BROKEN OFF ENGAGEMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9581, 4 August 1894, Page 2 (Supplement)

BROKEN OFF ENGAGEMENTS.

. THE LAW AS TO BREACH OF promise. *, Promises of marriage are, if cob more honoured, certainly more amusing, " in the breach than in the observance." They amount, as all the world knows, to a contract for . the non-performance of which damages can be obtained. Before, however, any of our readers brings an action of this nature, he or she should consider the following questions, viz. (1) Whether the other party was capable in law of making a binding promise of marriage ; (2) What evidence can be given of the promise having been in fact made ; (3} Whether it has really been broken; (4) Whether anything has taken place to justify the breach; (5) What damages are likely to be obtained. 1. Who can make a binding promise Not everyone who can > marry can bind himself by a promise to do so. An infant, for instance (that is to say a person under twenty-one years of age), may sue on such a promise, but cannot be sued; and in view of this " heads I win and tails I don't lose" arrangement, it is advisable in cases of doubt to inspect the . family Bible or the parish register before committing oneself. Nor is it true to say that a person who cannot marry cannot be sued on a promise to do so; e.g., damages have often been obtained from a married man for such a promise, where the fact of his marriage was not' known to the other party. But in a case of this sort the man could not of course sue his victim, for his own promise is broken as goon as made. 2. Evidence of the promise: It is not necessary to show that a promise has been made in so many words, written or otherwise. It is sufficient if the conduct of the parties shows that the engagement was an understood thing between the lovers themselves and in the family circle. It> is unwise, for instance, lightly to form the habit of "walking out" with girls of a class in which this institution is looked upon as tantamount to an engagement. The uncorroborated evidence of the plaintiff alone is by statute insufficient to prove the promise, on the ground, no doubt, that apart from the temptation they would otherwise be under to commit perjury, lovers, who are of imagination all compact," are not the most trustworthy witnesses. The corroboration, however, need not be very strong, and may be derived from the circumstances of the case ; in other words, it is not necessary that there should .be a witness of the promise. 3. The breach: If the promise was to marry simply, that Is to say, if ib was not merely a promise to marry on the happening of some event, or after a given time, it will be broken by a refusal to perform it within a reasonable time. Even if the promise is to marry at a future date, it is broken immediately if one of the parties announce his or her intention nob to fulfil it. The fairness of this is obvious; for each party has a right not only to marry the other at the future date, but to have the assurance of the promise meanwhile. When one of the parties is married and the other does nob know it, the promise is broken immediately ib is made, and an action may be brought as soon as the fact is discovered. 4. Justification of breach : It has been laid down on high authority that " if the condition of the parties is changed after the time of making the contract, it is a good cause for either party to break off the connection." Probably, however, this only refers to bodily or mental infirmity, or to bad character. In the absence of misrepresentation, loss of money by the plaintiff would not be a defence; but if he or she had induced the defendant to enter upon the engagement by untrue statement* as to wealth, family, reputation, that would be a good ground of defence to an action for breach. So, too, when the plaintiff showed himself to be " gey ill to live wi'," and actually threatened to ill-use the defendant if ho married her. But one's own infirmity is no excuse ; ib is no defence to show that the plaintiff ought to be only too glad to be off a bad bargain, though this argument is constantly pressed upon the jury in mitigation of damages. In one case where the defendant pleaded that he was an invalid, ib was cheerfully suggested to him that the lady like Lady Teazle—"might like to be his widow." 5. Damages : The action being for breach of contract, one might expect that the measure of damages would bo the loss sustained by the plaintiff. This, however, is very far from being true, for a jury will always mark their sense of anything more than usually heartless in the conduct of the defendant by awarding especially heavy damages ; whereas, if her actual loss were the only thing to be considered, she would be entitled merely to their congratulations upon a fortunate escape. Again, a young and attractive woman will often obtain a larger sum than if she had been plain and elderly, though the injury is in reality less, because she has a better chance of marrying someone else. Apart, however, from such considerations as these, the main points which a jury will consider are the social and pecuniary position of tho defendant; the means employed by him in winning the affections of the plaintiff, the probability that she has been prevented from forming some other advantageous alliance, any actual expense to which she may have been put, and the general conduct of the parties. It is not always good policy for the defendant to disparage himself, because the jury may express their disgust by awarding damages in the nature of punishment, but where bo is poor or in ill-health this will sometimes lessen the damages. . - ,;y y *