BREACH OF PROMISE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3885, 28 August 1928, Page 15

BREACH OF PROMISE.

A COOLING OF AFFECTION. PLAINTIFF AWARDED £250 DAMAGES. AUCKLAND, August 22. A claim for £lOOO damages for an alleged breach of promise of marriage was heard before Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court this morning. Pearl May (Mr Singer), ot Onehunga, sued Thomas W. Churches (Mr Conlan), of Tamaki. Mr Singer, after outlining the evidence, said he could not think of more complete breach than that committed by the defendant. The defence raised was that the plaintiff’s character and disposition and family circumstances were such that the marriage would be unsuitable and unhappy The defendant had had plenty of time to find that out. Prior to the eueagement in September last, the defendant had been found drunk in charge of his motor car with a number of girls in it. In consequence, he had been convicted and fined £5O. The report of the case showed that he had been on a “ boosing party ” with members of both sexes. His Honor: Are you not minimising the damages, Mr Singer? Is this the defendant in this dishevelled state and in his Sunday clothes? Mr Conlan: Yes. He is.better than I usually have seen him. I told him he was coming to the Supreme Court and that he had better have a shave this morning. His Honor: I cannot see him until he gets in the. witness box

The plaintiff stated that she was 26 years of age and had known Churches tor five years and a-half. He was the manager of his father’s farm at Tamaki. He had asked her to marry him after she had been going with him for six months. She had been preparing for the marriage for some time. He vowed that nobody else would have her. They visited each other frequently. Witness had got everything ready except her wedding dress. She received an engagement ring and the wedding was arranged in December of last year for the end of March of this year. The plaintiff said she heard that Churches was going to Sydney, and she asked him if it was true. He denied it. On December 29 he arranged to meet her on December 31, but he did not come, aud she later learnt that he had gone to Sydney on the intervening day. The shock nearly killed her, and she was ill for two months. Afterwards she found out that the defendant had booked his passage on December 16. He did not write to or communicate with her, and she could not get his Australian address. In March, said the plaintiff, Churches returned to New Zealand. From the date he left the Dominion until the present day there had been no communication between herself and the defendant. When the plaintiff’s case had closed Mr Conlan stated that the defendant was the son of a very old resident of Tamaki, who had amassed a fair amount of wealth. The son was an irresponsible type of youth.- He had certainly become engaged to the plaintiff, but his affections had “ cooled off ” to such an extent as to constitute a breach of promise of marriage. He had been unable to get on with the plaintiff’s family. So far as damages were concerned the defendant had nothing. He had had a motor car, but that had been smashed on Monday. The defendant went into the witness box. His Honor: That costume you have on, is that your usual dress costume?—l did not have time to dress. His Honor: Did you not have time to put on a tie and brush your hair? , Mr Conlan attempted to explain his client's condition. His Honor: I am referring to the dis- ( respect shown by coming to court in that costume. If he goes to pictures of an evening 1 should not think he would go ' in that costume. J Churches stated that he was working for his father for £1 a week. He had ' broken off the engagement because the girl was bad-tempered and he could not see any way of living with her. • In delivering judgment his Honor said that the contract and the breach were both admitted. It was purely a ques- / tion of damages. He thought that there ' was a certain amount of truth in the assertion that the parties did not get ’ on very well. Probably had the defendant ' been a man of stronger moral character j he would have broken off the engagement earlier. His Honor considered that the , defendant had deliberately got rid of his ' assets and deserted the plaintiff. It was j much better for the parties to break off the engagement, but it was the manner [ adopted that was wrong. It was not a „ case for excessive damages, but for subI stantial damages. The plaintiff would 5 be awarded £250 damages.