£800 DAMAGES.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17393, 2 March 1922, Page 6

£BOO DAMAGES.

VERDICT IN BREACH OP PROMISE CASE. (mss association msc&ut.) WELLINGTON, March 1. j Tho broach of promise action in tfhioh' Eileen Frances Tate proceeded against George Winder, a prominent Wellington business man for £IO,OOO damages Concluded to-day. In summing up Mr justice Hosking said that in law a contract to marry was A business transaction as much as was a Contract for sale of goods or for doing certain work. Each class and contract, however, had its own measure Of damages. The jury must be satisfied that there had been an absolute refusal on | tho part of Winder to go on.with the marriage before the action could be Bus- j tained. Did he actually refuse on November 9th to fulfil the contract? Their verdict would depend upon whether they | accepted the plaintiff's or Winder's vor- i sion Of what took place. If they did accept the plaintiff's story, would' they be. satisfied that Winder's refusal was absolute? It had been suggested that Winder had nover intended to marry the girl, but had been content to be a philanderer, content while he was in her company, and the jury would have to consider from the correspondence whether that truly characterised his attitude. In answer to a, letter from plaintiff on September 13th, Winder had written that he could not then fix a date, but "The earlier the better." It wafe for the jury to say whether they considered that there had been affection on both sides. If such had not been the case, it would be more easy for them to arrive at a conclusion. On the side that there was no affection there woulrl be greater readiness to break off the engagement than on the side where affection lay. Again was the engagement the result of mutual affection, or, as had been suggested on behalf of the • defendant, had it been brought about by a desire on the part of the plaintiff to better her pecuniary position? Had Winder shown readiness to piit an end to the engagement? Was the- engagement the result of mutual affection or .had tliire merely been a desire on the part of plaintiff for a marriage foi' the sake of what could )>6 gained? In that connexion they had to consider the let|or which had been Called ft bogus letter. Defendant had said that after thinking matters over, he wrote and posted that letter on tho j night of November 9th. keeping a copy of it. Plaintiff swore that she had not received the letter. It was the oath of one against the oath of the other, foi* there was no corroboration of either story, though defendant produced what he said was a copj; of the letter. There was no corroborative evidence to show that tho letter had been posted, it had not heen received. His. Honour then put the two follow* ing issues to the jury, intimating mat after a certain lapse of time, a threefourths majority wcmld be accepted, although a unanimous verdict was preferable : .

(1) Did the defendant break off the engagement on or before November 9th. (2) If so, what damage* should be awarded: (a) For loss of business; (b) as general damages. The very keen interest of' the public' in ths action was shown by the number of men and women who waited about the Court during the luncheon hour and the afternoon for the first news of the jurv's decision. When the jury again entered the Ctyirt at 2.30 p.m.. after four hours deliberation, Mr H. Lejrgott stated thnt a full agreement had been reached, the replies to the questions put by his Honloiir being: (1) Yes. (2) (a) £300;'(b) £SOO. The jury also added a suggestion that costs oh the highest scale should be given against the defendant. That, however, was a matter for the Court. , Judgment was formally entered for the plaintiff for £BOO, with costs on the highest scale.