Lenglen overcomes Wills

Cannes, February 16 (received February 17, at 5.5pm): The score in the match between Mademoiselle Lenglen and Miss Helen Wills was 6-3, 8-6, in favour of the former. All Miss Wills’s industry, pertinacity and physical strength were unavailing against Mademoiselle Lenglen’s swift darts across the court. Her lightning-like anticipation, seconded by her equally rapid movement, outbalanced Miss Wills’s hardest drives. Mademoiselle Lenglen’s win was not only a victory of genius over talent, but a striking conquest of her own temperament. After her somewhat nervous play yesterday doubt began to creep into some minds whether if she met dangerous opposition her nerves would stand the strain. Mademoiselle Lenglen made short work of all such misgivings, although Miss Wills led at the beginning of both sets and gave Mademoiselle Lenglen a bitter battle in the second set. The match adds to the reputation of both players.

Under influence of onions

The fact that Frank Bell Poppelwell, a holiday-maker from Auckland, smelled strongly of drink and seemed to be muddled when he came to the South Dunedin Police Station to report after having knocked Alfred Wylie off his bicycle, prompted the police to prefer a charge against him of being in charge of a motor car. Poppelwell denied that he was under the influence of liquor and told told Constable Gibson that going down the slide at the Exhibition had made him muddled. In evidence he told the court that the fact that beer occasionally went sour on his stomach and that he had had steak and onions for tea would make his breath smell strongly. The defendant said that Wylie seemed to swerve in front of him. During 18 years as a motorist he had had two convictions for exceeding the speed limit. He had his last drink at 4 o’clock.

The case was heard at the City Police Court yesterday morning before Mr J.R. Bartholomew SM. The defendant pleaded not guilty.

The Magistrate said that intoxication might be a state less than drunkenness. It had certainly not been proved that defendant was intoxicated. In view of the evidence  the case was dismissed. 

Married to marriage

To be married once is generally sufficient for most men, but to be married twice to the same woman is the fate of few. This, however, was what happened to the plaintiff in a divorce case at the Supreme Court yesterday. 

However, the double marriage has evidently been anything but successful, and his Honor Mr Justice Sim and two learned counsel are somewhat puzzled to know where to begin in untying the knot. Plaintiff stated that he had first married respondent in 1919 under another name (which was that of his stepfather) and again in his right name in 1922. The trouble now appears to be which marriage should be dissolved. — ODT, 18.2.1926