DAMAGES GIVEN

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21506, 22 June 1935, Page 27

DAMAGES GIVEN

—* —• BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY HIS HONOUR'S COMMENT (IBESS ASSOCIATION TBLEOP.AM.> AUCKLAND, June il. One of the first cases heard by Mr Justice Northcroft In Christchurch was a breach of promise action, and a similar case way heard to-day by Mr Justice Callan on making his first appearance on the bench in Auckland. The plaintiff, Doris Darwin, aged 28, sought £3OO general and £SO special damages from Robert Henry Dawkins. Counsel said that the parties became engaged in December, 1931. The plaintiff was influenced in some degree in bringing the action by the humiliation she had suffered, and it was her desire to punish the defendant, who was, counsel said, a potential Mormon. His Honour: There are many very reputable Mormons. You are using the term in a derogatory sense, I presume?

Counsel replied that that was so. He spoke of the defendant's friendliness with other girls and said that the plaintiff spent a considerable sum in getting household articles, which were not suited for her trousseau and which she had insured for £SO.

The plaintiff gave evidence that she was very much attached to Dawkins. His Honour: Did you say you were, or are? Plaintiff replied that her remark referred to the past. Case for the Defence Counsel, opening the defence, said that on one occasion the plaintiff told the defendant that she had thrown his ring away and was finished with him. The matter of the defendant's financial position had been dominant in all their discussions. The defendant had never had a position that would enable him to enter into marriage. Giving evidence, the defendant said he was given board and a few shillings a week by his father. Describing meetings with the plaintiff, at which she accused him of "going with other girls," the witness said the plaintiff had previously threatened that if that happened she would throw the ring away and break off the engagement.

The witness said he became annoyed at the accusations the plaintiff made against him, although lie admitted they were true. He had never unconditionally ORrccd to marry the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Evidence Accepted His Honour 'said tiiat when; the plaintiff and the defendant told different stories he accepted the evidence of the plaintiff. Ho was satisfied that he and not she broke off this engagement. The question of damages was difllcult, because the man himself was not worth much from any point of view. "I think the lady has had a lucky escape," said his Honour, "and she will probably realise that in time to come. He would have been a most unsatisfactory husband from every point of view, so the loss of him is not worth a great deal." The engagement had occupied the life of this young woman through the crucial marriageable years which she had wasted on him, and she ought to get something for that. His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for £75, made up of £SO peneral damages and £25 special damages.