BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18346, 1 April 1925, Page 6

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

DAMAGES AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF. An unusual breach of promise ease occupied the attention of Mr Justice MacGrcgor at the Supreme Court yesterday. Tiie action was brought by Xireaha Lister, of 248 Lichfield street, against John Patrick Sheehan, mail messenger of 19 Opawa road. Plaintiff claimed £250 damages, and the statement of claim set out that the promise ot: marriage was given verbally on December 20th, 1923, and tvas confirmed ou March 17th, 1924, and in several ways between December 20th and August 2nd. 1924. Mr I?. Twvneham, with him Mr W. J. Cracroft 'Wilson, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. S. Thomas for the defendant.

Mr Twvneham, in stating the case for the plaintiff, said that Miss Lister hail been employed as a shop assistant, but added to her income by doing private enquiry work at times.' It was in this last-named role that defendant met her in October, 1921, when he was seeking a divorce from his wife. The plaintiff had then assisted him in getting evidence in the case. Alter the divorce had been secured the parties had met (airly often, and the defendant had frequently visited the plaintiff at her home at Pic,carton. He had ofteu taken her out, and plaintiff had practically taken charge of defendant's t'our-year-olil son I'at, the issue of his marriage. Finally defendant asked the plaintiff if she thought, enough of Pat to take care of him always, and when the boy had been christened, tho plaintiff had been god-mother to him. Then an engagement ring had beon purchased, and as soon as the engagement had been broken off Sheehan had made strenuous efforts to get possession of it. Defendant had stated that he could not get married on .£•") a week, and that ho did not wish to take on the responsibility of a home. He had also alleged that the ring was not an engagement one, but a dress ring. He had met tho plaintiff in the street, had abused her, called her names, and had accused her of improper conduct. ■ In evidence plaintiff asserted that she was very fond of the boy Pat. Sho said that the engagement ring had been bought on March 17th (St. Patrick's Day).

Mr Thomas: A good day for Patrick Sheehan! Continuing plaintiff stated that after the ring had been purchased defendant had shown it to witness's sister and had asked how she would like to have him as a brother-in-law. Later he had shown considerable coolness in several ways, and had wanted her to make a statement that the ring was not an engagement one. He had also said that if sho would return the ring ho would give her a statement that she was a respectable girl. He had met her in the Square and had asked if she were going on with the case. He had threatened to prove that she was no good, and had said that she was just a "black nigger." To Mr Thomas: In the Sheehan case there had been allegations of adultery. She had not gone along with Sheehan to watch for adultery. She was not paid for looking for adultery alone. She began to love the defendant after the divorce, but denied that she had been living with Sheehan for months. Sho also denied that she had had relations with him. She had not passed with Sheehan as a Mr and Mrs Cameron, neither had she lived "with him at Ida street, New Brighton. ~ Mr Thomas: Do you know Munnsf

Witness: Yes. Mr Thomas: Have you ever asked him to watch Sheehan for you? Witness: If he says that he is- telling an untruth.

Defendant's Case. Defendant stated that he had first met plaintiff when she had been a cook at the Bush Inn. He had lived with her, but had never asked her to marry him. She had not trusted him and followed him about at nights. Miss Lister and he had lived together at 19 Ida street, New Brighton, and he had bought her tho ring as a reward for looking after his son. To Mr Twyneham: He had kissed her on several occasions, but had no intention of marrying her. His Honour: Your intentions were strictly dishonourable? Was that it? Aileen May Monica Groskie, to Mr Thomas, said that she had been a friend of Miss Lister, who had spoken to her about Sheehan, suggesting that she (plaintiff) proposed to go for breach of promise. Miss Lister told her that she ' (plaintiff) and Sheehan lived in New Brighton as Mr and Mrs Cameron. Miss Lister suggested that witness should meet them accidentally, as it were, in the street and say "Good evening Mr and Mrs Sheehan, or is it Mr and Mrs Cameron.'' Witness did so, and Sheehan seemed upset. Miss Lister asked witness to go ahead to the house and . listen in the pantry to anything Sheehan might say that could be used against him ill the ease. Witness went, but could hear nothing that could be used. She had not told Miss Lister that she could not give' evidence until she had arranged with Sheehan what she should say. To Mr Twyneham: She saw Sheehan on Saturday, and saw Miss Lister afterwards. She had spoken to Miss Lister before she saw Sheehan,. on Saturday, but could not remember, what they said about the ease. She spoke to Miss Lister about the case on Sunday. Witness told her then that she had not decided about giving evidence. She made up her mind yesterday. Bert William Munns, private enquiry agent, said Miss Lister had asked him tj watch Sheehan in Opawa road. He had seen Miss Lister and Sue eh an together in Opawa road. It was untrue to say Miss Lister had not asked him to watch Sheehan in Opawa road. Mr Thomas, in his address, stated that if the evidence of the defence was believed, then the defendant must succeed with his case. If, on the other hand the assertions of the plaintiff were correct, then she was now "well rid of bad rubbish," and lucky to be clear of Sheehan.

Summing Up. His Honour, in summing up ; said that as a rule such cases were heard beture a jury, but since the new Juries itulcs had come into force the Judge was sometimes required to hear tne case alone. Personally, lie preierred to be helped by a jury. The question in the present case was. did defendant promise to marry tne plaintilf i Tlie story told by both parties was an extraordinary and sordid one. The impression made on the speaker's minu by both parties was unfavourable. They had apparently been carrying on together lor a period of two and a half years, and neither had lost much by the marriage not taking place. The question was whether or not the speaker was satisfied that a promise of marriage had been given. On the whole, ht: was satisfied that such promise had been made, although it may have been extracted by means of a trap. He thought that the promise had been confirmed by the evidence as to the ring which seemed to be conclusive in the absence of any stronger explanation. It was quito clear that the ring had been bought as was usual witli engaged couples, who had been keeping company to the knowledge of neighbours for (Continued at foot o£ jiftjrt stomal

many months. There was strong primalacie evidence that a promise huu been given, {and tiiay promise had l>een uiokeu oecause tneie was 110 question of marriage now. It seemed i<j mm that a marriage between the parties would be boiuiu to end oiuy in one way. The next question with winch he had to deal was that of damages. jflaintitf, 011 Jicr own admission, had acted m a way uluch was aifhcuit to understand, but she had t>een badly treated by the defendant, who had kept her '"stringing on" for some montns, and had tueu backed out for &ome reason not very, clear. He did not think she had lost much, because defendant v.'as not a man who would make a good husband. He was probably searching lor someone who would look after the child rather than for a wife, and there was 110 suggestion on the plaintiff's part of monetary loss or that the girl had been heartbroken. Plaintiff claimed £250, but he thought that justice would bo done between the parties if he gave judgment for £IOO damages, with costs on the lowest scale. Disbursements and witnesses' expenses wfiuld bo fixed by " r