ALLEGED BREACH OF PROMISE

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27666, 24 May 1955, Page 9

ALLEGED BREACH OF PROMISE

WOMAN CLAIMS £3892 “CRUEL AND HEARTLESS CONDUCT” (New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, May 23. The evidence would show that the defendant had been guilty of cruel and heartless conduct, said Mr B. C. Haggitt, addressing a jury in the Auckland Supreme Court today on behalf of Joy Ellen King, a spinster. Miss King is suing Joseph Frank Kumarich, a carpenter, of Cambridge, for alleged breach of promise. She seeks £1750 for the alleged breach of promise, and £2142 representing a half-share in a house in Auckland.

Kumarich (Mr R K. Davison and Mr C. W. E. Hough) denies the allegations. Mr Haggitt said that the plaintiff met the defendant in 1949, and they went cut together. The defendant said he would not become engaged until they had been intimate. He said he wanted to be sure she was a pure woman. She objected, but six months later agreed to his demands. Afterwards there was an understanding that they would get married, said Mr Haggitt. In April, 1950, they bought a section tor £3lO, of which the plaintiff paid £lBO. There was talk of getting engaged on Labour Day, 1950, but on September 26’the defendant called at her home and said he wanted them to get engaged that day. An engagement ring was obtained, and the defendant said they would get married when the house they were building could be lived in. The plaintiff spent £1843 towards the cost of the house, in addition to the £l6O for the section. Mr Haggitt said that there was further discussion about marriage, and the

de i?, n dant said he would not marry her imtil he knew she could have a baby The plaintiff protested, but became pregnant In October, 1951. The defendant forced her to take tablets to procure a miscarriage, he said. Up to June, 1952, the plaintiff lived with her parents, but then the defendant said he wanted her to come to the new home and look after him and his lather. She wanted marriage, but the defendant considered he did not have enough money. Then he made other excuses, said Mr Haggitt. Sale of House

Because of arguments between the defendant and his father it was decided to sell the house. The plaintiff and the defendant were to get married and live in a Cat On September 18, 1954, the defendant left for Cambridge to borrow his uncle’s car for their honeymoon, said Mr Haggitt. He sold the house, but the plaintiff did not receive any of the money. She found that the defendant had telephoned her father to say he would not go on with the marriage. “Miss King’s health suffered as a result of the defendant’s callous conduct, and she is still receiving medical attention,” said Mr Haggitt. The plaintiff gave evidence, and the case adjourned until tomorrow.