BREACH OF PROMISE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 122, 27 May 1925, Page 6

BREACH OF PROMISE

ALLEGATION AGAINST

ENGINEER

DEFENCE DENIES LOSS OF

CHANCES

£350 DAMAGES AWARDED,

An action claiming £740 for alleged breach of a contract to marry was commenced before Mr. Justice Macgregor at the Supreme Court this morning. The parties were Dorothy Barlow and Harry Hugh Johnston, an electrical engineer in the employ of the Wellington City Corporation. Mr. O. C. Mazergarb represented the plaintiff and Mr. E. JR. Scott- the defendant.

The claim was that between 24th April and November, 1924, the parties agreed to marry, and an engagement ring was given by the defendant. While in London in December, the defendant, it was alleged, cabled to the plaintiff, determining the engagement. The plaintiff claimed £150 for loss of salary, £120 as expenses of her journey to England, £70 loss on the trousseau, and £400 damages.

The defence was a complete denial. | Opening his case, Mr. Mazengaib said the plaintiff had come to New Zealand engaged on special work. She was, at the time ot her arrival in the Dominion, engaged to a gentleman in England, and would have been married to him now had she not met the defendant. The defendant knew from the first that this engagement existed, but persisted in his attentions, and eventually supplanted the other man. The defendant denied the engagement, but his denial was entirely inconsistent with many letters which "he wrote to the plaintiff. Mr. Mazengarb read a number of extracts from letters, the following being typical :— . "I am looking forward to seeing that pretty tea cloth you have made for our little home. You are a darling to think of that. To me it is the most wonderful thought in my life—just you and lin a beautiful little home, tastefully furnished and crowned with your love and holding all the sweetness with which such a state is capable." HER VOYAGE TO ENGLAND.Continuing, counsel said there was complete harmony between the parties, except on the question of the plaintiff going to England. She wanted to do this to see her people and his, and to get her belongings and realise some securities. Finally, the defendant, agreed to her going, but first secured from her the engagement ring of the other man, to post it himself to the giver. For some time the defendant continued to write in the same lover-like strain, but in October he cabled: "Postpone preparations definitely. Writing.—Harry." She cabled her distress, and several cablegrams were exchanged. The defendant expressed an intention to write an explanation, but as nono arrived the plaintiff cabled again, und received this reply: "Not marrying you. This is final. Sending your things." The plaintiff had already booked her return passage, and concealing her sorrow, came to New Zealand again. On her return she found the defendant had been telling her friends that they were not engaged, and that the ring given had been a "dress" ring.. Such an altitude had been an attack upon her honour, and humiliated her further. After considering the matter she decided to proceed for damages and public vindication. It was an unworthy breach of an honourable agreement, and it was to be noted that the defendant had elected to leave Wellington during the trial and let the plaintiff face all the publicity. The plaintiff went into the box and gave evidence on.the lines indicated by counsel. OPENING A LETTER. In cross-examination, the witness was shown a letter written by another person to the plaintiff, redirected care of the defendant when the plaintiff was in England, and opened by the defendant in her absence. The plaintiff objected to the letter being brought in. His Honour asked if Johnston intended giving evidence. Mr. Scott replied in the negative. His Honour said he would hear what Mr. Scott had to say about the letter, but he would not answer for his impressions of the man if he tried to make use of a letter addressed to the plaintiff, and opened by the defendant, as she said, without her authority. Mr. Scott did not continue on the point. . '

Witness denied having told Johnston that a Sydney editor wanted to marry her, but said she had told him of meeting this man on her way out from England. She denied having promised to marry a man named Burroughs. Mr. Mazengarb : "AVas he a man who owed you some money ?"—"Yes." My. Mazengarb : "Well, explain it." His Honour: "It is quite unnecessary I don't know what all this is about. OTHEE POSSIBLE HUSBANDS. The witness said she could have married before going to England, but the defendant was getting £6 a week-, and she was getting £8, and it was decided between them to put the marriage off until a couple of months later, when the defendant expected promotion. She cabled to him saying she would wait for him if necessary, when she was m Eng-

tthcn the witucss was asked several other questions concerning men, His Honour asked what was t 7, e point _ bier that hm client has lost the golden opportunity of marriage, and tl/ero i 3. no knowing w heu the next will come ■ilong. i can snow Vi , here s f x or "w! mariy her in tlle lasfc hvo

lesiut uf tins case? fl.'ff' 1! WitneSS f'SSested to Mr. Scott '„„ , 10 W; ls "lakl"S an attempt to dammo°st huutodi;: ter 'and that sha took ifc

invfcMn : Th°l'6 is "° suggestion- of anything wrong in the whole affair. " rndo," CSS ! Sald she was d»e back in gindf,e"»me!lt on 30th Aug. ust 1924, but could have resigned this engagement, and was offered a permanent position in New Zealand.. mis was the only evidence apart from L, BVTl ber o£ le"ers- No evidence «as called for the defence. Remarking on the general damages, his Honour said he did not think Mr! Scott would be wise to deal extensively win, IDs general damages, and should confine himself to the special damages. Air. hcoU suggested that the reason lor the trip Home was solely one in which the plaintiff was interested. The dfcteiulaiit lmd always been opposed to • ,|t'. UJ) ;""' snw "° real necessity for it- .1 tie loss of salary was a matter under the same heading. Only £20 ot.the £70 claimed for' the trousseau had been spent for linen, the remainder being lor personal clothing. ■His Honour decided to adjourn the case to enable counsel to look up the cases on the damages question. After hearing short argument, His Honour decided to accept the suggestion ot counsel, and treat the matter from a general dauinyrs. point of view. lie announced .judcment for plaintiff for damages amounting j,o £JSO.