BREACH OF PROMISE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21640, 4 November 1933, Page 2 (Supplement)

BREACH OF PROMISE

CASES IN MELBOURNE

THREE SUCCESSFUL SUITS

WOMAN AWARDED £SOO

DEFENDANT CONSENTS TO PAY

Three actions for breaches of promiso bf, marriage were heard in Courts in Melbourne recently, verdicts for plaintiffs being given jn oach case. By consent, Miss Kathleen Mary Grant, of Melbourne, was awarded £SOO damages by Mr. Justice Dixon in the High Court. Jigainst Walter Gustav Geiger, wine chemist, of Angaston, South Australia. <-'.!■ Miss> Grant stated that she and Geiger agreed ' about November, 1926, to marry within a reasonable time. She had at all tunes been ready and willing to marry him, but ho had broken the agreement, and bad agreed to niarry another woman. She claimed £SOOO damages, including £2OO for damage suffered through relinquishing Jier position a . typist and bookkeeper.

Geiger, who is of Swiss nationality, filed a defence, in which ho admitted that he had agreed to marry Miss Grant, but denied that- he had broken the agreement. He said that when the agreement was made he had just arrived in Australia, could speak English •'only with difficulty and was unfamiliar with Australian conditions. Plaintiff informed him that tho cost of housekeeping would be £l6 a week. Defendant then was earning only from £6 to £8 & week. It also was stated by defendant that in 1928 and 1929 he had a recurrence of an illness which was likely to become incurable, and his financial affairs had 4 Become involved. For those reasons ho claimed that the reasonable time to carry out tho agreement had not / elapsed. ' • Machinist 1 Awarded £295 / Jessie Emelia Catherine , Hood, machinist,, aged 25 years, sued Alfred Lee Haughton, clerk, for £499 damages. Miss Hood alleged that on October 6 last year Haughton' agreed to marry her within a reasonable time, but bad failed to do so. Her claim included, £72 for /clothing and household effects. Haughton denied any promise, to marry. .If there was a promise he denied that it had been broken. > •• ! 1 Miss Hood said that she met Haugh/ton at-a party on March-31, 1928. In June, 1931, they had a quarrel, but it was "patched up," and in October last year "they became engaged.'Before that Haughton had asked her to marry him, and she consented. Haughton was earning £5, a week. In February last he bought. hiet_a glory-box and she spent £72 on various articles to 'prit in it. In cross-examination Miss Hood said that she had done without new clothtfs to 7 buy some of the articles for the glorybox. She was very humiliated by. the breaking off of the engagement. She had not tried tc get jn t;ouch with Haughr ton after her solicitor had written to j him, because sho had previously done j /no without result. She'still had her en- j gagement ring and was wearing it. Haughton did not give evidence.

Young People and Love j •'Young people," said defending counsel, in addressing the jury, "fall out of love as quickly as they fall in it. Thousands of engagements are ' broken off and not 5 per cent of them come to Court. Haughton did not think that it would be fair to marry the plaintiff when he did not love her." Judge Foster told the jury that there •was no means of estimating a girl's loss , through breach of promise. Haughton had never denied that he was respon- / Bible, and that he should pay. The breach of promise to marry a girl might affect her whole future life, or, on the other hand, her loss might be very small. The things that the girl had purf . chased for "her glory-box were not a total loss. "According to statistics," said Judge Foster, "the average age of marriage for a woman is 25 years. It ' 1 may Be that the long association the plaintiff had with the defendant will very materially deprive her of her matrimonial prospects." ' The jury found in favour of Miss Hood and awarded her £45 special damages and £250 ordinary damages. A stay of execution for seven days ; was granted, on the application of counsel, who undertook that Haughton would not part with any of hi\ assets* during that time. Waitress and Policeman £ Claiming that he had failed to carry his promise to marry her, Doris Schmidt, aged 21 years, waitress, sued *— David Robert Kennedy, aged 23 years, police constable, for £249 damages. JVliss Schmidt claimed that the marriage was !"■; fixed for May 20 this year, but at Kenncdy's request it was altered to August 32. Kennedy had refused to marry her. v Her claim included £.50 special damages for a trousseau and household and table linen bought in anticipation of the mar- i •/; riage. Kennedy's formal defence was that! "-/ 'the engagement was terminated by Miss v Schmidt on Juno 22 this year. Miss Schmidt, in evidence, denied that she had ever asked Kennedy to ■ release her from the eqgagement. All ! / arrangements were made for the wed- , ding, and a list of guests was prepared. ')■ Kennedy failed to keep an appointment **' with her in June. Later he mot her at „ the South Yarra station, and said that he wanted to break off the engagement. •-VHe declined to make any explanation and had not spoken to her since. In cross-examination Miss Schmidt admitted that there had been a. disagreement about £ wedding at which Kennedy was to be best man, but to which she was not invited. She denied having said to him when the engagement was broken off, "If I had a gun 1 would shoot you." Judge Foster: Do you still love him? ..... f—Yes. c. Defending Counsel: Would you marry him now?— No. You were never terribly thrilled with , - him? —Yes, I was. "Days of Chivalry are Past" j Kennedy said that Miss Schmidt took oiicnce at his going to a' wedding as best man when she was not invited. ,"When he met her after tho wedding she said: "I am sick of you and your i " shifts, and I do not want to see you I 1 «gain." She went inside and banged'the ( v~- door. - Judge Foster: Did you want to see v ,hcr again?— Yes. 1 ' Then why did you not go to see her? t *c. ---Because she told me to go, and it was i ,hcr place to come and see me. J Apparently you thought enough of I '"ail!! K t .° ask I,or to he your wife. ] jwOcausc of a trumpery argument you 1 eeteed the first opportunity to get rid i '■•/°f her ?—She told me to go. >' . The Judge: And you went. ■. •ft. Counsel: It cuts both ways. i T ' , e Judge: Does it? Then the davs l 'GV.pt chivalry are past. * ( The jury returned a verdict for Miss ] bchnndt and awarded her £l5O < i. damages. ' /'