George Walter Bassett descends from the #34B Bassetts of County Down, Northern Ireland as follows:
John Bassett of County Down, Northern Ireland
John Bassett Jr. and wife Mary Casement
William Bassett (b. 1797) and wife Anne Jane Parkinson
Samuel Kennedy Bassett (b. 1840) and wife Elizabeth Robinson McClurg
George Walter Bassett (b. 1881)
NZ Truth, Issue 180, 20 November 1908, Page 5
LOVE’S YOUNG DREAM.
The Man, the Maid, and the Baby.
CHRISTCHURCH BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT.
A Stern Old Father and His Son.
A VERDICT OF £1000.
A breach of promise suit that occasioned considerable interest was heard before Judge Denniston at Christchurch on Tuesday, when a girl named Lorrie Morton, the nineteen-year old daughter of Charles Roland Morton; licensee of the Commercial Hotel, Oxford, sued George Walter Bassett, son of Samuel Kennedy Bassett, a wealthy person residing at Avonside, Christchurch, to recover the sum of £3000. Barrister Alpers, who presented the case of the girl in luminous language, recited the story of the man and the maid. The facts were admitted by the other side (a statement enclosed by Mr George Harper for Mr Bassett). It would appear that George Bassett first met Lorrie as a child at Sumner, a statement denied by the young man, but the point is not a material one. When the girl was thirteen she went with her parents to reside at Oxford, where she met Bassett. About the same year George acquired a half interest (worth £3000) in Burnt Hill farm, near Oxford, and ran the estate with his brother Charlie. The quiet of the station palled upon him occasionally, and George used to come down periodically and put up at Morton’s. Frequently, also, Morton would visit the Bassett station for a bit of shooting and an outing in a general way of speaking. They were on terms of great intimacy, and Morton used to call Bassett “George,” while Bassett addressed Morton affectionately as “Charlie.” Bassett was twenty-two when he took over the station, and, he is now twenty-seven. One feature in Morton’s character was that although a publican he never permitted his daughter to go near the bar, but Bassett, unlike ordinary customers, was admitted to the family’s private apartment’s in the hotel, and met the girl in that way. He became Lorrie’s “joy”; her first and only sweetheart. Affectionate relations developed early. As the girl was coming from school it was the practice of George to drive up in his dog-cart and pick her up on the way home. When she reached the immature age of seventeen George went in ‘an honourable manner to the girl’s parents and asked to permission to become engaged to her. Lorrie’s mother was shocked at the idea; her daughter was only a child. George might wait for two years and if he was still of the same mind he could mention it again. The parents had no reason to doubt that George was other than a very decent young man, and placed no restriction on their daughter’s association with him when he drove her out in the afternoon, although; of course, she was never permitted to go out alone with him at night. George was impatient and couldn’t wait the two years stipulated, so that at the expiration of eighteen months he again approached the parents and desired to become engaged to their daughter. This time his wish was granted and the spooning pair were to be married in the winter of 1908. There was nothing alleged against the character of George at this time, except that he was somewhat extravagant in the matter of motor cars, polo ponies, and that sort of thing it was an accepted fact at Oxford that he was engaged to the girl and that the bliss of loverhood should culminate in marriage. In August, 1907 the young fellow took a trip from the district, but his love for the girl impelled him to write letters to her. They were sensible, manly letters and didn’t contain the foolish lover-like expressions that usually amuse a jury in breach-of-promise cases. Unfortunately the girl loved her George too well, and one day in the private parlour of her father’s premises, secure in his promise of marriage, Lorrie gave in to George. Afterwards it was repeated, but the girl fully understood that marriage would be the end of the romance. It was not until May of the same year that the girl, after looking up a medical work, discovered that there was something wrong with her. Somewhere about the same time the girl’s mother made the same discovery and upbraided her daughter. Somewhere about this time Bassett left the district and the mother, fearful that he was abandoning the girl, wrote to him. She then received a reply couched in indignant terms, “I would sooner die rather than clear out and do such a thing,” he wrote. Moreover, he stated that his father had been against the match and wanted to send the young fellow away on a trip, but George couldn’t tell him about Lorrie’s condition without the girl’s consent. George proposed marriage in the letter, and suggested that they should go away for a trip after they had been spliced. As an inducement to the parents to permit the girl to marry him, George mentioned he was worth about £5000. In view of the girl’s condition it was necessary to hasten the marriage and the young fellow interviewed the Rev. Garbett, of Oxford; and arranged to have the banns called. The banns were