Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS.

Monday, July 8.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and a Jury of Font.)

Rob bets v, Liddell.— Claim for LSOO damages for breach of promise of marriage. Sir R. Stout, instructed by Mr Hodgkins, appeared for plaintiff; Mr D. Reid for defendant.

The following concludes our report:— Hannah Jane Hughan, wife of James Hughan, of Taieri Beach, gave evidence as to plaintiff and defendant meeting at her house and having some talk, but she could not relate the conversation that took place. She remembered telling them that if it was to be peace it should be peace. Defendant looked after plaintiff’s child very well—in fact it seemed to be too well treated. Sir R. Stout: That was when you happened to see it, Mrs Hughan. They left in rags one day ! That will do, James Ross, of Green Island, was called to give evidence ns to what occurred at meetings between plaintiff and defendant since the issue of the writ, but Sir R Stout objected ; and His Honor upholding the objection, the witness was ordered to stand down. Andrew Liddell, brother of defendant, stated that he was a farmer and a married man, having been married on August 12, 1885. On July 9 of that year he went to the asylum to see defendant. On the previous day he had seen plaintiff at Burnside Saleyards, and they went to the Junction Hotel and had a drink. They went back to the yards, and then came into town together. Sir R. Stout objected to this evidence, as defendant had not in his pleadings intimated that he would charge plaintiff with being of a dissolute character.

His Honor ruled that the evidence was admissible in mitigation of damages. Witness continued that he and plaintiff went to the Clarendon Hotel, which was then kept by Mis Ann Diamond. Witness and plaintiff occupied the same room that night. That was not the first time that he had been intimate with plaintiff; he had at times before at Taieri Beach. Cross examined : Witness told defendant of this evidence lately—after the writ was taken out. Defendant knew of his previous intimacy with plaintiff long ago, but witness only told him of the Clarendon affair since the writ was taken out. Witness had been intimate with other women before he was married. Sir R. Stout: And you don’t appear much ashamed of it I Witness continued that ha could not name any person that bad seen him in Dunedin with plaintiff except Mr Lachlan Maclean and his clerk, Mr Palmer. No one that he could name saw them at the hotel. They did not pass themselves off as man and wife at the hotel; there was no question about such a thing. They did not enter their names at the hotel—no names were required. He was at the time courting his present wife ; he was married to her a month afterwards.

His Honor having summed up, the jury retired at 6 p.m., and after a lapse of twenty minutes returned to the Court with a verdict for the plaintiff for LIOO. His Honor certified for costs as per scale ; disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890709.2.36

Bibliographic details

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS., Evening Star, Issue 7954, 9 July 1889

Word Count
536

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS. Evening Star, Issue 7954, 9 July 1889

Working