A BREACH OF PROMISE ACTION.

Evening Star, Issue 9155, 9 June 1893, Page 3

A BREACH OF PROMISE ACTION.

AUCKLAND, Jcnk

In the Supreme Court to-day, in Catherine Henderson v. William Thomas Smith, a claim for t'SCOfor breach of promise to marry, the defendant admitted the breach of promise, but contested the amount of damage. The evidence showed that defendant was getting 8s per day oa a fireman on the railway. He was engaged to the plaintiff, but only saw her once anerwards, inconsequence uf her removing out of the district. His last letter to her expressed his affections, and gave no intimation of a change in his feelings, and some time passed without further correspondence. The plaintiff then wrote asking if defendant wanted the ring returned, and receiving no reply engaged'a .-.oiler or. who demanded an ex--I,hum' ion. Tru- uof-ndant thereupon wrote to Too plaintiff stating that absence had c:iti-od a loss of iDiidnesS, and begged hei t> a a notdy. an * not to take proceedings. Tnedefendant had married anothcruoir.au p.ior to (he aeffon being taken. Defendants solicitor offered plaintiffs solicitor asked .tTral, and £1" 10s costs. Defendant wrote stating that the engagement was not broken in consequence of the misbehaviour of the plaintiff, but that he considered he was not good enough for her. Plaintiff deposed that she was nineteen years of age, and had suffered severely from disappointment. Her father and mother corroborated this. Regarding his means, defendant stated that his wages were Ss per day, with occasional overtime j had paid £3 per month towards the support of an aged father and mother; and had saved £35, of which £25 had been expended in furnishing his house. Judge Conolly asked the jury not to give outrageous damages or damages insulting to the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £SO. Costs were allowed on the lowest scale.