BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT

Taranaki Daily News, 24 June 1931, Page 12

BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT

NURSE SUES GRAZIER. WOMAN LOSES THE CASE. The trial of an action brought by Elsie May Rattray, of Glen Huntly, nurs©, claiming £499 damages from John Eden Walter, of Violet Town, farmer and grazier, for alleged breach of promise of marriage, took plac© in Melbourne recently before Judge Macindoe. Mr. Magennis appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. O’Bryan for defendant. Mr. Magennis said th© parties became engaged in December, 1929. Defendant purchased an engagement ring for plaintiff in February, 1930. They planned a house on defendant’s property, but shortly afterwards defendant Seemed to become anxious about his financial position, and it was derided to postpone the niarriage from October until December. In August Walter told plaintiff the marriage would have to be postponed for six months, and perhaps for two years, on account of the depression. He also said that because he was engaged his parents made remarks. when he Went to dances and danced with on© girl more than once. After some discussion plaintiff said to defendant, “Oh, well. Tell them th© engagement is off.” Defendant alleged that the engagement was terminated at that time. Plaintiff contended, however, that it was understood by the parties that the engagement was continuing. . , , , Plaintiff in evidence said defendant had told her he owned 265 acres of land, valued at £3OOO, which had been given him by his father. Defendant had treated her affectionately after September. When she agreed to let him have the ring he said, “Oh! You are wonderful.” In preparation for her marriage she had purchased articles costing £127. Plaintiff was cross-examined as to certain letters written between the. parties, and the purport of conversations between them. Plaintiff said that at no time was the engagement broken by her, and that when she handed the engagement ring to Walter she did so at his request and in order to assist him. to raise money for repairs on his selection. Defendant said that shortly after hisi engagement to plaintiff he commenced the building of a home, but about two months later the depression and the drought had so affected his interests that he had to discontinue the work. He told plaintiff that oh account of the existing conditions there was no possibility of their being able to marry for two or three years. He suggested tile wedding should be postponed, but no definite time was fixed. Later, said witness, he told plaintiff that things had become even worse, and asked her to release him from his engagement. She appeared to doubt that things were so bad, and when later she visited Violet Town he took her on a tour of inspection. At tlie time there was no grass to be seen and sheep were dying everywhere. They talked matters over and he told her he had only 6s 2d in the bank. She then Said, “You can have your freedom. The engagement is broken. Is it not hard, this is the second time my engagement has fallen through?” In October he visited Melbourne and had a conversation with plaintiff. She appeared to be annoyed, and said, “There was no need to break the engagement at all. I was prepared to wait.” He said to plaintiff, “What did you break the engagement for?” and she replied, “You told me you were so poor.” Witness said he asked for the return of the ring, and suggested that it should be sold, and plaintiff should have the i proceeds. It was arranged that they should take the ring to the jeweller from whom it was purchased the following day. The next morning plaintiff handed him the ring, but two days later, asked for it back, as something by which she could remember him. . . Mr. Magennis: When did you begin to feel that you Would like to get out of the engagement? ' Witness: It came on very gradually. His Honour: What caused it—the depression or the, cessation of your affection for plaintiff? Witness: Entirely the drought and depression. Your feelings for her were the same as ever?—Yes. .. / Witness said that on the evening when he said he Wished to end the engagement he said, ‘1 want you to release nre

from the engagement.” He did not think there was a need for any “palaver,” He had lost a couple of hundred Iftmbs. His Honour: Did you think more of the lambs than of the woman whom you were going to make ydur Wife? Witness: Certainly not, but without money you can do nothing. Mr. Magennis: What did you mean then when you wrote to her, “True love never dies; it is more lasting than life itself?” Witness: It was only a Saying I had. His Honour: But your© had died—Yes. His Honour, in giving judgment, said he had .had very great difficulty in defining the consistencies or inconsistencies in th© evidence, He did not think he had been told exactly what happened by either party. He was inclined to helrnve that what really happened was that in September the parties had agreed to cancel th© engagement, and hoped that subsequently they would become reengaged. Having regard to th© View he had taken Of some o? the letters, he had decided that there must be judgment for defendant. A Judgment was entered for defendant with costs.