceased, who was much respected, had been complaining for some time. On Saturday the funeral (which was private) took place, the interment being in the parish churchyard. The Rev. J. R. Jones, B.A., vicar, officiated. Mr. D. Davies, Farmers' Arms, was the undertaker. The coffin was of polished oak with brass fittings. The chief mourners were: Mr. John Rees and children (son); Dr. Rees, headmaster of Cardigan County School (son); Miss Mary Ann Rees (daughter); Mr. and Mrs. David Rees, contractor. Treherbert (son); Miss Francis Rees (daughter); Mr. and Mrs. Evans, Dowlais; Mrs. James, Dowlais; Mr. and Mrs. Edward Davies, Rhondda House; Mr. and Mrs. D. Davies. Farmers' Arms; Mr. Daniel Davies, White Lion, Dowlais; Mrs. Jones and Mr. David Jones, Lincoln-street; Mr. D.B. Davies, and many others distantly related. The greatest sympathy is extended to all. The Carmarthen Journal and South Wales Weekly Advertiser, 8th April 1910.⁵

Llandyssul Spinster's Failure, At the Carmarthenshire Bankruptcy Court, at Carmarthen, on Wednesday, before Mr T. Walters, Deputy Registrar, Miss Mary Ann Rees, who had kept the Union Inn, Llandyssul, said she filed her petition because she could not meet the costs in a breach of promise action, which her sister, Frances Rees, brought against Dr. Tom Evans, of that town, at the Carmarthenshire Assizes. Debtor further said that her inability to pay her gross liabilities (£928 13s 7d) was also due to shortness of capital, and the heavy liabilities which she assumed, when she took over the business from her father towards the end of 1903. Her examination was provisionally closed. Cardiff Times, 12 March 1910.³