FORMER LOVERS MEET

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21379, 31 December 1932, Page 2 (Supplement)

FORMER LOVERS MEET

BREACH OF PROVES CUIT

STORY OF £3OOO CHEQUE

QUESTION OF SOBRIETY

Events tlyit transpired when by accident a meeting occurred between two former lovers concerned in a breach of promise action engaged attention under singular conditions in the Court of Appeal in London in November.

The plaintiff in the action, Miss Jane Garlys, asked to have set aside an order of Mr. Justice du Parcq sitting in chambers. The defendant was Mr. Bainbridge, stated to be a young man of means, and the suit was in the list for trial in the High Courts with a special jury. Mr. Paul Bennett, counsel for Miss Carlys, stated that that lady alleged that Mr. Bainbridge promised to marry her and then refused to carry out the contract. All the documents had been prepared, and the case was ready for trial, but, at the end of August last, the young pair met, quite by accident, at Cannes, and compromised the action. At the time of the agreement a cheque for £3OOO was drawn by Mr. Bainbridge, and Miss Carlys wrote out a receipt agreeing to discontinue her action. The receipt was to be handed over after the cheque had been cleared. Next morning Mr. Bainbridgo stopped the cheque. In those circumstances, remarked Mr. Bennett, a summons was taken out on the lady's behalf asking that the terms of

the compromise be recorded in the action, and that the action bo stayed that the terms might he carried out. Mr. Bainbridge's real objection when the matter came before the Master was that at the time of the agreement he was under the influence of alcohol.

Lord Justice Slesser: According to the authorities, that is not enough, is it ?

Mr. Bennett: I submit clearly not. No allegation is made against Miss Carlys in the matter.

Miss Carlys, in an affidavit, had sworn she was staying at an hotel in Cannes when she met Mr. Bainbridge. "He told me he wished to settle the action," she stated, " that he desired to do so amicably, and hoped to remain on friendly terms with me. He asked me to go for a drive, and I did so. " Mr. Bainbridge called at the hotel and took me out to lunch, and we discussed the sum I would accept to end the dispute, and I agreed to take £3OOO. He told me he had treated me very shabbily and would pay that sum. He added that he regretted his conduct and gave mo a : cheque. When I handed it over for payment I was told that he had stopped, it and given orders that it should not be met."

Mr. Bennett asked that the affidavits should be taken for what they said. If

Mr. Bainbridge had asserted that ho never made a final and binding contract and was in such a stato of intoxication that he should not bo bound by any contract lie was alleged to havo made then, that would be a different matter; but, in lvis affidavit, he admitted that lie was anxious to settle the dispute.

Counsel was reminded by Lord Justice Scrutton that Mr. Bainbridge had alleged that his memory was very indistinct as to what happened, because he was lo a considerable extent tinder the influence of alcohol at the time; also that he drew the cheque betwen 3 a.m. and 4 a.m.

Mr. Bennett submitted that Mr. Bainbridge ought to be bound by the compromise which was undoubtedly made,,

Lord Justice Scrutton stated that tho judge in chambers had declined to stay tho.action, the application of Miss Carlys being to stay in on the ground that there had been a settlement. The Court was of opinion, looking at the affidavits, that the maitei was not one to be decided by affidavits, but in open court. Mr. Justice du Parcq had come to the right conclusion and tho appeal would be dismissed. The costs would be Mr. Bainbridge's in any event.