BREACH OF PROMISE

Taranaki Daily News, 9 December 1931, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE

NELSON WOMAN’S CLAIM DAMAGES OF £5OO AWARDED. MIXED MARRIAGE QUESTION. Nelson, December 7. Judgment for plaintiff of £ooo was given in a Supreme Court action in which Ellen Veronica Rose Bell claimed damages from William Robert Millier for breach of contract to marry. Mr. Justice Blair presided. Plaintiff stated that she and defendant were constantly in company until August, 1924, when she received, a letter from her fiance about her keeping company with Millier. She showed Millier the’letter, and he agreed that it was “just as well.” That evening at her home he read the letter through. Then he said, “I love you and want you. I am prepared to become engaged .to you right away, but you make perfectly sure of yourself. If you want this fellow, Dan, (because of what I think of you I will pay your expenses to go to Auckland to see him.”

Witness had replied that she did not want to go and that she wanted defendant. He said he wished to become engaged immediately and she said she would accept him, but at the time she did not wish to wear, a ring so soon after the other engagement on account of what people would say. He said he knew how she ' felt about it, but he would not let her down. PURCHASE OF A RING. In September or October of 1924 they went together to a jeweller’s to get a signet ring to replace one she had lost. He said to the jeweller, “You know, I should be buying her the right one, but it is her fault.” Plaintiff said she never went about with any other man or woman while she was associated with defendant. Millier was considered one of the family, coming and going as he willed. He frequently told her he loved her. All this time plaintiff was preparing a trousseau and she always showed Millier everything she put in her box. Millier bought her pieces of fancywork to put in the box. Cross-examined, plaintiff said she became engaged to marry Millier in 1924 annd continued in that state until 1931. Counsel: You always wished to marry him? Witness: Yes. Are you willing now ? —Yes. In any church? — And renounce your religion ?—Yes, but he never wanted'me to give up my religion. He said he would marry me in the Catholic Church. ■ MIXED MARRIAGES DISCUSSED. 'Plaintiff said Millier knew she was a Catholic, and he often went to her church with her. There had been discussions on the matter of mixed marriages. There was a speaker at the time giving a sermon on mixed marriages, and they went to hear him. On the following day defendant asked her to make an apointment with the missionary priest. He said he wished to talk it over with the speaker, as he wanted to know what was expected of the parties in a mixed marriage. They went together to see the priest. Millier told the priest he was going to marry her. On. leaving the priest, defendant said, “Well, love overcomes every difficulty.” On way home he said that.it would not make any difference, adding, “We will arrange it all right.” Defendant, in evidence, admitted telling plaintiff that he had never.met anyone he thought he could marry, hut there was no suggestion of marriage. He had never said he loved her. Defendant admitted he went with her-to buy a signet ring to replace one she had lost, That was a present he -was making to tier. “EALiLTNG IN WITH MOTHER.” Defendant said plaintiff’s o,ne hope and desire was that he would change his faith. “Had Miss Bell changed her religion for me,” he said, “and I could have obtained the approval of my mother, I would have married Miss Bell.” Defendant said Miss Bell’s 'proposal was that they should be married in the Catholic Church, to which he would not agree. “I knew that once she got me into the Catholic Church that'would be the end of the Presbyterian Church,” he said. Cross-examined, defendant said he would not ‘ask his' mother’s approval of ‘a marriage at the beginning of a-epurt-ship, but at a stage when both parties were agreeable to marry he would not necessarily drop it if his mother disapproved. Witness was anxious to marry, plaintiff subject to her becoming a Protestant and subject to the views of his people-. ' His Honour: Do you rely on your mother picking your wife or yourself? Witness: Well, I wanted to. fall in with my mother’s wishes. The insuperable" difficulty was religion. * A STAUNCH PRESBYTERIAN. Witness said it was on account of his own religious views that he would not undertake the marriage, as he was a staunch Presbyterian. Counsel: You went only five times to the Catholic Church? ‘ Witness: Yes. Counsel: And how many times to your own church? Witness: That’s got nothing to do with it. • His Honour allowed the question, and witness replied: “Two or three times.” His Honour: You were more a patron than a pillar of the church,, then. “My view is that the religious question is one of recent arrangement,” said his Honour, in giving his decision. “Defendant says he is one of those desperate Presbyterians, but I much doubt if the question of religion worried him in the very least. While in Nelson he was only in the Presbyterian Church about twice. “I cannot overlook the fact that defendant admits he wrote to plaintiff frequently in the first year .away, and then the letters tapered off. It seems he had just gone cold and made up his mind to remain a bachelor. I believe the girl was genuine and the religion bogey was raised to get him out of his responsibilities.” ■His Honour said the young woman had given up the best years of her life to defendant. “She has been faithful to him and she is entitled to substantial damages,” concluded his Honour. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £5OO, with costa.