BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19328, 15 May 1926, Page 2 (Supplement)

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

A .'JILTED GIRL'S CLAIM. ONE KISS IN A MONTH. JURY AWARDS £39 DAMAGES. FLAINTIt'F TO KEEP THE RING. Doubts of a pretty girl regarding the faith of her former lover's word upset an interesting situation in a breaeh of promise claim recently heard m a London court before Mi'. Justice McCardlie. The partios in the course of the hearing expiessed a willingness to marry each other, but on consideration the girl plaintiff changed her mind and decided to proceed with the case. .Tu.it before her wedding was due to Vake pi a fie, according to the evidence of the plaintiff, Miss Carrie Cohen, furrier s assistant, she was jilted by Hyman Simmons, fruiterer. On the strength of this allocation the claimed damages for breach

of promise. Mr. Raphael, for plaintiff, complained (hat defendant, by his action, had altered the whole course of the young woman's life. She was happily engaged and earning £3 a/week in September, 1924, when introduced t<> him. Friendship ripened into courtship, and, in the following December, she accepted his proposal of marriage. An engagement ring changed hands the next month, and the two families became friendly. Defendant asked for an early wedding, but the first date fixed was negatived because of the Passover. June 15 last year was then de cided on, but, as defendant said Monday was not bis lucky day, it was postponed to the Thursday following.

Meanwhile, remarked -counsel, Miss Cohen left her employment at defendant's request. She would call at his shop and clean it up, do the housework, and make the beds. Once ho gave her £5. One day, just before the wedding, came the bombshell. He had taken her to see the "pictures," and said he was sorry he could not. go on with the wedding, although he had nothing against her. Mr. Raphael added that. Simmons set up the extraordinary defence that ho could not marry plaintiff, as she refused to do his housework and look after his aged father. Elaborate Wedding Feast. Miss Co 7 hen, a smartly-attired young woman, related that, when she asked defendant if he realised what, he was saying, he. replied that he did. Replying to Sir. O'Malley, for defendant, plaintiff stated defendant's father was 70, and, although a cripple, was

strong. Mr. O'Malley: Were you told that defendant was looking for a wife? Miss Cohen replied that, she did not hear that defendant was on the look-out. The Judge: Did you inquire whether, after tho wedding, you would have a servant or not ? —No. My brother was to pay for the wedding, and the ring was to "cost £6O. Mr. O'Malley: Somebody seems to nave had expensive ideas about the wedding. Don't you think £lls for wedding expenses was a lot for defendant to pay . It .is a Jewish custom to have wedding celebrations. Even the poorest make it a big affair. . The Judge: Marriage is one ot the great incidents in life. Mr. O'Malley: There were to be waiters music, with four in the band, and floral decorations. When the party came from the synagogue they were to start with cocoa, cakes and pastnes, after which was to come lunch for lo to 20 couples. 'lh:s was to be followed, durine the afternoon, by light refreshand a dinner to finish up, consisting of eight or nine courses.

Dinner for Seventy Couples. Mr. Raphael: The dinner was to be for 70 couples. Having regard to the menu, -pour lordship may not think the pi ice excessive. The Were there no love letters /at all ? , . . . Witness: No. I saw him three or tour times a week, and often every evening when I left business. I was at the shop all day. ? The .Judge: I should have thought you ■would have, got in one or two not';s. Did vou have any tiffs ?—No. Witness agreed that they kissed each other several times. The Judge: Only several ?—He saw me home of an evening, and used to leave me at the street corner to go and catch his train. You can't kiss in the streets, can you I / He kissed me three or four times. . Witnpw said that Simmons asked her to give op her business, as he wanted hei to help in the redecoration of the house. Sho went to his place at 11 o clock in the morning, cooked and served the meals,, washed™ up, made defendant's bed, and darned his socks. The Judge: That shows the true domestic spirit so far. You were in love with him ?—I was. I did it all for love. An Agreement in Court.

Witness then expressed willingness to accept the.;defendant and agree to his conditions .that his father should slay with them, i ,and that, she should do the domestic wofk. Mr. O'Malley: Well, there's an end to the case, because my client is peifectly . ready to marry plaintiff. Mr. Justice McCardie remarked that Miss Cohen should have an opportunity of determining her own future. He asked if sho would, like to think over whether I she would be willing to marry defendant. Miss Cohen: I should. It comes so

sudden. . Mr. Justice McCardie: Arc you still fond of him?—l am. I like him. Mr. o'Mai lev observed that hi.*; client •was still fond of plaintiff. Mr. Justice McCardie, to Miss Cohen: And you would be willing to loyally act as his wife, look after his father, and fulfil all' the duties that a wife of your creed and faith should perform ?—Yes.— Would you like to talk it, over with your counsel and parents?—l would very much. In directing a short adjournment, the judge remarked: "Don't think I am Exerting pressure at all." Plaintiff Changes Her Mind.

