Flashlight Magnate Vows to Care for Partner : Courts: But businessman insists he has no legal obligation to longtime companion. ‘I didn’t pull any tricks on Claire,’ palimony defendant Anthony Maglica says.

Sobbing on the witness stand and cradling his head in his hands, flashlight magnate Anthony Maglica vowed at his palimony trial Thursday to care for Claire Maglica until the day she dies, but he insisted that he has no legal obligation to do so.

“I ask this jury to believe that I will provide for Claire as long as she lives, so she will never have to work. This I feel I will do, so God help me,” said Anthony Maglica, 64. “I feel so ashamed, like a child--to cry--but inside of me I hurt, because I know the truth.”

The Maglicas were never married, but Claire, now 60, took Anthony’s name and they lived together for 23 years. She says she deserves half of Mag Instrument Inc., a $300-million flashlight empire they built together, because Anthony Maglica promised her from the time they met in 1971 that they would share everything.

He maintains that Mag Instrument Inc. belongs entirely to him and that he never promised her anything during their lengthy relationship. Still smarting from a divorce settlement when he met Claire Maglica, Anthony Maglica said he was adamant about never losing control of his money, and in 1977 the couple signed an agreement to keep their assets separate.

“Ladies and gentlemen, believe me. I work hard for my business, and I never wanted to again split it with anyone,” he testified. “I didn’t pull any tricks on Claire or anybody else. . . . I have been fair to Claire. I treated her better than any husband would.”

Legal experts say that if Claire Maglica prevails, she could be awarded the largest palimony judgment ever. Since common-law marriage is not recognized in California, the case hinges on breach of contract, and whether jurors believe Claire’s version of the 1971 oral agreement, or Anthony’s version of the 1977 written one--which her attorneys contend is fraudulent.

Thursday, Anthony Maglica’s attorney, Dennis M. Wasser, sought to have Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Polis dismiss the case partly because the evidence presented by Claire’s attorneys has revolved around common-law marriages, not breaches of contract. Polis denied the motion.

While Anthony Maglica testified that he “had no intention of dumping Claire, and she knows that,” her attorney, John W. Keker, suggested during his cross-examination that she only believed as much because she trusted his promise to share all their assets.

Keker alleges that Claire Maglica’s trust eroded when he told her in January, 1992, that she was merely his employee, not his wife or business partner. Until that time, Keker says, Anthony Maglica treated Claire like a wife and co-owner of the Ontario-based, 600-employee company, where she is still executive vice president. She claims to have supervised advertising, marketing and packaging.

The Maglicas, Keker suggested, were the only ones at the company not participating in the employee profit-sharing plan. Anthony Maglica set Claire’s salary in such a way as to reinforce her belief that she is entitled to half of everything, Keker said.

“She was paid like a wife, wasn’t she?” Keker asked Anthony Maglica in court.

“She wasn’t paid like a wife. She was paid like my best friend,” Maglica answered, adding that she was “well compensated” and could have built a nest egg with her salary.