FARMER'S APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 20 March 1940, Page 2

FARMER'S APPEAL

•ALLEGED BREACH OF PROMISE

. WELLINGTON, March 18. The .Court of; Appeal is hearing ai appeal by York Hutchinson, of Gisborne 1 , sheepfarmer, against Catherine May Davis, of. Gisborne, a widow The: case was heard before Mr Justic' Smith and- a jury on May 31 and June 1 arid 2 last, when £1250 damages were awarded against the appel lant, for.,a breach, of .promise of ,mar riage. It -is expected that the hearing,'will last: two days.

. At the conclusion of the case a motion that judgment be entered for the defendant was dismissed by the Judge, and from this dismissal the present appeal was brought. The grounds advanced in support o' the motion were th’t the promises alleged by the plaintiff were illegal and void and that there was no cor? roboration . for either promise as required by the Evidence Act, 1908.1 In this act there was a special section requiring corroboration in actions for breach of promise. Counsel for the appellant, after leading the evidence given at the trial by the respondent, submitted that there was no evidenie that the second promise :alleged to have been made in November was a new and independent promise. The onTy reasonable inference from the evidence was that what then took place was at most a. purported, ratification of the first promise, which was unquestionably illegal and void. He did not intend to proceed with the argument that there was no corroboration ot this promise and the appeal would be based on the illegality. Counsel for the appellant submitted that because of the illegality of the alleged promise of marriage, which was established by respondent’s own evidence, the case should have beer, withdrawn from the jury, and a nonsuit entered in favour of the appel-’ lant. If that argument were unsound, then the appellant was entitled at least to a new trial liecause the jury’s verdict was clearlj against the weight of evidence. Tin jury had to determine whether tin alleged promise of marriage was a new contract, or merely a ratification of an earlier promise. He e n tended that the only reason" hie vLw open to the jury was that there wa not a fresh promise jin November, 1939. The case will be continued to-mor-row.'