BROKEN PROMISE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 208, 3 September 1935, Page 8

BROKEN PROMISE.

SHEPHERD AND GIRL.

WAS DAMAGE SUFFERED?

YOUNG WOMAN AWARDED £30,

"This is one of those cases where fickleness demands some reparation," said Mr. Singer, when appearing for Stella Lavipa Jack, of Silverdale, plaintiff in a breach of promise action against William John Bridson, shepherd, of Atea, near Gisborne. The action was heard before Mr. Justice Smith. Mr. Blathwayt, of Gisborne, appeared for the defendant.

The plaintiff's allegation of the agreement of marriage was not denied by the defendant, but he did deny, in reply to her claim for £350 general damages and £50 special damages, for depreciation in value of her trousseau, that she had suffered any damage. "Breach of promise cases in the Dominion and other parts of the world had occasioned comment by the various tribunals which had heard them," said Mr. Singer in opening. This, however, was not the type of case to which exception could be taken. It was a perfectly fair and proper claim. The law allowed a man to be fickle, added counsel, but it was a luxury for which he had to and ought to pay. The plaintiff, who was 23 years old, had devoted four years of her life to defendant in fitting herselffor marriage. From January, 1933, until June, 1030, the parties had been engaged. The defendant said the date of the engagement was six months later. His reason for that was that it was the date on which he presented her with a ring. Plaintiff's parents had offered to put the pair, after their marriage, on a farm. However, in the hope of becoming a head shepherd defendant went to Gisborne in 1934. In Christmas of that year defendant stayed at Silverdale for some weeks, and returned to Gisborne. He had not attained the position to which he had aspired, arid the marriage was postponed from time to time, though plaintiff was willing to go to Gisborne and obtain employment there. Then the plaintiff in June last unexpectedly received a letter breaking off the engagement. "Someone Whom He Loved." In the letter the defendant said that he had found someone else whom he loved as he had not loved the plaintiff, counsel proceeded. It was not a case where there was any justification for breaking off the engagement, yet the defendant denied that he had done any damage to his former fiancee, said Mr. Singer. Evidence was given by plaintiff on the lines of counsel's opening. To his Honor she said that had the defendant written and asked her to break off the engagement she would have accepted the position. No further evidence was called on behalf of plaintiff. For the defence Mr. Blathwayt said that the plaintiff could get no advantage out of the action, and no good purpose was served by it. Plaintiff's prospects of another marriage had not been lessened. The parties were very youthful and inexperienced at the time of the engagement, plaintiff being 21 and defendant 23. There was no reasonable prospect of marriage, and the formality of becoming engaged seemed, under the circumstances, unwarrantable. Defendant had no prospects at the time of the engagement, nor when he broke it off, of marrying. The defence was an honest one that the defendant had suffered change of heart. His Honor: Suffered is not the right word from the plaintiff's point of view. Counsel added that defendant had done what he thought was the honourable and courageous thing. After defendant had given evidence that his only assets were his three horses and his dogs and his earnings of £2 a week, his Honor said he would read the letters which defendant wrote to plaintiff and give his decision.

His Honor gave judgment for the pla-intifT for £30 general damages and costs on the lower scale.