CIRL'S CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 145, 21 June 1935, Page 8

CIRL'S CLAIM.

BREACH OF PROMISE £350 DAMAGES SOUGHT. HER "DESIRE TO PUNISH." DEFENDANT'S OTHER FRIENDS. One of the first cases hoard by Mr. Justice Xorthcroft in Christchurch after Ms appointment to the Bench was a breach of promise action. By a coincidence Mr. Justice Callan, making his first appearance on the Bench in Auckland to-day heard a similar action. The plaintiff, Doris Darwin, candidly admitted that her purpose in bringing the action was to punish the defendant, Robert Henry Dawkins. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Lennard and the defendant by Mr. Henry. The statement of claim set out that in December, 1031, the parties entered into an agreement to marry, and that agreement had b?en in force until Pebruary of this year. In that month the defendant, it was alleged, refused to carry out the contract, and without iustification purported to terminate it. Plaintiff had been at all times willing to marry. She claimed £300 general damages and £30 special damages as compensation for household articles which she had accumulated during the term of the engagement.

Mr. Lennard said it was a type which •was very much in the public eye at the present time. For some years there had been few of them, but latterly there had been a recrudescence. He wished to make it clear teat his client was not out after money, and in support of this statement he mentioned that the damages amieht were only £300. However, plaintiff alleged that slie had been badly treated. She was influenced in bringincr the action in some degree by the humiliation which she had suffered and it was ner flesire to punish the defendant, who. he said, wae "more or less a potential Mormon."

His Honor: There are. many very reputable Mormons. You are using tie term in the derogatory sense, I presume. * Repudiated Hia Offer. Mr. Lennard replied that that was so. He said that the engagement had taken place in 1931, and it went along happily until Christmas of last year, when 'the defendant repeated the offer of marriage, but repudiated it in the following nionth. After being engaged for just three years the plaintiff received certain information, and on making inquiries found that the defendant was engaged to another girl. The engagement, however, was a short one of only a couple of months. The girl concerned was only 19, whereas the plaintiff was 28. Defendant had admitted this friendship, but had said that the girl "Vera" was onlv "a good standby," and he was tryirtg to get rid of her for some time, lmtihad been.vnable to do so. He also tried I 'to -get" the , ring back from the plaintiff to give to "Vera." Plaintiff wne exceedingly upset. She was a housemaid in a girls' school, and the arrangement made last" January was that the marriage should take plare v at the end of the-year ill the school holidays. In January defendant was Jess attentive. The • parties had been in the habit of going away for the week-end to a mutual friend's home at Swanson. However, dri a certain week-end in 'January he said that he had got to work at Otahiihu, and the following ■ week-end that he was going away with "the boye. , ' Instead of going away with the boys, he went with a'girl, said counsel. A Third Girl. Defendant had admitted that he had got entangled with a third girl, continued Mr. Lennard, and that he did not know what to do about Doris,, the plaintiff. In the middle of February defendant had gone to Otahuhu, where plaintiff heard that he had gone to see another girl, "Madge." When she met defendant subsequently he wanted to break off the engagement, but ehe said that she was not' prepared to do so. Another party went to interview the defendant, and he had said that he was very much in love with "Madge" and wanted to marry her. Plaintiff rang up defendant every day for a fortnight, but he declined to see her, and she eventually consulted a solicitor in March;

Plaintiff had been in employment for several years, and had spent a considerable part of her savings in getting together household articles, which were not suited for a trousseau, and which she had insured for £50. These, she claimed, were valueless unless her ultimate matrimonial experiences were more happy. His Honor: Are they not things that would be useful if she set up a home, whether married or otherwise ? Mr. Lennard: They are of value only in the event of marriage. ' Plaintiff's Evidence. The plaintiff in evidence said that she first met the defendant about four years ago. She got to know him through going out to his mother's. An intimate friendship commenced at the first meeting. Defendant, who she always called "Roy," had been in trouble, and had been Jn prison, i When his Honor remarked that this might affect the damages claim Mr. Lennard replied that he took it as showing that the young lady was,not hankering after money, but only anxious to see hi in for his conduct. It was a case for exemplary damages.

Counsel then exhibited a ring to the witness, who said that it was her engagement ring. When his Honor inquired what the stones were the witness said that she had forgotten, but when pressed further said that she knew that there were diamonds in it. The engagement went on for three years and sthe was very much attached to Dawkins. His Honor: Did you say that you were or you arc? The witness replied that her remark applied to the past. She said that when fthe questioned a person named "Rex" about her fiance's friendship with another girl she was told that defendant had been seeing that girl when he left witness nt nieht. The girl's name was Vera. She questioned Dawkins about it and he said that Vera was "a good standby" and that he would have nothins more to do with her. The witness crentimW that in Jannirr, Dfuvkins was ill. She \va<» on holidav anrl she went an:l nursed him for three days and forjrave everything. There was an understanding then that they should get married at the end of the year. Cards on a Yacht. On February 10 defendant told her that he was going to Otahuhu to work at a Mr. Arlington's. On the following ■week-end he eaid ho was going to play . cards on a yacht.

