WOMAN’S CLAIM FAILS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18256, 27 November 1933, Page 9

WOMAN’S CLAIM FAILS

ACCOUNT OF FRIENDSHIP ALLEGED PROMISE TO MARRY An action involving a claim for £5Ol. damages for alleged breach of promise of marriage was heard in the Auckland Supremo Court before Mr. Justice Smith. The plaintiff was Mary Jellich, of Tutekeliua, Hokianga (Mr. Reynolds), and the defendant was James Valentino Abraham, storekeeper, of Mangamuka, iu the same district (Mr. Singer). Numerous witnesses for both sides were in attendance.

31 r. Reynolds said that the parties, whose parents lived about six miles apart, had known each other from childhood and kept company from the time plaintiff was 17. She was now 27. Defendant visited her homo practically every Sunday, and they attended dances, tennis parties, and other gatherings together, usually with members of plaintiffs family. In November, 1928, they became engaged, and defendant gave plaintiff a. diamond ring, which she wore publicly.

In the. following r M;iv, plaintiff broke oil' the engagement, on tho ground that defendant was unduly jealous of her, particularly in that be objected to her dancing with other men. A few days later the ring was returned to defendant by plaintiff’s brother. In July, 1929, defendant gave plaintiff bis signet ring. For a considerable time after that and during 1930 the parties saw little of each other. ALLEGED RECONCILIATION In January, 1931, defendant revisited plaintiff’s home and iu April they took part in tennis and motoring with other people. On April 26 they definitely “‘made it up.” and their appearance at a dance shortly afterward was accepted in the district as an indication oi the fact. Later, plaintiff imparted certain information to defendant, and after fie had had a number of interviews with her family arrangements were made fbr the wedding, except that the actual date was not fixed. However, be failed to keep further appointments and her father and brother could get no satisfaction. Finally lie stated that he would not marry her. A child was born in February, 1932, and in April an affiliation order was made against defendant by consent.

Plaintiff gave evidence on these lines, and stated that defendant definitely promised to marry her on April 26. His Honor pointed out that it was alleged iu the pleadings that the promise was made on May 3, or alternatively in or about July, that the parties verbally agreed to marry. If the plaintiff’s evidence was that tho promise was made on April 26, ho could not see how be could do otherwise than give a verdict for defondant, since it was necessary for the allegations to lie definite on such a point. Mr. Reynolds said that he had withdrawn the allegation of April 26 because corroboration of it would have been necessary, and was not obtainable. He submitted that lie was entitled to roly upon defendant’s confirmation of the promise on various occasions in July. LEAVE FOR AMENDMENT SOUGHT His Honor intimated that he could not entertain this view, and suggested that counsel should apply for a nonsuit. Mr. Reynolds was granted an adjournment, and when tho hearing was resumed be applied for leave to amend tne proceedings by alleging that the promise was made on April 26. Mr. Singer objected on the ground that in w Chamber application the previous day to amend the proceedings, Mr. Reynolds had stated definitely that ho abandoned the allegation that the promise was made on April 26. On this consideration an adjournment had been waived. In reply to llis Honor, Mr. Singer said lie felt bound to. take advantage of liis strict technical position. llis Honor said that in the circumstances he must uphold Mr. Singer's objection. Mr. Singer then applied for a nonsuit, which was granted. Defendant was awarded £35 15s. costs, with witnesses’ expenses and disbursements.