BREACH OF PROMISE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19957, 26 November 1926, Page 13

BREACH OF PROMISE.

ACTION AGAINST TRAVELLER. PLAINTIFF SECURES DAMAGES. (Per United Press Association.) PALMERSTON N., November 25. The hearing was commenced in the Supreme Court this morning of an action in which Alice Josephine Grcagau, supervisor of the telephone exchange at Palmerston North, claimed from Hugh Parker, commercial traveller, IVhangarei. the sum of £795 for alleged breach of promise to marry. Plaintiff was awarded £l5O damages. The statement of claim set out that • plaintiff and defendant agreed to marry at Easter, 1923, but defendant in November, 1024, refused to do so. Plaintiff in consequence thereof had suffered nervous shock, and for a considerable time had been rendered unfit to carry out ' her duties. The statement of defence admitted an agreement to marry, but denied that any date was fixed or that defendant refused to marry plaintiff, defendant stating that after the contract to marry was entered into (which contract was still subsisting) the plaintiff imported into it a condition that all issue of marriage should be brought up in the religion of the Roman Catholic Church. Defendant refused to bo bound by such condition, and was wholly exonerated and discouraged by plaintiff from performance of the promise ; or alternatively the defence was that the contract was rescinded or lapsed by mutual consent. Mr Cohen, for the plaintiff, following the submission of evidence, made a number of new submissions regarding the liability of defendant for the physical condition to which plaintiff had been brought, allegedly because of the mental cruelty of defendant, thus bringing the breach of contract within the region of a tort, and these were referred to specially by his Honor, who gave his judgment immediately. His Honor said there had been a breach of contract, and plaintiff was in consequence entitled to damages. The claim for special damages his Honor regarded as too remote, and this was not allowed, but in order that the matter might be pursued further by counsel, if desired, he would make an observation on this point. “I find,” said bis Honor, “that it is proved that following the breaking off of her engagement plaintiff had a nervous breakdown. She was unable to work for the period stated in the claim, and incurred certain medical expenses, but whether these wore entirely, or partially, duo to the broach of contract by plaintiff is immaterial.”