BREACH OF PROMISE

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 38, 13 August 1935, Page 10

BREACH OF PROMISE

A SHORT ENGAGEMENT

ARRANGEMENTS BY CABLE

DAMAGES AWARDED

The story of an engagement between a young man and a young woman residing in New Zealand and England, respectively, was told in the course of a breach of promise action which came before Mr. Justice Blair in- the Supreme Court today. The plaintiff, Doris May Brindle, claimed £250 general 'and £120 special damages from George Harrison, mercer, of Wellington. She was awarded a total of £85. The engagement between the parties was arranged and broken by cable. Harrison admitted liability in the matter, and the main point for consideration was the question of damages.'

Mr. J. S. Hanna appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. P. Cleary for the defendant.

I The plaintiff, said Mr. Hanna, was a ' young woman, a milliner. The de- ; fendant was a young man, manager ; oi a business in Wellington. Miss ■ Brirldle, although not born in New ' Zealand, had been in New Zealand for ' some years prior to July, 1932, when ' she returned to England. It was ' rather indefinite whether she would ever return to New Zealand. Having left New Zealand in 1932, she and Mr. Harrison seemed to have corres- : ponded, but counsel had no letters dated in the year 1932. His Honour: Is the promise disputed? I rather gather from the statements that it is not. Mr. Cleary: No, Sir, it is not. His Honour: It would not matter much about these letters, then? Mr. Hanna: No, Sir, not at all. OFFEK OF MARRIAGE. About August, 1933, continued Mr. Hanna, Miss Brindle's mother returned to England, too, and she brought messages from her friends in New Zealand, messages'from Mr. Harrison, and also one or more letters from Mr. Harrison. Miss Brindle wrote to -him in reply. . Towards the end of 1933 Miss Brindle received a. letter from Mr. Harrison, which would be put in in evidence, and which contained a clear offer of marriage. ./ His" Honour: You need .not bother about it. I understand that Mr. Cleary admits that there was an engagement. .. . You; need not prove the engagement, for it is admitted. Counsel said the plaintiff did not jump at the offer of marriage, but she wrote to Harrison asking him if he was quite sure he wanted to take the step, and invited him to cable her. Harrison cabled her on January 31, 1934, confirming the offer, and it was clear that from that point onwards they were engaged. , Harrison's cable read: "Letter delightful. Week's thought. Perfectly sure. Prepare to join forces about December. • Letter written. Love." t _■ .' Before sending the cable he had written a long letter to her which she received towards the end of February. ARRANGEMENTS CANCELLED. The next move on the part of Harrison, continued Mr. Hanna, was either towards the end of March or early in April, when he cabled: "Made mistake. Cancel all arrangements. Explaining letter." ...■••■ r ' His Honour: What were.the arrangements? .' ,'' , .-';, Mr. Hanna: That she was to return to New Zealand about the middle" of the year 1934. His Honour: She was to return from England about the middle of 1934, and be married on her return? Mr. Hanna: On her return. At all events not later than December, 1934. Counsel said that the cable came as a very serious blow to his client. She had naturally been thrilled at her engagement, as any young woman would be, and she, of course, had told her friends. Then it came' as a blow to her to find the engagement cancelled in this summary way. What it was suggested M. Morrison might have done would have been no more than one would have done in a business transaction. He should have approached the other party to the contract, and asked that party to be released from his obligation. He might have approached the plaintiff and asked, "Will you let me off my promise?" However, he elected to adopt a very abrupt way of simply cancelling the arrangements. Miss Brindle wrote to Harrison on April 21, 1934, letting him know her point of view—how disappointed she was with him, and how upset she was, said counsel. In a letter dated June 14, 1934, Harrison to some extent apologised for his conduct. A MODEST CLAIM. In this case, continued Mr. Hanna, Miss Brindle's claim was a modest one; she had not placed a high premium on the chance of being Mr. Harrison's wife. She did not allege that she hadlost inestimable advantages through not being his wife, and so far as the. general damages were concerned she contented herself with a claim of a modest £250. As for the special damages, she claimed the cost of her passage to New Zealand, £65; cost of trousseau, £40; bedding and linen, £10; and a case of cutlery, £5. The plaintiff then gave evidence on the lines indicated by Mr. Hanna. She said that she had returned to New Zealand for her health. Mr. Cleary (cross-examining): What date in March did you arrive back in New Zealand?— Somewhere about the middle of the month. -■ f Did I. understand you rightly when I gathered that you undertook this trip to completely recover from' this accident you suffered last year?— Yes. ... Counsel then proceeded to cross-ex-amine witness on various items including a sewing machine, piano, radio set, and carpets which were not included in the amended statement of claim. No evidence was called for the defence. DEFENDANT'S LIABILITY. Mr. Cleary said that the position was perfectly plain. The defendant, after what appeared to have been a somewhat desultory correspondence course in courting, became engaged to the plaintiff, who was ten or twelve thousand miles away. Despite what he might have said at the time as to how sure he was, and in the elation of the moment how certain he was in his own mind, the facts showed that the position was otherwise, because within a couple of months he realised he had made a mistake, and having realised he had made a mistake he was at least wise enough to say so. For that, of course, in law he was liable. It might be said that his liability arose rather from his foolishness in entering into the contract rather than from his wisdom in breaking it, but as it had been said by an English Judge in a breach of promise case, affection had no part in a breach of promise action. It was no answer for the defendant to. say that it was in the best interests; of both of them that the contract should have been terminated. It . was no answer for him to say that the engagement was of a moat fleeting character. Although those matters did not afford an/ answer, they were matters he was at liberty to refer to on the question

of the quantum of damages. Not long ago one of the Judges in the Supreme Court, speaking of this type of action, said it was rarely meritorious. It would be difficult to imagine where a | broken heart required a smaller measure of balm for its injuries than in the present case. Counsel then went on to refer in detail to tire special damages claimed. BEST COURSE FOLLOWED. His Honour, in delivering judgment, said that the breach of contract was admitted and the only question to be decided was that of damages. Dealing with the claim for special damages, his Honour said the plaintiff could have cancelled her passage to' New Zealand. As to the other items his Honour said they were obviously worth something on the market and she could either get rid of them or | make use of them. He had to look at this matter from a cold-blooded point of view so far as special damages were concerned, because special damages had to be definitely and distinctly proved. His Honour thought that if he allowed under the heads of special damage a total sum of £35 he would be1 amply returning the plaintiff the out-of-pocket expenses. As the general damages, his Honour said he did not think Harrison broke off the engagement with the idea of hurting, the girl. Apparently he thought it was the wisest thing to do, and he did it. Probably in.the long run from the plaintiff's point of.view it was very much better that he found out his mistake before he married, because his Honour had a good deal to do with people who found out their mistakes after they were married —and it did not take some of them very long. He did not see that except on the basis of consolation for injured feelings, there was any other element in this particular case which called for the imposition of punitive damages. The case was obviously one for small damages and his Honour thought he would be doing justice to the matter if he fixed the general damages at £50.