BREACH OF PROMISE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 160, 22 June 1935, Page 7

BREACH OF PROMISE

Man a Potential Morman

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £75 By Telegraph—Press Association. AUCKLAND, June 21. One of the first cases heard by Mi Justice Northcroft in Christchurch was a breach of promise action, and by coincidence a similar case was heard to-day by Mr Justice Callan on making his first appearance on the Bench iu Auckland.

The plaintiff, Doris Darwin, aged 28, sought £3OO general and £5O special damages from Robert Henry Dawkins. Counsel said that the parties became engaged in December, 1931. Plaintiff was influenced in some degree in bringing the action by the humiliation she had suffered, and it was her desire to punish the defendant, who, counsel said, was more or less a potential Mormon.

His Honour: There are many very reputable Mormons. You are using the term in a derogatory sense, 1 presume. Counsel replied that that was so. He went ou to speak of the defendant’s friendliness with other girls, and said that plaintiff spent a considerable sum in getting household articles which were not suited for a trousseau, and which she had insured for £5O. Plaintiff gave evidence. She said she was very much attached to Dawkins. His Honour: Did you say you were, Or you are? Plaintiff replied that her remark referred to the past. DEFENDANT’ WAS A FLIRT. Counsel, in opening the defence, said that on one occasion plaintiff told the defendant that she had thrown his ring away and was finished with him. The matter of defendant’s financial position had been dominant in all their discussions. Defendant had never had a position that would enable him to enter into marriage. Giving evidence, defendant said he was given board and a few shillings a week by his father. Describing meetings with plaintiff, at which she accused him of going with other girls, witness said that plaintiff had previously threatened that if that happened she would throw tho ring away and break off the engagement. His Honour: What made her threaten that? Witness: I had a distinct name of being a flirt. His Honour: 1 thought they were all females. Don Juan would be a more suitable expression. Witness said he became annoyed at the accusations plaintiff made against him, although lie admitted they were true. On another occasion when she accused him of being in love with another girl, ho said, “If I am, what of it?” She took off tho ring and held it out to him and said she was finished, lie had never unconditionally agreed to marry plaintiff. In cross-examination witness said he did not see any shame in being known as a flirt. He was not engaged to another girl, and never had been He was still in love with plaintiff. NOT WORTH MUCH. His Honour said that where plaintiff and defendant told a different story he accepted the evidence of plaintiff. He vras satisfied that he, and not she, broke off this engagement, and that defendant made it clear he was throwing her over for good. The question of damages was difficult because the man himself was not worth much from any point of view. “1 think tho lady has had a lucky escape,” said His Honour, “and she will probably realise that in time to come. He would have been a most unsatisfactory husband from every point of view, so the loss of him is not worth a great deal. The engagement had occupied the life of this young woman through crucial marriageable years, which she had wasted on him, and she ought to get something for that.” His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff for £75, made up of £5O general and £25 special damages.