Promise To Marry Ruled Invalid

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31502, 17 October 1967, Page 32

Promise To Marry Ruled Invalid

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 16. In a reserved judgment delivered in the Supreme Court in Wellington today, the Chief Justice (Sir Richard Wild) found for the defendant in an action in which Stephanie Dobersek sought $4OOO damages from Francesco Petrizza for alleged breach of promise to marry.

In the proceedings the plaintiff and defendant were both described as factory workers, of Lower Hutt.

In her claim, Miss Dobersek, 59 years of age and Austrian-born, said that some time before 1951, in Trieste, Mr Petrizza asked her to marry him when he was free to do so. At that time he was separated from his wife.

As a result of his promise, Miss Dobersek said in evidence, she and Mr Petrizza lived together in Trieste as man and wife.

In 1951, by mutual agreement, she left for New Zealand, and the defendant followed later. The divorce from his wife was made absolute in 1965. Miss Dobersek told the Court that in November, 1965, she asked the defendant to exercise his promise to marry her, but the request was

Ignored and he had since married someone else. PROMISE ADMITTED

Mr Petrizza’s defence admitted the promise to marry the plaintiff, but alleged that her subsequent conduct made it impossible and unreasonable for the marriage to go on. In the course of his judgment, the Chief Justice said that the defendant contended that when the agreement to marry was made in 1951, and when it was affirmed on the defendant’s arrival in New Zealand in May, 1960, the defendant was lawfully married and on that ground the promise wa. invalid. “The general rule of law is that a promise to marry is invalid if at the time it is made the promissor is, to the knowledge of the other party, already married,” said his Honour.

“The basis of this rule is that a promise by a married person to marry tends to produce conduct which violates the obligations of mar-

ried life, and therefore is against public policy.” His Honour then dealt at length with the law relating to this proposition. DAMAGES DECISION He also said that if it had not been for the position so created, he would have awarded damages to the plaintiff because of the defendant’s deceitful conduct towards her and, in case the matter should be taken further on the question of law, he would fix the damages he would have allowed at $l5OO, together with $156.80, balance of the defendant’s fare to New Zealand which had not been repaid to plaintiff. “For the circumstances I have set out, this action must fail,” his Honour ruled. “It is clear that the circumstances are unusual and it is a hard case for the plaintiff, but it is the settled policy of the law which must govern the validity of the promise in question, and exceptions cannot be made for hard cases. Judgment must be for the defendant Costs will be reserved.”

At the hearing of the action, Mr M. Mitchell appeared for Miss Dobersek, and Mr A. G. Keesing, with him Mr R. G. Bailey, for the defendant.