BREACH OF PROMISE

Taranaki Daily News, 26 November 1926, Page 9

BREACH OF PROMISE

POSTAL OFFICIAL’S CLAIM JUDGE AWARDS DAMAGES. BREACH OF CONTRACT PROVED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Palmerston North, Nov. 25. In the Supreme Court to-day Alice Josephine Greagan, supervisor of the telephone exchange at Palmerston North, claimed from Hugh Parker, commercial traveller, Whangarei, the sum of £795 damages for alleged breach of promise to marry. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff and defendant agreed to marry at Easter. 1925, but defendant, in November, 1924, refused to do so. Plaintiff in consequnee thereof suffered a nervous shock and for a considerable time had been rendered unfit to carry out her duties. The statement of defence admitted the 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 and while the contract was still subsisting, plaintiff imported into it the condition that all the issues of the marriage should be brought up in the religion of the Roman Catholic Church. Defendant refused to be bound by such a condition aud was wholly exonerated and discharged by plaintiff from the performance of the promise, or alternatively the contract was rescinded or lapsed by mutual consent.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 the defendant, thus bringing the breach of contract within the region of a tort. These were referred to specially by His Honour (Mr. Justice Reed), who gave his judgment immediately. His Honour said there had been a breach of contract and plaintiff was in consequence entitled to damages. The claim for special damages His Honour 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 His Honour, “that it is proved that following the breaking off of her engagement the plaintiff had a nervous breakdown and was unable to work for the period stated in her claim and incurred certain medical expenses, but whether these were entirely or partially due to the breach of contract by plaintiff is immaterial.” Plaintiff was awarded £l5O damages.