His Honor: You know, Miss Darwin,' he might have been going for the purpose of adding to his material resources to buy furniture. j Witness said that on the second Sunday she rang Eoy-rat Mr. Arlington's, and! got a very bad reception". Roy told her; she would bo sorry for what she had j done. She waited for him to come home, which lie did about 10.30 p.m. Witness was waiting with defendant's sister. On defendant's arrival his sister said that he was a "rotter," and ordered him out of the house. Witness .va'ited half an hour, and when she left defendant was waiting for her. ITe told her that he' wanted an "even break." By this she understood he-wanted a mutual break-1 r ing of the engagement. When she refused defendant said he .was in love with Miss Arlington and not with witness. If she did not break the engagement he would. She refused, and would not give him back the "engagement ring, which she was wearing. He offered her j a dress ring in return. I

His Honor: What do you mean by a dress ring? If you .switched your engagement ring over to another linger, would, it he a dress ring? Witness: That is what I told him. After that, continued the witness, she wore the ring for about two weeks, and then gave it to her solicitor. Witness then described a visit to defendant shop. She saw another girl sitting *T a motor car and defendant refused to introduce her. She consulted her solicitor on March 10 nfter being told by defendant that the engagement was definitely o(T. Witness added that defendant had not suggested in January that he was not in a position to marry her and had never given that as an excuse. "Unliapplness and Sorrow." Mr. Lennard: Has this business caused you any unhappiness and sorrow I —Yes, it has. Is it well known amongst your friends?— Yes. His Honor: It will be well known now. To his Honor witness said there were eight girls employed at the school where she was working and her affairs were common knowledge. Cross-examined. plaintiff said her wages at the college were 25/. She had been* , going out with another boy prior to meeting defendant, but was not eneaged. She had broken that friendship off to go with Roy. She knew that he had just come out of s-aol after being thefe for five years. She did not wish to marry him now, for she had lost her affection for him. She had brought the action purely to punish Dawkins. She would deny that she had told defendant that she was out for revenge. "Said He Wanted Me." In further 'cross-examination, plaintiff said it was the incident with the girl Vera that brought matters to a head. She did not take the "Vera business" too kindly. She told Dawkins that if he wanted the other girl he could have her. He replied that he did not want to see her any more and that he wanted witness. Plaintiff said she had taken her ring off on the afternoon of January 3 to see how defendant would take it.

In reply to a question by the judge as tp whether defendant had noticed that plaintiff was not wearing..the ring or whether she had had to draw his attention, to it, witness" said that he had asked where it was and she said she had lost it.

. Plaintiff said that she did not have an argument over Mies Arlington about a week after vJanuary 3, for she knew nothing about her until February 10, nor did she remember a second argument about Vera or handing the ring back to defendant. She did not remember visiting defendant's home and refusing to allow him to nee her home because of a "tiff." She hart never refused on an) occasion to allow Roy to take her home. Defendant always saw her home. There 'was never a suggestion from 'Ro'y that thev should see each other only once a week for thrrv months. His Honor: That would have been a severe ration on the number of-times you had been seeing him, would it not? Witness: Yes. Hia Honor: I imagine that if lie had suggested this you would have asked whom he waa going to sep on the other six days.

Witness said that she remembered that on February 24 she returned to the school at 12.5. 'She remembered the time because she got into trouble for being late home. She was supposed to bo in at 11 p.m., as it was a Sunday. Further cross-examined, plaintiff said that on one opcasion «he had gone with three married couples to Dixieland. She had been fhe o<ld girl out. She had not told Roy that she had been to the cabaret "with a boy friend, and if she had done so it would have been untrue. Spent £80 on Purchases. Questioned concerning articles which she had collected in anticipation of her marriage, plaintiff said that she had spent about ; £80 on purchases. Her friend Tom had given her a case of fish knives and forks. His Honor: a Was that an early wedding present or eomething? Witness: Seeing that I had been going with him for 5j years, I supposed I deserved some present for that. His Honor: That depends, of course. If he came along and said, "Here is a> set of fish knives, for I am not going out with you any more," I could understand. Who brought the friendship to an end? Witneee: I did. "A Standby." • Ernest Fettit, a farmer, of Swanson, said that defendant had told him that he wanted a certain Italian girl, and that Miss Dawkins was a "standby." On an occasion in January, when Dawkins had come out to his farm, witness told him that he looked as if he had had a "night out." Later Dawkins had told him that he had been to a dance at Otaliuhu with Miss Arlington's party.

In.reply to a suggestion by Mr. Lennard that an order might be made for the suppression of the Italian girl's name, the judge intimated that his view was that the publication of names should be prohibited only in very exceptional cases. The newspapers of the Dominion, he added, were for the moet part kindly and sensible in cases of such a nature, and he always hesitated to make such an order.

Witness said that subsequently Dawkins had told him that he had finished with Doris, and that their engagement was off. Defendant said he had asked for an "even break" and for his ring back. When witness later saw plaintiff she appeared to be greatly upset. Case For Defence. Opening the case for the defendant, Mr. Henry said that the " promise to marry was admitted, but it was subject to a condition that the defendant should be in a position to afford marriage. Defendant claimed that when the estrangement j' took place in February, 1935, it was either a mutual release or alternatively a repudiation by the plaintiff herself,"which defendant accepted. i (Proceeding.)