Move to annul damages

Press, 8 May 1980, Page 7

Move to annul damages

PA Dunedin Submissions on a notice of non-suit have been heard in the High Court of Dunedin in relation to the award by a jury of $26,000 damages to a Dunedin storeman in . a civil claim of enticement against a Dunedin doctor. Dr Desmond Frost Symonds, represented by Mr J. B. Robertson, sought to have an order entered in his favour on the non-suit previously moved, or alternatively a judgment in his favour notwithstanding the jury's verdict, or a new trial.

The jury of eight women and four men at the original hearing found in favour of Barry Eugene Duke, who claimed that Dr Symonds had enticed Noelene Joy Duke to leave her family home and live with him. Mr Duke had lodged a claim for $90,000 and was awarded the less-

er amount after a threeday hearing. Mr Robertson, in his submissions on the nonsuit notice, said that although there had been evidence of Dr Symonds and Mrs Duke being in love there had been none of Dr Symonds luring or inciting Mrs Duke to leave her matrimonial home. The Dukes’ marriage had not been a strong one and evidence had been given of long-established difficulties between the partners. Mr Robertson said he had been unable to -find reference to any other enticement claim that had involved damages of more han $15,000 being granted. The present case was one in which extraneous fac-

tors had not been put aside by the jury and there was no evidence which justified an award of $26,000. Mr R. J. Gilbert, representing Mr Duke, said the jury had been justified in its finding and the damages awarded had been reasonable in the circumstances. The jury had been entitled to say that it did not accept Mrs Duke’s version of the marriage with her husband, which it could have held to have been a convenient version to persuade the jury of its truth and thus supply a “let out” for Dr Symonds, with whom Mrs Duke now lived. Mr Justice Somers reserved his decision.