JURY’S £25 AWARD IN £550 BREACH OF PROMISE CASE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23211, 24 March 1950, Page 4

JURY’S £25 AWARD IN £550 BREACH OF PROMISE CASE

(P.A.) AUCKLAND, March 24. A verdict was given by the jury yesterday at the conclusion of the hearing of a claim by Margaret Emily Thomas, aged 24, a clerk, who sued Samuel James Hanna, aged 24, a clerk, for £550 as damages for an alleged breach of promise to marry. The verdict was in favour of the plaintiff, but reduced the damages to £25. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Stanton.

In his address to the jury the judge said it was comparatively rare itfr such cases to come to trial. When he sat dispensing some 800 divorces each year he wondered whether numbers of people nowadays were willing to. adjust themselves to each other’s wishes and feelings and to give consideration to each other as they used to do. It appeared that as a consequence of the lack of such consideration many marriages went wrong.

Facts Admitted

“The engagement is admitted by the defendant and he also admits that he broke it off. Notwithstanding that the plaintiff was still willing and even anxious to marry him, he intimated finally and definitely that he was no longer willing to marry her,” said his Honour. “That is a definite breach of contract and the plaintiff has a right to some damages. “What is that amount? It may be an amount from a nominal shilling to the £550 claimed.

“If you arer satisfied the defendant acted in a bona fide belief that the temperament of the two parties was incompatible and that the prospect of happiness in marriage was remote and that it would be foolish and, in fact, improper for lnm to go on with it, and if, in the circumstances, it was a reasonable belief to form, then it is no case for substantial damages. “If, on the other hand, you feel he treated her badly, without any real justification for terminating the engagement, then you could give substantial damages according to what you think reasonable in the circumstances.

“Your verdict will really reflect your view of the defendant’s conduct in the matter.”

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded £25 as damages.