BROKEN PROMISE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22142, 22 June 1935, Page 14

BROKEN PROMISE

" DAMAGES FOE WOMAN

| SUM OF £75 AWARDED

THREE YEARS* ENGAGEMENT

'DESIRE TO PUNISH DEFENDANT

A claim for damages for alleged breach of promise of marriage was brought before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court yesterday. The action was brought by Doris Darwin, housemaid, (Mr. Lcnnard), to recover £3OO general and £SO special damages from Robert Henry Daw kins, cabinetmaker, (Mr. Henry). Plaintiff alleged that they agreed on December 24, 1931, to marry each other and that about February 24 last, defendant had refused to marry her and wrongfully terminated the engagement. She sought £SO damages for household articles she had purchased with a view to marriage. The defence alleged that it had been agreed that the marriage was not to take place until the defendant had sufficient means, and he was not now in a position to marry. The defence also alleged that the plaintiff had accepted a repudiation of the engagement last January.

" Some Degree o! Punishment " Mr. Lcnnard said his client alleged tliat she had been extremely badly treated, and' she desired to afford defendant some degree of punishment for the suffering and humiliation she had endured. She wished to give a certain degree of publicity to his philandering, for he was more or less a potential

Mormon. ■f His Honor: There are quite reputable Mormons, aren't there? Counsel agreed that that was so. The engagement had gone along happily until last Christmas, when she heard about Dawkins' conduct from a mutual friend.

The plaintiff, who gave her age as 28, said she met the defendant, who was always known as "Roy," about four years ago. After going to see his mother " we just made it up and that was all about it," said plaintiff. Defendant had been in trouble, and had been in prison. They became engaged on Christmas Eve, 1931, and he gave

her a ring. The ring was handed to His Honor, who asked the witness what the stones were.

" I have forgotten for the moment," said witness.

" Don't know the stones in your engagement f ring?" exclaimed His Honor. " I just know it is a diamond ring," she said. " I thought so," said His Honor, "but I did not like to venture." Witness said defendant was very attentive to' her, and they were very much attached. Last New Year's Eve and on January 3 she heard from a friend that he was going regularly with a girl called Vera. Witness was very much upset,' and when she taxed him he admitted everything. Everything Forgiven & ; Defendant became ill on January 6 and she forgave him everything and nursed him for three days. They decided to be married in December when school broke up. . In February the defendant had admitted to plaintiff that he was in love with a girl called Grace, and that he had ceased to love witness. He wanted to get his ring back, but she refused. He told her he would buy her a dress ring for it. His Honor: If you switch this ring over to another finger it would be a dress ring ? Witness: That is what I told him. Witness said defendant asked to be released and wanted an " even break." Witness said that at a subsequent meeting defendant said that Grace had plenty of money and a nice car, and Be w'as going to marry her. He definitely broke off the engagement with witness. He never gave as a reason for breaking off the engagement that he could not afford to marry her. It was well known among her friends that he had thrown her over.

Reason for Action In answer to Mr. Henry witness said she knew that defendant had just come out from five years in gaol when she met him. Asked if she was now willing to marry him, she replied, " No, I don't think so. I have lost my affection for him." Mr. Henry: What is the reason for bringing this action? Witness/: Trying to punish him. Mr. Henry: Purely a matter of punishment?— Yes. Witness added that she had given money matters a thought. Ernest Pettit, farmer, of Swanson, said that Dawkins had told him he wanted to marry an Italian girl, but that he wanted the plaintiff "as a stand by." Later he said he had broken off the engagement, and was finished with plaintiff. Mr. Henry, in opening the defence, said that on one occasion plaintiff told defendant that she had thrown his ring away and was finished with him. _ The matter of defendant's financial position had been dominant in all their discussions. Defendant had never had a position that would enable him to enter into marriage. .. Giving evidence, the defendant said he was given board and a few shillings a week by his father. Describing meetings with the plaintiff at which she accused him of going with other girls witness said plaintiff had previously threatened that if that happened she would throw the ring away and break off the engagement. His Honor: What made her threaten that ? . Witness i I had a distinct name of being a flirt. His Honor: I thought they were all females. Don Juan would be a more suitable expression. Question of Damages

Witness said he became annoyed at the accusations the plaintiff made against him, although he admitted thcv were true. On another occasion, when she accused him of being in love with another girl, he said: " If I am, what of it? " She took off the ring and held it out to him and said she was finished He had never unconditionally agreed to marry the plaintiff. In cross-examination, witness said he did not see any shame in beinc known as a flirt. He was not enga£?xl to Graeme and never had been. He was still in love with the plaintiff His Honor said .that where the plaintiff and defendant told a different story he accepted the evidence of the plaintiff. He was satisfied that he and not she broke off this engagement, and that defendant made it clear he was throwing her over for good. The question of damages was difficult, because the man himself was not worth much from anv point of view. " I think the lady has had a lucky escape," said His Honor, " and she will probably rcaliso that in time to come. He would have been a most unsatisfactory husband from every point of view, so the loss of him is not worth a great deal." The enpn<rement had oreuyiied the life_ of this young woman through crucial marriagpable years which she had wasted on him, and she ought to get something for that. < His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff for £75, made up of £SO general and £25 special damages.