BREACH OF PROMISE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1041, 2 February 1911, Page 6

BREACH OF PROMISE.

AUCKLAND LADY CLAIMS £1030. "' DEFENDANT TO PAT JC3SO. > "' (Uy Telcffraph—Press Association.) Auckland, February 1. The breach of promise action, in which Dora Knight claims .EIOJO as damages from George Andrew Laweock for breach of promise of marriage, was heard to-day. In opening, the case for plaintill', Dr. Bamford stated that tho .plaintiff, -Miss Dora Knight, was a spinster residing with her parents at Bast Tamaki, wijile the defendant, who was i-onsiderably older than plaintiff, was a fanner' u-tiding at Matamata. Tho promise of. mairiago was lirst given in Tune, Ur-3, and it was then-arranged that the we'hihig was to take plaeo at Easter. -The .p'omisc, it was alleged, . was repeated vcrljtlly on many occasions, and lvhticrt in lrilcrs written to plaintiff by liefen-l.irit. Plaintiff maintained that from the letters themselves it .was'unite dear Hut a binding engagement existed between the parties, but later on defendant suggested that the marriage should Le postponed for twelve months, and it vas ck'ar frr.m his conduct that defendant, had all along endeavoured to shuffle out of his engagement. Eventually when ho rewived tho writ. he.told the plaintiff that if he had broken off the engagement hi-, was. now willing to marry plaintiff. Manually the plaintiff was unwilling *o m.vry tno defendant on such terms, c-sntvally as in one of his letters defendant had suggested'that' there was a third party miied up in'the matter, .inferring that he.had a rival.' ■''■•'.■ ..: The Plaintiffs Story. Dora Kuight, a prepossessing and neat-ly-attired young woman, 27 years (f age, said that she first met the t'efendant in January, .1307, and he came to see her at her parents' place at East Taniaki. In 1908 she became engaged to him, ni/d received a ring from him in June, 1908. Suo had never at any time released Mr. Lawcock from his promise to marry her, and was not desirous of breaking olf the engagement, but sho was annoyed, at the tone of one of his letters. She was aware that her mother had written to him and demanded'.£2oo compensation, and threatening in the alternative to take proceedings, claiming .£ISOO, as her daughter was not afraid to face a jury, and informing

him that he had reckoned without his hos't when ho ran against her (witness's) mother.

. "Actually in Love." Examined ty Mr. (iillies, tho plaintiff said she could not explain why thero was a delay of-13 months in the issuing of the-writ, but she'-was Actually in love with defendant when she became engaged to him. She. herself was bringing this action, and not her mother. She remembered defendant writing to her, saying he thought sho should write two letters to his oue, Tjut she had never kept hihi waiting two months for a,, letter. Jie wrote saying that if she loved .any young man better than him she "could have him by all means." • Witness felt too much hurt to answer,the letter, and sho returned tho letter, asking him. to read , it as? if'it'had come from a tiird party, and give his opinion of it. This closed tho evidence ior (he plaintiff.

■Mr. Gillies commenced his opening address to the jury by commenting that it was singular "that tho .plaintiff's mother had not been called to give evidence. . ' Dr.. Bam'fo'rd .replied .that .he had not the'slightest objection.to Mrs. Knight being called and by Mr. Gillies. ... . •.-■•. , What the Mother Thought. ' Mrs. Mary Knight, in answer, to Mr. Gillies; admitted having written to defendant demanding ',£2OO cbmpansatioji, and threatening'to.sue. him for .£ISOO, and exposo .'him".VaS> fi'6 had' niado- ii' fool ,oi them, and also stating that she had never thought ho was" a marrying mail. •'. She had never been consulted, nor had her husband,'in regard'to. tho marriage, but she thought it was her duty to look after her in the matter 'when she learned' how/ the .defendant had treated-, her.' Witness had nothing to do: with tho engagement, as her daughter, was old'enough to please herself. Witness wns neither for nor against tho marriage,, and told her she could pleaso herself. • ■-. , ...

: Mr. Gillies: If my client goes into the box and swears . that ho. is willing to marry your, daughter now would ,you give her'your blessing? ' . .

'Witness: No, indeed, I would not. (Laughter).. Nothing would induce mo to consent now, as I don't ■'think it would end in their ! mutual 'happiness, i ' ' '..

, ' Defendant' "Happy", to' Marry. Mr. Gillies's opening- address , x to t]ie jury was very brief. He simply said that his client was now, on February. 1, 1911, as Le was oh September 10,'191)9, prepared to marry Miss Knight, in fact, at (his .moment ho actually wanted »to marry the plaintiff. He was ready, willing, and would be happy to do so. ''..

Georgo Andrew Lawcock, tho defendant, said ho was 41 years of. age,". and ' held a lease-in-perpetuity wliicli carried an encumbrance of .£2OO. After his engagement ho; used to write to plaintiff about onco a month, and received letters from her once a month or five- weeks. He admitted that he wrote the letter to Miss Knight which she said had offended her, and when she returned it with a request written on it stating that it was only adding insult to injury, .and asking him to read it as' if it had come from a third party, and give her his opinion of it as she could not understand it, he thought by her returning ■ his letter that she intended to go no further.

His Honour: Do you' swear, that you thought that she was breaking off "the engagement when she wrote those words to you ? . , . Yes, I do, sir. His Honour: Well, then, I think you aro very much mistaken. Mr. Gillies: You aro prepared to marry her now? ■- Yes, to-morrow if she likes. The jury returned a.verdict for plaintiff, the damages being assessed at