BREACH OF PROMISE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 308, 29 December 1922, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE.

SHOULD IT BE ABOLISHED? SCATHING REMARKS FROM THE BENCH. (By Our Special Correspondent LONDON, November 14. ! It's umpteen years ago—how the time flies to be sure! —since I heard Uhristabel Pankhuret make her first public speech in London. This she did at an open night of a legal debating society in one of the Inns of Court, when she took the lead for the Pioneer Club, the first of the women's clubs, in a debate; on the question of breach of promise! cases. The budding barristers then assembled took the view that breach of promise cases were to he upheld. Miss Pankhurst on behalf of the Pioneers so brilliantly upheld her case against breach of promise eases that, in the division the Pankhurst view won. in spite of the weight of legal opinion and the bril- . liant wit of some of the young members of the bar who opposed her. The occasion is brought vividly back to my memory by the very pungent judgment given yesterday by Mr. Justice ! MeOardie, in a case of breach of promise, \ and this judge and bachelor seems to my j poor illogical mind, but to express in the j clearest opinion the very view which j the members of the Pioneer Club fought i for and won in that now distant debate. The fact, however, that breach of I promise cases still exist indicates that this view which is, if I may say so. with-1 out undue egotism, the view of the most. enlightened women ought sbill to be I well ventilated, and for that reason I quote the most cogent sections of this judjre'e remarks. i Mr. Justice McOardie in his summing-1 up, remarked that he never tried a| breach of promise case without realising the very serious social questions raised by such an action. He expressed the! opinion: — "The existence of an action for breach' of promise is one which often operates' to compel a man to carry out a promise! which his conecience and hi 3 heart tell i him he ought not to fulfil. \ "No one can look round at the world without seeing that man,- engagements, are somewhat hastily made. ' "What is the man to dn? I s he to' say to the girl. 'Oh, my affection is .rone.! I have grown almost to dislike you—i your ways, your habits, your thoughts— j but I will marry you rather than face a! breach of promise action? . Or is he to! sa.v, 'No, I believe that the right thing. I the honest thin?, is not to marry I 1 will submit to the verdict which a jury I may think fit to give?'" The consequences of unhappy mar-! nages were seen in the thousands of separation* granted every day by magistrates They were seen also in the congC * „ sof the Divorce Court*. "If," the judge concluded, "you reflect upon the consequences of an unhappy marntge you will realise the gravity of the issue at stake—life-lon ff misery, frequently enough the Divorce Court and! social ruin. The action is in many! ways degrading to the woman, because she is asking the jury to assess the commercial value of the man whose affections she has lost." The action, which led to thie pronouncement, was brought by Mis s Gladys Saunders, aged 24, of Queen's Road, Lavender-hill, Battersea, against her former lover, Mr. George Tucker, aged 30, who holds a position in the Criminal Investi<ration Department of the Metropolitan Police. , The jury awarded the girl £40 damages. The couple became engaged in 1918 and arranged to be married in June, 1921. In March of that year, however, the defendant wrote breaking off the engagement on the grounds that hie love for her was dead. In doing so, he wrote: 1 "It is better this should happen before we are tied together for life, for then it would be hell upon earth for us." The judge put several searching questions to the girl. The Judge: Did you threaten him with a writ with the object of getting money? Plaintiff: No, I thought of all the money I had spent. I thought he might | change his mind. What do you think would have been the result of a marriage with this defendant if he had had led you to the altar under this threat of a "writ? The girl did not answer, and the judge then asked: "Why didn't you write a [tender, kindly letter trying to induce him to change his mind?" I had seen I him after I had received his letter. What happened then?—He just told mc he did not love mc any longer, and that my life would be a hell upon earth if we married. knew this man had ceased to care for you. Would you still ask him to' fulfil his promise?— You ccc 1 wa s so' much in love with him. j Would you say to this man: "I don't care that you have ceased to love mc. Ido not care that you dislike mc. ,1 shall insist on you «oin<r to the altar with me?"—lt is very hard to say. I, thing I might have done so at the time. Why would you have married a man who had lost all affection for you? Yee. in the hope of gaining his affection back again.