A BROKEN PROMISE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 134, 2 March 1922, Page 4

A BROKEN PROMISE

THE TATE-WINDER CASE ENDS £BOO AWARDED TO BEAUTY SPECIALIST Damages amounting to £BOO were awarded yesterday to Eileen Frances Tate, beauty specialist, who had sued Ceorgo Winder .in the Supreme Court for £lO,lOO for breach of promise of marriage. Mr. Justice Hosking was on the bench. Air. T. Al. AVilford appeared for the plaintiff, and Air. A. Gray (with him Air. G. G. G. Watson) for the - 'defendant. His Honour, in summing up, dealt with various aspects of the evidence adduced during the trial. He said that the jury had to be satisfied whether the sale of the plaintiff’s business for £2OO had or had not been brought about by the marriage promise. It was not clear when the engagement actually took place, and the evidence did not show that when the business was sold any date had been fixed for the marriage. The case seemed to be a matter of oath against oath, and the jury had to determine which side, in evidence, had told truth or lies. There was no evidence that the plaintiff !had expended anything on her trousseau. The question of general damages was most important. He did not think that counsel should have referred to the cases in which large sums had been awarded. It was quite different in cases in which seduction had been proved. In the case under review, the defendant had not thrown over the plaintiff for another woman. The case was free from the element of seduction also, as there had been no impropriety between the parties. A contract to marry was a business transaction, just in the same way as was a contract for the sale of goods, or for the completion of some particular work. In a breach of promise case, damages had to be regarded as different from damages for an ordinary breach of contract. His Honour expressed the view’ that the wedding at Napier had produced a certain amount of discussion and misunderstanding between the parties, which, according to the evidence, appeared to have been removed before later events. A reflection that had been cast on Winder’s conduct was that he was simply a philanderer, and that he had not inr tended to marry; but the jury had to be the judges on that point. The issues put to the jury were as follow: — (1) Did the defendant break off the engagement on or before November 9? (2) If so, what damages should be awarded: (a) for loss of business; and (b) for general damages ? After a retirement of over four hours the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. It awarded her £3OO special damages for loss of business, and £5OO general damages; and suggested that defendant should be ordered to pay costs on the highest scale.

The plaintiff was not present when the verdict was given; but AVinder was in the court, which was crowded with spectators, who had waited outside all the morning.