SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11279, 21 May 1902, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. The civil sittings of the Supreme Qfigrt re-opened before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston yesterday. WA_fSo_. v BUCKLEY. The hearing of this case, which was an action for breach of promise of marriage, was continued. Mr Joyht for plaintiff, Mr Donnelly for defendant. Before the resumption of the cross-ex* aminatkmbf the plaintiff by Mr -Donnelly, His Honour said, without wishing to stop the case, it seemed to him that the man should pay the-woman a reasonable sum of money to compensate her for the nine months that he kept her hanging on with some small assistance from himself. The woman had been'kept by the man shilly-shallying as to the getting of the •heme. In the face of the letters, he thought the' woman was . entitled to a solatium, not for "any wounded heart or anything of that kind, but, as he had said, for being, kept for a year waiting. The letters of the parties were exceedingly creditable to them, except that the man had- shown what might be called overcaution.; .The question w,as whether there had legally been a breach. The letters spoke for themselves, and he thought it would perhaps be as well for Mr Donnelly to explain to his client what he had said. The woman had very creditably, as he thought, offered to release the defendant, preferring that to a loveless marriage. Therefore ne thought that it wou'.d be as well for the defendant __ consider the matter from th» point he had intimated. Mr Joynt said that lie desired to say that, up to the previous night, he had thought the case was one for substantial damages.- But after hearing the letters read by Mr Donnelly and the statements of the plaintiff he ha_ changed his opinion. . His Honour said that as he understood Mr Joynt felt that, after hearing that the plaintiff had offered to ,g_ve the defendant his freedom if lie wanted it, the case wa-. not one for substantial damages. But as he bad irrtimated, he (the Judge) felt that the plaintiff-was entitled to reasonable damages for the loss of a year- of her life caused by the defendant. He had put on a piece of■ paper the amount of damages which he thought should be a\. arded, as to which Mr Donnelly .might consult his dent, and might also show the proposed amount to Mr Joynt. Mr Donnelly and his client then [eft the Court to consider the matter. :On returning, Mr Donnelly said that his client desired to say that he bad always felt, and still felt, the kindest and most respectful and friendly feeling toward. Mrs Watson. ,He also desired to say that he would have ultimately secured a home. That much being.granted, be desired to submit, on the authority of a case in Roscoe,- that there had been no breach of promise in this case, as there had been no refusal on th. part of the defendant to marry the plaintiff. "His Honour did not call upon Sir Joynt to reply, and proceeded to deal with the case as a whole. If the defendant wished to many tlie plaintiff he could, when he received t ; lie lawyer's letter, ■have said that she was mistaken, and that he did not wish to break .the engagement! Instead of doing this,, he offered to settle with her. He had come to the conclusion that thepa had been a breach, and that there should be damages for the loss of a year. It was only right to say that this was the only breach of promise case which he had tried, : or with which he had been connected, in which both parties had acted in a thoroughly creditable manner. The verdict would be for plainutf for £89, costs as per scale.