BREACH OF PROMISE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20288, 22 June 1929, Page 17

BREACH OF PROMISE.

END OF LONG FRIENDSHIP.

MAN MARRIES IN IRELAND.

JUDGE AWARDS SUM OF £375.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRKSI'ONDENT.] HAMILTON, Friday.

A breach of promise case was heard before Mr. Jusftice Herdman in the Supremo Court at Hamilton to-day. lhe plaintiff, who claimed £IOOO damages, was Jane Sutherland (Mr.'J. F. W. Dickson), and the defendant was John Mawhinney, retired contractor, Franktoti (Ml', 11. A. Swarbrick). Plaintiff in her statement of claim said that at or toward the end of September, 1925, and on divers occasions since that date the parties verbally agreed to marry one another. The plaintiff had been always ready and willing to marry the defendant, but the defendant had neglected or refused to do so, and had recently married another woman. The defence was a general denial of the plaintiff's allegations. House Built for Plaintiff. The plaintiff, Jauo Sutherland, said she lived in a house at Hamilton, built by defendant. Defendant first became a visitor to her home at Frankton in 1919. She had known him for years prior to that time. Witness' husband, who had been a carpenter, had deserted her and she divorced him in 1925. Her children contributed to her support. From 1919 onwards defendant often visited her, and said that he would marry her. He built her a now house in 1922, on which he bad spent £2OOO. In September, 1927, defendant took out a passport and said he intended to visit Ireland. Witness pressed him to marry her'before he went, but he said he would marry her on his return. He left for Ireland on March 18, 1928. Defendant wrote to her on June 27, 1928, stating that he had married another woman. Ho told her that he had been corresponding with the woman he had married over since ho had left Ireland. " Contract Not Cancelled."

Witness said defendant gave her a few pounds occasionally, but she had had to support herself principally. When Lie was away defendant had written to a ireind offering her £2OO or tho use of the house. She had since bceu requested to leave the house. Witness was now 56 years of age. She had never agreed to cancel the contract of* marriage in October, 1925. To Mr. Swarbrick: When she met Mawhinney in 1914, she told him that she was having a hard struggle. Mawhinney expressed sympathy with her. He then began to visit her and she fell in love with him. Witness heard of Miss Chessney, tho woman ho married, when she first met Mawhinney. but she had not heard of the woman again until after defendant had married her. Mawhinney had given her an engagement ring. To His Honor: lie promised to marry her many, times before and after tho divorce in 1925. Further Evidence lor Plaintiff.

Gordon Rogers, fish vendor, Auckland, said that in 1927 Mawhinney told witness that he intended to marry Mrs. Sutherland when he had given up contracting. In 1928 Mawhinney told him that ho was going to visit Ireland and would marry Mrs. Sutherland when he returned at Christmas.

Two of plaintiff's sons, Ivan and Edwin Sutherland, gave evidence that they had heard Mawhinney say he intended to marry their mother subsequent to the divorce.

Mr. Swarbrick said the defence would be that whatever happened before the divorce defendant made no promise to marry plaintiff after the divorce, and if he had, tho contract was cancelled by mutual consent in October, 1925. Evidence was given by Mawhinney that he was born in Ireland 58 years ago. lie came to New Zealand when 22 years of age, and went to live at Whalawbata.. He met plaintiff in 1920, and afterwards bought a house for her. and went to live with her. He later built a house for her. Plaintiff got her divorce in 3925, and he pai<l the costs. Prior to the divorce he [rod promised to marry her. In October. 1925. a month after the decree absolute was granted, he told Mrs. Sutherland be would not marry her. He had never given her a ring. " Sent Lovo and Kisses,"

To Mr. Dickson: AY lien ho -left for Ireland lie flic! not know whether his old sweetheart would marry him. He had not seen her for 35 years. He intended to marry her if she would have him. He sent .Mrs. Sutherland love and kisses from Wellington before ho left for Ireland. To His Honor: He offered to pay plaintiff £2OO through a friend if the present case could be kept out of Court. His Honor remarked that any promise to marry before the divorce was void and of 'no effect. After reviewing the evidence His Honor said he was bound to hold that there had been a promise to marry. < Mr. Swarbrick said the plaintiff could hardly claim, damages for (he hurt to her feelings and the loss of tho esteem of her relatives and friends. Mr. Dickson said he thought the damages might be based on what was due to the woman for looking after defendant for 10 years. He had been guilty of a cruel deception. His Honor said it appeared to him that the woman was not an unwilling victim. Usually in breach of promise cases a woman was well rid of a man who broke his promise to her. lie thought he would be doing fairly by the woman in this case in awarding her £375 damages. Judgment was entered accordingly.