THAT NEW ZEALAND BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11825, 30 November 1901, Page 5 (Supplement)

THAT NEW ZEALAND BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

CLAIM FOR £30,000 DAMAGES. ?

REHEARING OF CASE.

[from our own correspondent.]

London, October 18. 0>: Friday last the remarkable breach of promise action, brought by Mrs. Catherine " M'Ewan or Brodie," formerly of New. Zealand, in which she claimed £30,000 damages from Mr. David Macgregor, a Glasgow contractor, .was reheard. I sent you very full reports of the previous trial of this curious case. It will be remembered that one feature consisted in the allegation by the defendant of certain improprieties on the part of the plaintiff wit!) two different persons in New Zealand, which, however, the Lord Justice Clerk ruled to be inadmissible. This testimony does not seem to have been again tendered, the Appellate Court having upheld Lord Kingsbungh's ruling against it. The outcome of the first trial was that the jury awarded Mrs. Brodie £5000 damages, instead of the £30,000 she claimed But the defendant was not satisfied even with this large reduction, and appealed against the award as excessive. The Appellate Court upheld this view, and granted a new trial, offering Mrs. Brodie, however, the alternative of consenting to a reduction of the damages to such sum as the judges might deem adequate. This would have saved the heavy expense of a second trial. 1 have strong reason to believe that had she agreed to this course she would have been awarded £1000 as solatium for her disappointed hopes, and would have escaped all the fresh costs which have since been incurred..- Apparently, however, she was not willing to agree to this plan, and so the second trial came off. It lasted three days, and concluded last Monday. It was tried, as before, by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Kingsburgh. but with a different jury. The same counsel appeared, and much of the evidence was identical. Mrs. Brodie, the pursuer, examined by Mr. Guthrie, again went over her history. Counsel for the defendant admitted that his client's means exceeded £100.001).

Mr. John Sharp, who had acted as a business agent for,the defendant, said he obtained at Mrs. Brodie's request a fmm of petition before the Sheriff. He supposed the object of this was to try and get hold of defendant in some way or other." A meeting, continued the witness, took place in my office, at which the pursuer and defendant and I were present. The marriage was talked about then, and he went on denying the promise. I suggested that some agreement should be come to, and, taking up a piece of paper, wrote to the effect: —" I, David Macgregor, agree to many Mrs. Brodie, or, in case of not doing so, to give, her — sum of money." ' Mr. Macgregor filled in the sum of £200. Mrs. Brodie afterwards filled in £25,000 or £30,000. The sums were so far apart that I saw it was useless to bother any longer, and I threw the paper in the fire. After that meeting I had nothing further to do with the parties in relation to this question.

Mr. D. Macgregor, the defendant, said he was 62 years ot age. He denied that he had ever proposed oi promised marriage to Mrs. Brodie, nor had he ever indicated any intention to marry. Counsel : Did the lady on some occasions suggest that you should marry her? Her remark was that I ought to marry or to get married. She was perpetually speaking on that sort of business. She spoke in a general way, but I thought her meaning was that I should marry herself. Was she anxious that you should marry her?

Certainly she wag. If I had wanted to marry there was nothing to prevent me. It was not true that I had a scuffle with the pursuer, and tried to knock her down. Dr. Whitson asked me by letter to call for Mrs. Brodie, and some time after receiving that letter I called and saw her in her bedroom. I was there about 10 minutes. I ceased calling for her in June because j. thought she was quite an unsuitable person for me to keep company with. From, the first time she met me I thought she was trying to weave her web around me, and was endeavouring to entrap me. Can you explain, as a sane man, why when you thought this woman was trying to entrap vou into marriage you continued to call upon her once - week, and sometimes oftener?

She was perpetually inviting me to call. Other evidence having been called the Lord Justice Clerk summed up. v Lord Kingsburgh pointed out that with reference to the very disagreeable and sad incident in her life which resulted in her receiving £10,000 from a man who had wronged her undoubtedly if she was going to marry another man and did not reveal that incident to him that would be sufficient reason for his refusing to carry out the promise. The jury, after an absence of half an hour, returned a unanimous verdict for the pursuer, and assessed the damages at £500. They were of opinion that the pursuer was not debarred from maintaining the promise, and that the defender had promised her marriage. It appears that just before the trial began Mr. Macgregor made an offer of £1500 and all expenses. This was refused, and now the plaintiff gets one-third of that sum.