PROMISE BREECH

Hokitika Guardian, 27 June 1935, Page 8

PROMISE BREECH

MERIT IN MANY CASES. ' NEW RULES REMEDY ABUSES DUNEDIN, June ‘24. Disagreement with the view of M* Justice Northeroft that actions 01 breach of promise to marry were rare ly meritorious, was expressed o- <. oy a leading member of the lega I»*of ess ion and by a well-known women s social worker. Mr Justice ‘ was reported as having stated m Supreme Court at Christchurch, m _ie spect to a suit for breach of promise, that “this class of action is rarely meritorious,” and that “casas of this kind are usually brought for extortion or punishment.” When this comment was referred ‘ M r C. J. L. White and to Dr femdeberg McKinnon, both expressed the. opinion that there were eases possensing a great d«l of merit, «»<] that while the sentimental injury suffei hv a broken engagement could not V compensated for very well by payment of a sum of money, circumstances \*ere likely to arise in which - ’-man might be involved in considerable financia ‘•With due respect to the statement of the learned Judge,” said Air i 1 “[ think it is rather too severe a stricture to say that this class of action rarely has any merit at the present time The plaintiff well knows that 1 her case does not possess any merit the damages which will be allowed by the Judge will be very small, but I have known of many instances which girls have been subjected great hardship through being jilted sometimes having sacrificed good positions and sometimes having irretrievably ruined a professional career Referring to the change that has taken place in the manner of hearing cases where breach of promise to marry was alleged, Air White said that it was formerly the practice to hear such cases before a jury, and women often sued for very large sums on quite flimsy evidence. Sometimes cases were genuine, sometime they were broughl merely to satisfy a morbid desire to appear in the limelight in a “cause celebre,” and. somtimes they were brought by the plaintiff as a sort oi civil blackmail, in the belief that the defendant would pay rather than face Court proceedings. 'The new Supreme Court rules, which were passed a few years ago, however, had done much to remedy the abuses that were foimeily to be' found in that type of claim. Actions for breach of contract were now tried before a Judge alone, unless the Judge expressly ordered a/ jury for a special cause. Dr. Siedeberg AicKinnon expressed the opinion that each case must be considered with respect to the particular circumstances surrounding it. Most people, both men and women, had to suffer acutely at some time of their lives for want of reciprocity and attention, but a sum of money could not recompense a person for damaged feelings. There wexe cases, however, where damages should certainly be awarded. A girl might have spent a considerable part of her hard-won savings in buying a trousseau, or she might have resigned from a position bringing her a living wage, and in such cases the ordinary rules governing contracts should be made to apply.

“Again,” said Dr. McKinnon, “there is the case of a young'woman who is not earning anything and must- look on marriage from the economic point of view. Having become engaged she and her parents would regard an engagement in exactly the same light and with the same sense of joy as a man would regard the signing of a contract giving him a good position in life.”