BREACH OF PROMISE.

Feilding Star, Volume I, Issue 293, 17 June 1907, Page 2

BREACH OF PROMISE.

FREDERICK THOMAS THEMSON v. FREDA PARSONS. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF FOR £20. At the Palmerston Supreme Court this morning, before Mr Justice Cooper, a claim for £250, alleged breach of promise, was brought by F. T. Thomson, bootmaker, of Feilding, against Miss Freda Clara Par- ' sons, of Eketahuna, Mr Cooper instructed by Mr A. G. Carty, of Feilding, appeared in support of the claim. The case was not defended. Mr Cooper, in his opening address, said that the parties were engaged for about 12 months, and were to have been married on the 12th April last, things had gone on in the ordinary way until about three weeks before the date arranged for the marriage Thompson received an urgent wire to come and see the defendant. He went, but got no satisfaction. He then called plaintiff who deposed that he was a bootmaker residing at Feilding. He knew Mrs McGerry ; she was engaged to be married to him for about 12 months. They became engaged at Eketahuna; the engagement was broken off on March 24th last; the date of the marriage was fixed for April 3rdj he had no reason to believe the marriage would not come off; he had received about 50 letters from her since he had become engaged; he had furnished a home for her in readiness; he had spent about £50 in furniture, etc; ho had received an urgent w-ire to see defendant, when he went she came to the back door* and said the engagement was all off. The only reason she gave for her action w r as that her father would not give her away. To the Judge: The plaintiff still had the furniture and the wedding ring. His total loss was about £15. C. Grut, Law clerk for Mr Carty, deposed that he had served the writ on defendant. He asked defendant why she broke the engagement off with Thomson. Sho gave no reason, except that sho never cared for him, and only became engaged to him to spite some girls in Masterton. She said she had known Theinsoh for some timo and hati" beon engaged to McGerry for only three weeks. She also said she never knew Themson to drink or gamble. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £20 against her as a married woman, but against her separate estate, and not otherwiso, costs were allowed on tho lowest scale. The Judge said the plaintiff could not mako defendant a bankrupt, and could not proceed against her under tho "Imprisonment for Debt Act."