actually published twice, yet the marriage didn’t take place. The banns had been proclaimed for the first time on Sunday and on the succeeding Saturday the girl met Bassett by appointment in Christchurch. They had tea at “Broadway’s”, after which the man sent her home on a forty-mile journey by herself! He explained that the boys in the city were organising a function on his behalf, and as the girl demurred going home by train alone, he said, “Never mind, dear, we will be going away together soon.” As a matter of fact, such is the duplicity of man; Bassett had at that moment booked his passage direct to London by the Papanui, and probably had the ticket on him when he sent the girl away by train to Oxford. The mother of Bassett, it was believed by Bassett himself was in favour of the match, but Bassett senior, was opposed to it, as he had other ends in view for the boy, and mentioned that if he married the girl he would cut him off entirely and he wouldn’t be permitted to cross his Pater’s threshold thenceforth. Moreover, he bribed the boy by saying that if he didn’t marry the girl he would have a trip to England at the father’s expense. The young man left for London by the Papanui, but had the grace to write a letter that he knew wouldn’t reach the girl until after he had been 24 hours on his journey to the Old Country. It stated that George was ashamed to write to Lorrie, but his pater had always wanted him to marry somebody else. Moreover, it stated that the old man was going to find a home for the girl, and George promised to fix her up in that respect later on. The girl’s child was born in a nursing home in Christchurch, just after George had taken up his quarters at the Burlington Hotel, Piccadilly, London. Agents were cabled to London, and every movement of his was watched until he was served with the writ for damages. Plaintiff’s counsel believed that the young man was fond of the girl and wanted to marry her, but believed he was dominated by the strong will of his father. The old man had been approached and it was suggested that the girl should take the next steamer to London and marry the boy there, but the pater was adamant and refused to entertain the idea. It is true that since the service of the writ claiming £3000 damages, the young man had offered to marry the girl. George duly arrived in London by the Papanui within three days of his arrival. He was served with the writ, which was responsible for the present proceedings. The young man took the next direct steamer to New Zealand. Meantime the girl had gone to Dunedin, and wanted to legitimise the child she was bearing to Bassett, by marriage. Young Bassett, who had returned, hadn’t seen his father at this time, and when he offered marriage to the girl her friends advised her that he should make some settlement to ensure that he wouldn’t clear out and leave her again, and that her child should be provided for. Judge Denniston remarked to the jury that it was not generally known that the subsequent marriage of an illegitimate child’s parents legitimatised the child. Mr Alpers justified the demand of the young woman for a settlement by saying that later the young man might say he had married her with a pistol at his head, and he might leave her unprovided for. In addition to the Burnt Hill property, young Bassett owned 26 acres at Sumner, worth £1560; his interest in the Burnt Hill estate was acknowledged, through interrogatories, to be worth £1000; and it was the desire of the girl’s friends, that the Sumner estate should be conveyed to trustees, and held not for the benefit of the mother, but in trust for the children when they should reach the age of twenty-one years, the parents to receive the interest meantime; and the estate to revert to the children upon the death of the parents. In this respect the illegitimate child was to share equally with any other possible children. This form of marriage settlement was considered necessary by the girl’s friend’s in case George’s habitual extravagance at any time brought the family into low water. When George came back from England, he went and apologised to the parents of the girl, but they naturally suggested that suitable provision should be made for their daughter, her child, and George agreed to everything. Unfortunately, old man Bassett discovered that his son had returned to New Zealand. A hansom cab and his brother did the rest, said learned counsel. Next they found the son living with his father at Avonside, and negotiations were broken off. The old man was still opposed to the match. The marriage, which was to take place on the following Thursday, and which would legitimise the child didn’t take place. It was understood that the old man approved of his son marrying the girl at the last moment, but couldn’t stand the marriage settlement embracing the Sumner estate. A singular thing about the affair was that young Bassett was still writing affectionate letters to the girl who had given birth to a child, of which he was the father. Witnesses were called in support of the above story and George Harper cross-examined them, but admitted the main facts. Judge Denniston summed up distinctly against the girl, but in spite of this the jury returned a verdict awarding her £1000 damages. It is said, that the young fellow still wants to marry her.