BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14922, 21 February 1912, Page 5

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

JUDGMENT FOR £501.

MAN WHO MARRIED ANOTHER GIRL. [BY TEXjEGEAPH— OWN CORRESPONDENT.] Dunedin, Tuesday. At the Supreme Court, at Dunedin, before His Honor, Mr. Justice Williams, Miss Jane Hughes, of Cambrians, sued James Currie Douglas for £501 damages for breach of promise. Miss Hughes alleged that during the month 6"f May, 1909,' she and the defendant agreed to marry, although no date was,agreed upon; that the engagement continued from the date of such promise to May 24, 1911, when Douglas married another woman that until', defendant married ' she was always ready and willing to marry him, and that in consequence of defendant's conduct she lost the _ said marriage, • and was injured in health and feelings; wherefore she claimed to recover £501 as damages. ( . * . Mr. 'W. L. Moore appeared for the plaintiff, and there was no appearance of the defendant. In the course of his opening remarks, Mr. Moore said that in May, 1909, the parties agreed to marry. The defendant wrote homo to his friends stating he was engaged, and they sent him £150. He spent the money, and the marriage was postponed till defendant became 30 years of age. In the meantime Douglas married another girl, whilst pretending to be going to marry the plaintiff, and he left-it to her friends to inform her of his marriage with the other girl. No Defence Filed. , At this stage His Honor suggested to Mr. Moore that as no statement of defence had been filed, and as defendant had not appeared he (Mr. Moore) should tell the jury that its sole business was to assess the damages. ..',:" This Mr.. Moore did, and, continuing, stated that defendant left the Dominion in January last. He submitted that this "was for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff stated that, she resided at Cambrians with her father. She met Douglas there in September, 1906 ; he had come from Scotland with some friends of plaintiff's. Some time after this arrival she went out with him. He told her that ho was getting £3 a week, and was paying £1 a week for a house at Home, and that when that was paid he would get £4 a week. He did nothing at Cambrians, but was living on the money he received from Scotland. He remained at Cambrians about two years, and after he had left they corresponded. In May, 1909, defendant was back at Cambrians,, and asked plaintiff to marry him. They be- L camo engaged, though nothing was said about the date of the marriage. He went ; away, but sent her the ring, and also a pendant and brooch. She got her trousseau ready. He did not return to Cambrians in three weeks, ,as he had pro-; mised, but in May he wrote td her expressing the hope that she would be pleased with the ring, and subscribing him-; self, " Yours, loving Jimmy." At the end of 1910, or early in 1911, she was in Dunedin, and walked out with Douglas, when fell ill early in 1911, and went to the hospital, from where he telegraphed her, asking her to call on him. Theywalked out again after he left the hospital, and he said they could be married any ; time after he became 30. Ho was 30 years of age on 1 December 19 of last year. Neither party broke off the ' engagement in any way, and she went back to Cambrians in April, 1911, under the impression that the marriage was fixed for two months later. •"■",: :.":{ Learned That He Was Married., Plaintiff returned to Dunedin, and then learned that Douglas was married. In September she wrote threatening an action for damages, and in answer to a letter from Mr. Scurr, which she had since destroyed, Mr. Scurr asked her to call' on him on her first visit to Dunedin, but she consulted her solicitor instead. She knew that negotiations had gone on between the solicitors, and that no settlement bad been arrived at. Defendant had left the Dominion in July, 1909. He had handed her a copy of a will that he had made leaving- ,her everything. :;'''■ . - < ' His Honor : That will is worthless, now. After reading portions of the correspondence between tho parties with the intention of showing that they had loved each other and that Douglas had professed respect and affection for the plaintiff, Mr. Moore addressed the jury on the question of damages. The plaintiff, he said, was in a good position, and not compelled to work. Defendant made a raid on tier affections, and tied her to himself for five years, after which he broke it off in the cruellest possible way, and when sued he bolted. He must have been carrying on with the othe?.' girl . whilst engaged : , to the plaintiff. As to his financial position, he was entitled to £50 per quarter, and to the capital when he became' 30. If he was getting four per cent, on his .-money he would be entitled to £5000 when he reached 30 years of age, and the plaintiff was asking for a tenth . of that .sum, though that would not really compensate her for the ' loss of a husband, and ' the dedication of five years of her-life. His Honor intimated to the jury that the only question it had to consider was the' assessment of damages. The '< facte were admitted by the default to appear. The jury returned after an absence of 10 minutes, and the foreman intimated that they were unanimous in awarding damages to the full amount claimed. * Judgment for £501 and costs "was then given for plaintiff.