BREACH OF PROMISE

Grey River Argus, 21 March 1940, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE

appeal nearing. I Per Press Association.! WELLINGTON. March 19. In the Court of Appeal to-day, the hearing was continued of an appeal by York Hutchinson, of Gisborne, sheep-farmer, against Catherine May Davis, of Gisborne, a widow. . The case was heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury on May 31 and June 1 and 2 last, when. £1,259 damages were awarded against the appellant for a breach of promise of marriage. At the conclusion of the case a motion that judgment be entered for the defendant was dismissed by the J'udge, and from this dismissal the present appeal was brought. Mr. Barnard for the respondent, contended that’ the jury was entitled to accept the respondent’s evidence, and that of another witness, in full, and entirely to disregard evidence called for the appellant. Taking that view, it was impossible to say that the jury was not justified in linding that there were two independent promises, one in June and another m November and that the second promise wa.s not merely a ratification of the earlier. Consequently, it was not competent, for the Court to enter a non-suit against the respondent. It was . submitted that it was a simple principle of law that the mere fact that illicit intercourse occurred before and after an agreement to marry did not vitiate that agreement. The respondent’s position could not be made worse by the additional fact that thero was also a prior illegal contract of marriage, providing that the second promise was untrammelled by the first. The jury had fount} that , the second promise created a clean independent contract, and that the finding could not be disturbed. The hearing was adjourned until to-morrow.