PROMISE TO MARRY

Northern Advocate, 18 August 1933, Page 3

PROMISE TO MARRY

CONTINGENT ON DIVORCE. HELD TO .BE INVALID. PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW. (Per Press Association.—Copyright.) CHRISTCHURCH, Thursday. A declaration that a promise by a man to marry a woman after she had obtained a divorce from her husbanl was not valid, was made in the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr Justice Blair, in a reserved judgment. - Marjorie Ada Lambert, housekeeper, claimed damages from Patrick. Dillon, farmer, of Prebbleton, for alleged breach of promise. Plaintiff alleged that in April, 1928, Dillon verbally agreed to marry her as soon as she obtained a divorce, and also to pay the

cost of the divorce proceedings. She alleged that, relying on this promise, she filed a petition in divorce and obtained a decree nisi in November* 1928, and a decree absolute in March, 1929. She alleged that Dillon then refused lo marry her or to pay the costs, £25. She claimed £350. By consent of the parties, the question of law whether the alleged promise to marry as soon as plaintiff could obtain a divorce -was actionable, w r as taken first. Mr Justice Blair’s judgment was answered in this question. His Honour said: "The broad principle is that the law always jealously protects the institution of marriage, and anything tending even remotely to injure or discredit-the state- of matrimony is condemned. In principle, there is no distinction between a promise to marry after a wife’s death or after divorce. Promises made in either case could lead to mischief, and it is immaterial that in this case no mischief actually did occur. "Once the doctrine is infringed upon and distinctions made in certain cases where no harm actually resulted, or the possibility of harm is remote, there is introduced into a doctrine designed to uphold the sanctity of marriage a wedge which can but end in its destruction. ” His Honour made no order for costs.