BREACH OK PROMISE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15382, 20 February 1912, Page 7

BREACH OK PROMISE.

.IN U.VDKFKNDED CASE. FULL DAMAGKS fiKANTKI). In l!>u Supremo Court, ycslorday morning, bcforo liia Honor Mr Jnstii'o Wiliiams, Miss Juno Hughes, «[ Cambrians, sued James CiirriD Douglas lor £501 damages for broach cf promise. Miss Hughes'(illegal that fluting the month of May, 1909, s l, o mid llio defendant agreed l<> marry, although ik) date was ai;rc«l upon; that Urn ongageiiuni rrntimiixl from tho d; V to of such prcmiso to May 24, 1911, whim Douglas married aiiotlier woman; that until ,1,.. lendaut irj.rriod sho was always ready ;md willniu l<> marry him; and that, in consequent of defendant's conduct, she lost tho said marriage ami was injured in health and toolings: whonforo *ho claimed to recover £501 at damages. • •m lr V Xlo(w n l , P <!ar « l f«r tho plainiilfi. and there wis no appearance of tho dofcmlaM. hi tho course «i hi, openin- remarks, Mr Mooro raid that in May, 1909, tho parlies agreed to marry. Tho defendant wrote Hoim) to his friends stating that ho wa* engaged, nnd they sent him £150. lie spent the money, anil tho marriage was postponed till Mcndant became 30 voars of ap. In th<> wnnlime Douglas married another ml whilst protending to bo going to many the plamtilF, and he left it to her friends to inform her of his marriage with tho other giii At this stago his Honor suggested to >| r Moora thai. a., no statement of defence liad boon filed and ns defendant had'not appeared, ho (Mr Mooro) should tell tho jurv that 'Is solo businc-st \v;u to assess vh'c damagis This Mr Moore did. and, continuing dated that defendant left tho Dominion in Jaimsny last. Ho submitted (hat this was for tho pmpose of defeating tho plaintiffs claim.

l'l.unl;iT sli.tcd that, she resided at Cambrians with her fiithor. She met Douglas there in September. 1906. Ho had >W from Scollniu! with y,mo friends of plaintiffs. Some tunc after his arrival sho wilt out w.lii liinm. Ho told her (hat ho was retting £3 a week, ami was paving £1 ft week off n house at Home, ami that when Ilia; was paid he would gel £i a week. Ho did nothing at Cambrians, |>ut was living on tlui money ho received from cvotkiml. 110 reaiaii.od nl Cambrians nlvut two years, anil alter ho had left thov cones|«oml«l. l'i May. 190J, defendant was kick lit Carilr.an.-. ami asked i>!a>nti!T to tnarrv him. They Ivcame engaged, though nothing was sai<l about the dale of the marriaifo: He went away, but sent her the fiiiß, ami alsr- a pendant ami brooch. .She pot lo" trousseau ready. He did not re turn to Cumbrians in three weeks as he had promised, but in .May he write to her expressing the hope that sho would l>o pleased with t!w ring, and subscribing himself: " Yot.r kving diiinny." At the end of 1910 or oarly in 10J1 she was in Dtinedin. ami walked out with Douglas, who fell ill early in 1911 and went to the Hospital, froiii whep) he telegiaphod her asking her to call on him Thev walked out again after ho left tlw Hospital, mul he slid llioy couU lv "lMiriiyl hiij tune after he became 50. 110 w*m 50 years of age on Divember IS of last year Neither party broke off the cnpujeirmi in any way, and she went barkto Camhrw.* in April." 1911. under the impress! in thil the tnirriage was fixed. Two months Liter she returned to Dunediti, and then learned that Douglas was married. In .Splunber she wrole threatening an action fo- dniiiagc*. and in answer got a letter fion.i Mr ivurr. which sho liad since destroyed. In tkil letter Mr Ivurr asked her ti call on him on her first visit to Uuncdin. but she consulted her solicitor instead Sho knew that negotiations had fonn on between the solicitors, and that no settlement had been arrived at. Defendant had left the Dominion. In duly. 19*>, he had handed her a copy of a will that he had m.v'c leaving her' everything.

Hi> Honor: That will is worthless now. After reading portions of the corresj>on-

donee between tho parties with tho intcntion ni shewing that they had loved each otlicn, ilnl thai Douglas hail professed respect mill ntfcMrtion for (hn plaintiff, Mr Moore addressed tlm jury on the question of damagci The plaintiff, ho said, was iu a Rood position, and no. compelled to work Defendant made a raid on her Directions and lied liit to himself for five year.', after wide!; 1.0 broke ir. olfl in the cruellest [>os«ible •vay, nnd when surd he l,o!t«d. Ho lilll«t Imc Ixvti curry in;; (in witli tho other girl whilst engaged to the plaintiff. As to his financial position, ho was entitled to £50 per niartrr mnl to tin- capital when he became W. If he were getting 4 jkt cent, on his iiinncj lie would he entitled l» £5000 when he reached Z0 years of aire, and the plaint l ?' nn< asking tor a lentil of that Mini, 'iiiiish that would not. roally comIH'iivil" itr (oi the loss of a husband and the d-'dieation of five years of her life.

His l|i.!ii>r itiliiiwlcil to I'h,. jury that llii' only f|iiostinn il had lo considor was tin- ;i.w«tnipnt of clamaifos. Tim fncts wnro ii(lm:ttO(l lit tlio tn appear. Tlw jury rotiirnwl j-ftov mi alwnrp of 10 milium, .-iiidtlio forniiiiin intiiiiiitivl that Ihc.v w.ti' nti: niinoiis in awarding damage? lo tlio full r.tnniint claimed.

.litd'imri': fo- <;501 an<l costs was Ihcn tfiven for plaintiff.