GIRL WINS CASE

Grey River Argus, 22 May 1941, Page 3

GIRL WINS CASE

BREACH OF PROMISE. AIR FORCE MAN TO PAY £5O. HAMILTON, May 17. A claim for £250 damages for breach of promise to marry was heard before Mr. -Justice Johnston and a jury of four in the Supreme Court at Hamilton to-day, the plaintiff being Melba Pearl Pennell (Mr. J. F. Strang), and the defendant William Benjamin Pascoe, Air Force technician (Mr. F. D. Sargent).

Plaintiff gave evidence that she worked with her father on a farm at Waharoa. She met defendant in 1936, and they became engaged in May, 1938. Witness was 24 and Pascoe was 26. It was agreed that the marriage should take place at Easter. 1940. Pascoe joined the Air Force m January, 1940, and went to Wigram. It was then decided that the wedding be postponed for a' time. She and Pascoe corresponded regularly and were on affectionate terms. In June, 1940. defendant referred to a young woman.

Defendant spent a holiday with witness in September. 1940, but he did not visit her at Christmas, witness con' Xued. He wrote a long letter the good time he had had at that ne, and she replied/expressing disappointment' with the tone of the letter and the lack of consideration shown to her. Defendant then wrote on January 22 breaking off the engagement. She had prepared a trousseau. To Mr. Sargent, plaintiff said that defendant gave her many presents which she much appreciated. She did not question that he spent £5O on presents. Mr. Sargent submitted a non-suit point that the letter defendant had written on January 22 could not be construed as a' refusal to marry. All he sought was a postponement until after the war.

In summing up, His Honour said there was a very grave doubt whether the letters disclosed a refusal to go on with the marriage, and he was not sure that the matter should go before a' jury. The question for the jury to decide was whether the defendant had refused to carry out his guarantee to plaintiff to marry. The jury found that defendant had repudiated his promise and returned a verdict in favour of plaintiff for £5O.

Mr. Sargent’s motion for a' nonsuit was disallowed, and judgment was entered for plaintiff for the amount awarded.