SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 August 1933, Page 4

SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

THE LAW’S ATTITUDE

[PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

CHRISTCHURCH, August 16.

A declaration that a promise by a man to marry a woman after she had obtained a divorce from her husband was not valid, was made at the Supreme Court, to-day, by Mi Justice Blair, in a reserved judgment. Marjorie Ada Lambert, housekeeper, claimed damages from Patrick Dillon, farmer, of Prebhleton. for alleged breach of promise. The plaintiff alleged that in April. 1928, Dillon verbally agreed to marry her as soon as she obtained a divorce, and also to pay the costs of the divorce proceedings. She alleged that, relying on this promise, she had filed a petition in divorce, and obtained a decree nisi in November, 1928, and a decree absolute in .March, 1929. She alleged that Dillon then refused to marry her or to pay the costs of £35. She claimed £350. By consent of the parties, the question of law was whether an alleged promise to marry as soon as plaintiff could obtain a divorce was actionable and Mr Justice Blair’s judgment was answering this question. His Honor said: The quite broad principle claimed is that the law always jealously protects the institution of marriage, and anything tending, even remotely, to injure or discredit the state of matrimony is condemned. In principle there is not a distinction between a promise to marry after a wife’s death or after a divorce. Promises made in either case could lead to mischief, and it is immaterial that in this case no mischief actually did occur. Once the doctrine is infringed upon, and distinctions arc made in certain cases where no harm has actually resulted, or the possibility of harm is remote, Ilion there is introduced into a doctrine designed t<> uphold sanctity of marriage a wedge, which can but end in ils destruction.

Jlis Honor i.nade no order for ecsis