BREACH OF PROMISE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 193, 16 August 1910, Page 5

BREACH OF PROMISE.

CLAIM IXDR £300 JDAiMAG-ES. "YOURS TO A CINDER." , A_claim for £ 300 damages, for breach of promise, made by Amy \Vebb, of Ghristch-ureh, formerly of Auckland, against Joel Deeble, described as grocer and butcher, of Thames, was heard by Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of four, at the Auckland Supreme Court to-day. Mr Mahony appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Earl for the defendant. . In outlining the case for plaintiff, Mr jVlahony stated that the parties met in 1907, one living at Te Aroha and the other at the Thames. It was practically love at first sight, and after a fewmonths of acquaintanceship an engagement was entered into. After the usual vicissitudes of courtship the month for the marriage was fixed, but the day was never decided upon. Finally, in Apri' of this year, defendant wrote terminating the engagement, and asking for the return of his ring. - ■; PLAINTIFF'S STORY. ' ■ The plaintiff, who was well dressed, and not of unattractive appearance, stated in the course of evidence that she met defendant about Easter, 1907, \ and ■he paid attentions to her, making a proposal of marriage in November of the same year. Plaintiff was residing at Te Aroha, and defendant at the Thames. On occasions she went up to the Thames, and sometimes stayed with defendant's people. In August of 1908, he gave her a ring to seal the engagement. About October of 1908, a breach occurred in thefr relations, defendant intimating by letter that he was too much of a fiirfc to be true to his avowals, and could not make up his mind to stick to one.

Plaintiff said she did not reply to that communication, and did nothing to: release defendant, who, however, wrote her in February, 1909 ', saying that he had been broken-hearted -since they had parted, and asking that he be taken back. "Do not refuse your broken-hearted boy," he pleaded. As the result of an interview following on the letter, the past was forgiven, and the course of love and courtship resumed. Subsequently it was agreed that the marriage should take place in January, and it was then postponed till the following month, plaintiff going to considerable expense in preparing for a home and a trousseau. She spent about £50 or £60 on things that would not have been required had she not been going to get married. In October of 1909 defendant wrote pointing out that his position would probably make it advisable to further postpone the wedding day, and suggesting that she should riot make too much preparation for the marriage in February. Plaintiff said she was quite prepared to fall in with de--1 fendantfs wishes as far as possible. They continued as an engaged couple till April of this year, when defendant wrote to plaintiff, then living at Ghristchureh; eurUy breaking off the engagement. The letter commenced, "Dear Miss Webb," and contained an intimation that business had not prospered, and he was not in a position to get married, and he was not likely to be for some years. "I am stony-broke," he said, " without a brass farthing, so if you will be so kind to send back the ring I gave you, I should esteem it a great favour." Plaintiff said she did not acknowledge the letter, nor did she '■ return the ring, b\it instituted the pre- ! sent proceedings.

_ In the course of further evidence plaintiff stated that the marriage "was not to be conditional on defendant being in a pecuniary position to accept the increased burden. No condition at all was stipulated at the time of the engagement. She understood from him that he had an interest in the firm of Deeble and Son. Letters were produced, written by defendant, in which he stated arrangements or ideas he had for providing a home— either buying or building. One of these was signed "Yours to a cinder."WHAT IS THE OBJECT? Questioned by Mr. Earl, plaintiff said she did not ask defendant what wages he was earning; she thought it was his duty to tell her. She did not know he was getting only 30/ a week from his father. Mr. Earl: Didn't you tell him that you were ten years older, and were the prudent one? —I am not ten years older. There is only a difference of five years between, us. Have you had any real affection for him?—l have. When did it vanish?—l don't know whether it has vanished. lJ Do you seriously ask the Court to believe that though you had a real affection for this man you took his last letter to your solicitor and instituted these proceedings within 12 days?—l do. Well, whatever your affection may have been, you do not care sufficient for him to continue this engagement?—No, I don't think so, after what he has done. Do you seriously say that this boy should have married on 30/ a week?— J did not know he was only getting that much. Would you have married a man on that wage?—lt would not be equal to what I have been used to, but I could have adapted myself to circumstances. I cared for him enough for that, i What is the object of the action? Do you expect to receive large damages?— To compensate mc in some way for the money I have spent, the time spent, and and for the humiliation I have suffered. It is money you require?—lt is money, but money is not going to mend matters so far as all I have suffered. Isn't it that you desire to punish this man?—lf you care to look at it in that way. Let mc know clearly whether you want to punish him and vindicate your character, or get cash? His Honor: She wants both. , Plaintiff: That is so. MIDSUMMER SIGHT'S MADNESS. Mr. Earl, in opening the case for the defendant, pointed out that he had only been receiving a wage of 30/ a week and keep, and it would have been midsummer night's madness for the parties toseriously entertain marriage. The break-ing-off of the engagement was the moet expedient course in the interests of both the parties. Defendant, 26 years of age, said he i was a butcher, and was employed by his ("father at 30/ a week. He did not rej member if he distinctly informed plainI tiff what his wages were, but he did not say he had an interest in his father's i business. His position did not improve ! during the term of the engagement,. j which he broke off because he had lost ; the little money he had saved, and had ■no prospects. I His Honor drew attention to the fact ! that in his various letters defendant" j spoke about the business in the plural ! and possessive, and' suggested that such I language was bound to deceive anybody. Defendant explained ■ that be said "my shop" as an indication, not of proprietorship, but of the shop at which he ■worked.

His Honor: But that is not tie way to write to the woman whom you were engaged to many. It would be all right

between yourself and father, wiho knew w-hat was his and what is yours.. Defendant further declared that 'he owned absolutely nothing; he was quite penniless. " ~■ Cross-examined by Mr. Mahony, defendant said he had not filed a defence originally because he had no money, but his brother came to his rescue at the last moment, and was paying all expenses. . Mr. Mahony: Has he come to your aid because an investigation of your affairs under a judgment would not b3 advisable? Mr. Earl suggested that no reflections should be cast upon tie brother. Mr. Mahony said that was not his intention. He wanted to show that defendant was being helped by his family because an inquiry into Deeble and Sons' business would show the defendant's position contrary to his pleadings. Defendant persisted in his statement that he had no interest in the business, and the only reason for breaking away from - the promise of marriage was~ because he was not in a.position to carry o\it the agreement. In addressing the jury, Mr. Earl Tvith emphasis, that plaintiff had suffered no damage, but rather she was fortunate in being released from the engagement. Mr. Mahony pointed out the directions in which plaintiff had suffered by defendant's conduct, and argued that the case was one in which the damages claimed should Tie awarSed. His Honor wae summing-up when the "Star" went to press.