A consultation took place in court between .Miss Cohen, her counsel, and friends, and counsel on both sides later r-.iw his lordship privately. Half an hour .later the court resumed. Mr. O'Malley remarked that he bad been rather premature in saying the case was at an end. Miss Cohen had decided she would not marry Mr. Simmons. Mr. Justice McCardie: 1 gather that he is periect.lv willing to marry her ? Miss Cohen, continuing her evidence, , slated: "I still love defendant, but I / doubt whether his affections are sincere l! he changes his mind so often be may change it after I got married to him." I lie Judge: That is a risk all married people face. You prefer to go on with the case?— Well, 1 think it is best. Mr. Harry Cohen, plaintiff's brother 1 intimated that he was prepared to pay for' ■wedding feast. Mr. Millward; skin merchant, explained there was a custom among Jews that when a marriage followed the introduction of two parties, a commission was payable" to the introducer. IJiG Judge: lon have your marriage trokers ?—Yes. ' ° What j commission do they get?—lt varies according to the wealth of' tho jKirtics.

You are of the same faith as the parties here? If you were engaged to a girl, and then formed the opinion that you could not live happily with her after marriage, would you break off the engagement ?—Yes. Marriage Depends on Luck. Mrs. Cohen, plaintiff's mother, declared she was indifferent to the. question of the wealth of a suitor of her daughter. '1 he Judge: You have no regard for money '!— That is so. Mr. O'Malley, for the defence, urged that the case was not one of a woman's life having been blasted. There was no broken heart and no word was spoken of sorrow. Plaintiff had not been jilted, as she could marry defendant to-morrow. Defendant gave evidence that his father was totally dependent on him. Mr. O'Malley: Were you looking for a wife in 1924 ?—Well, L was thinking of settling down. Mr. Justice McCardie: That sounds far better. Witness said that he would expect, his wife to do the household duties and assist in the business. The Judge: Were you in love with he! 1 ? I was. lam in love with her now, and am willing to marry her. ITo borrowed £6O from Miss Cohen's brother-in-law with which to buy the wedding ring, and that sum was still due. Plaintiff had objected to live with his father, and said.

if they married, he would have to keep a couple of servants. He said ho could not afford that. One condition on which he was willing to marry her was that his father should live with them.

Mr. Raphael: You say you love this girl ? Was it not lighter than that ? The Judge: What is the distinction between lighter love and the other ? Mr. Raphael: It would require somebody of higher experience than I to answer that. Defendant said he doubted whether he kissed Miss Cohen four times. " I never kissed her at all," he announced, after a pause.

Counsel: You don't appear to have been very ardent. The Judge, to counsel: According to you, it would appear to he the. duty of an engaged man to continually be kissing the girl. Summing-up and Verdict.

Mr. Justice McCardie, summing-up, remarked that actions of this class cast a light on the social conditions and matrimonial ideals of the day. He found that juries felt such actions had an ever-in-creasing bearing on the family welfare of the nation. The law seemed to disregard the spiritual aspects of marriage, the ethical aspects, and, in many ways, the sociological aspects, and, for the purpose of such a trial as this, an engagement

to marry seemed to be degraded to the status of mere commercial bargaining. There were no letters here; few, it any, caresses; kisses, according to defendant, there were none; while, according to plaintiff, they averaged one a month. The Judge wont on to say that there never was a case so marked by the absence of the scorching fires of youthful passion. There was not a sob, a tear, or even a spasm of regret. The girl showed no sign of a broken heart. Rather, she stood in the box genial, courteous, and able. The jury had to undertake the unfortunate task of assessing the value of plaintiff in to-day's marriage market. "I cannot help thinking that that task is similar to that of the assessors iri the Eastern slave markets," added the judge. lho jury, after over an hour's deliberafor plaintiff, and awarded 3-39 ,'is damages. The Judge gave judgment accordingly, and also entered judgment for Miss Cohen on defendants counter-claim for the return of tho ring. He remarked that, having regard to tho law recently established, as defendant had broken 'the contract, plaintiff was entitled to keen lho rmg,