A BROKEN PROMISE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15377, 12 August 1913, Page 5

A BROKEN PROMISE.

AUCKLAND GIRL JILTED. SUES TARANAKI BUILDER. JURY AWARDS HER £3OO. Failure to adhere to a contract of marriage formed the basis of a breach of promise action heard at the Supreme Court yesterday, in which the plaintiff a young woman who claimed £5Ol damages, obtained a verdict ior £oW. The parties were Linda Daniei, spinster of Auckland (Mr. R. A. Singer), and Richard Chambers Knowles, builder and contractor of Rahotu, Taranaki. His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury of 12 heard the case, to which no defence had been filed. Defendant was not represented. In outlining the case, Mr. Singer stated that defendant was a builder and contractor, residing in Rahotu, a town 40 or 50 miles from New Plymouth. Defendant possessed some properties there, and owned a flourishing business. The story was the old familiar one. Defendant had been paltering with the affections of a trusting and confiding young girl for a period of about four years. The definite promise of marriage was made in 1909; and December, 1911, was expected to bo the time when the ceremony would take place. During the following year, defendant failed to keep several promises to come to Auckland to marry his fiancee. By December, 1912, plaintiff had made all arrangements for the wedding, but on December 22 defendant stated definitely by letter that he was not coming to Auckland, and proposed that the marriage should not tako place. Plaintiff remonstrated with him, and defendant then expressed surprise that he had ever been taken up by the girl. To "put her off tho scent "'he suggested that he was going to leave New Zealand and go to England, but ho had not departed. " Throughout," said counsel, "he has treated the plaintiff in the most. cruel and heartless fashion. He has kept her waiting for him for four years in the full expectation that he was going to marry her, and has made promises to come to Auckland for the purpose of this marriage, and every time ho has put her off for some paltry excuse."

Nothing But Marriage. Plaintiff stated that she first met the defendant in Auckland in 1909, when he asked to'be allowed to visit her. Permission was given for him to call at the house at Epsom, where plaintiff lived with her sister, and he did so constantly. At the end of 1909, the parties were formally engaged. On November 4, 1910, defendant wrote from Waiheke, stating that he intended to present witness with a ring. Regular correspondence ensued while defendant was at Waiheke. Returning to Auckland at the end of 1910> defendant left the city in June of the following year. All this time there was no suggestion of anything but marriage. It was said that defendant's mother, whe* lived in Taranaki, would, on the occasion of the marriage, present him with a motor-car. "Time I 'Branded' You." Witness produced a letter of Novem'twr 4, 1910, in which defendant said, " I suppose we must tell them all about it seme of these fine days. I feel very shy about it. How do you feel about it? I can just fancy what your face was like dearest when you told about the future I guess you blushed a wee bit. Now, don't deny it. I think I shall when she tackles me about it. I suppose we had better make it known. It is no harm to let people know that we are sweethearts. 1 want you to make up your mind dear what sort of ring you would like. I think it is quite time I ' branded' you. We will talk this over if I come up. . . . Au revoir dearest. Yours, etc., Dick." A number of other letters were produced to show the course of defendant's waning devotion. When the correspondence first began, it appeared that defendant was in the habit of signing himself " Dick," " yours affectionately," "loving Dick," and "yours to a cinder." The final letters simply concluded with "yours truly, R. C. Knowles." No More Girls. Writing from Rahotu in December, 1912, defendant said he thought it would be as well if he could offer plaintiff freedom. He was not in a position to many, and would not be for some time, owing to having suffered monetary losses. He would not like to think that ho had prevented plaintiff from making " a good bargain." No doubt some "nice young man" would be only too glad to ask plaintiff to share his* lot. Such a man would never regret it, if accepted. " Well, Linda," concluded the letter, "I trust you won't take this to heart. I was going to toll you the position of affairs long ago, but had not the pluck. . . Yours truly, R. C. Knowles—or Dick." On February 15 of the present year, plaintiff received a letter addressed, "Dear Miss Daniel," in which defendant suggested that they."had better part forever." Plaintiff would be at liberty to do what she liked with defendant's letters and photos. "But," ho asked, " I would like you to return the ring I gave you, as it must be an eyesore to you. I will keep it in remembrance of you. I don't intend to .have any more to do with girls, and shall never marry. Perhaps you will think I am stuffing you, but I never shall, so don't think any other one is stepping into your place. . . Yours truly, R. C. Knowles." When plaintiff decided to take proceedings defendant intimated his willingness to renew the engagement if the incidents of the past were overlooked. Letters which he had written to this effect were put into Court. Mr. Singer said Knowles had written stating that ho was coming to Auckland to arrange matters in Juno, but he never arrived. After a brief retirement, the jury awarded damages in tho sum of £3OO. Costs on the middle scale were allowed.