BROKEN PROMISE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22193, 21 August 1935, Page 14

BROKEN PROMISE

ENGAGEMENT TO MARRY WOMAN AWARDED £6OO AUCKLANDER DEFENDANT STORY OF COI'RTSHIP COMMENT ITPONl T PON LETTER fIJT TEI.EC.RAPB —COftRFSP IMIEXT j WANCtANTI, rm'srlny An action for damages foi alleged breach of promise to marry vrais commenced in the Supremo Court at Wanganni vesterday and concluded to-dav before the Chief Justice, Sir Micheal Myers. The plaintiff was Gladys May Ritchie, spinsi-T, of Wanganui, and the defendant wiis William Thomas Ridd, formprjy of Wmganui and now of Auckland. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. W. E. Leicester, who had with h:.m Mr. T. P. McCarthy. Both are of 'Wellington. Mr. H. P. Richmond, of Auckland, appeared for defendant. Plaintiff'claimed £3OOO and ptoduced sereral letters which passed between the par:ies. She alleged that n promise to marrv was made to her by defendant at Pipiriki House, Wanganui River, on June 13, 1930. The defence was a denial that an engagement to marry ever ex.sted, but that if it did it was broken c.ownb> I plaintiff and not bv detent,ant. The plaintiff was awarded £boo. The Plaintiff's Stor;,r

The plaintiff stated in evidence that the first met I*idol in 1913 and joined the stall- of Messrs. Hatrick arid Compjmv at his suggestion. A friendship later sprang up, and Ridd told tier that h<> did not think his marriage was valid bi?caus<3 ho had since discovered that his wife's husband was alive at .'he tnn* of the marriage. Ridd's. wife v:as very ill and lie said she would live only for &ix months. Actually she livi id for ten years iifter that, her deal h taking place in / 1929. Plaintiff said that she and defendant became secretly engaged, but iifter she left Hutirick and Company's employ m 1932 Ridd told her she could ".-ear her r;ng openly. When she became engaged to defendant she had said that she ■would not live in the house, wnile Miss Lowe la niece of Ridd's deceased wife) was there, and it was understood sho was tc> get a position. The fact that she did not get a position paused the wedding to be postponed. A Letter to Defendant

Referring to a trip to Noumea plaintiff said .that on her return to Wellington defendant met her Jind suggested that they get marrind that morning. Plaintiff refused, saying that her mother was ill and also that her mother wished her to be ::nnrried in a church. In reply to Mr. Richmond, plaintiff said she haa invested £ISOO. She had Tiever received gifts of casli. or bonds from Ridd. Concerning a visit by Ridd to Australia, plaintiff said iihn" had no knowledge of his return until a fountain pan had been pushed through her door Tilth "Christmas greetings." Ridd did not come to see her and she re- . turned the pen. Plaintiff said she wrote n letter in which she referred to Miss Lowe being in Wellington when defendant returned from Australia. She stated, "So long ns you are associated with this woman r, yo\i need never bother to cd.ll on me iagain. I have satisfied myself that you are nothing but a selfis,h cad. The spiteful passages in your lettsrn denote this." ' Defendant in the 3 toi: Defendant, in evidence, raid he was married at 28, his wife bsing 44. Shortly'after their marriage his wife became ill. In 1922 she vai, sent to England, but her health was still poor on her return. A doctor pr(dieted that she might die in six months. She died in November. 1929. He hid what he thought were reasonable grounds to doubt the validity of his marriage, but he did not deisire to ta,ke sti>p» to annul the marriage. About 1921, said witness, hn and Miss Ritchie became great frienc'ls. He found her very valuable in the office, and he made her a confidant in bin troubles. Witness said he treated «nii. regarded Miss Lowe —or Miss Ridd, a.s she was known —as his own daughter. She was his wife's niece, and hac. come into their home at the age of wia:. She had always called him "daddj.' She was not ii healthy child, and witness provided. for her entirely. In 1926 Miss Ridd married, and later returned to witness' home. Continuing, witnesii said it was not true that he had given plaintiff no gifts exdept. books. He hn.d given her cash bonuses at Christmas of from £lO to £25 each, year from 4921. to 1932. He had also given her two £IOO brewery bonds at different times and four £IOO post office cert.fioates. Defendant denied that tiers had been a proposal of marriage sit Pipiriki House, on the Wanganui Fliver. He considered that the friendship had been broken off by plaintiff's list'ier to him when he returned from Australia. Judgment lor £1101! The Chief Justice gave judgment for plaintiff for £6OO. His Hrm:>r referred to Ihe last letter that pkintiff had written to defendant. "That letter, of course, is the letter of an angry woman," he said, "and in my judgment the letter of an angry engaged won'an." Proceeding, His Honor said that defendant, in his reply of December 11', had referred to "Nance" (Miss Ridd), "as always beir.g an insurmountable obstacle to this plaintiff in the matter of marriage." Defendant had also said in the witness-bos, that that was the objection taken liy plaintiff to marriage. "I can't see why defendant's association with Mils Ridd could possibly affect a mere Iriendship," added His Honor.