SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

Taranaki Daily News, 17 August 1933, Page 4

SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

JUDGE GUARDS PRINCIPLE DIVORCED WOMAN’S CLAIM FAILS. BREACH OF PROMISE ALLEGED. THE POSSIBILITY OF MISCHIEF. By Telegraph—Press Association. Christchurch, Last Night. A declaration that a promise by a man to marry a woman after she had Obtained a divorce from her husband was not valid was made in the Supreme Court to-day by Mr. Justice Blair in a reserved judgment. , , Marjorie Ada Lambert, housekeeper, claimed damages from Patrick Dillon, farmer, Prebbleton, for alleged breach of promise. Mrs. Lambert alleged that in April, 1928, Dillon verbally agreed to marry her as soon as she obtained a divorce and to pay the cost of the divorce proceedings. She alleged that, relying t i this promise, she filed a petition. in divorce and obtained a decree nisi - i November, 1928, and a decree absolute in March, 1929. She alleged that Dillcn then refused to marry her or pay the costs, £35. She claimed £3oo. By consent of the parties the question of law whether the alleged promise to marry as soon as Mrs. Lambert could obtain a divorce was actionable was submitted to Mr. Justice Blair for judgment. In answering the question His Honour said: “The broad principle claimed is that the law always jealously protects the institution of marriage, and anything ten “" ing even remotely to injure or discredit the state of matrimony is condemned. In principle there is no distinction between a promise to marry after a wifes death or after divorce. Promises made in either ease could lead to mischief and it is immaterial that in this case no mischief actually did occur. ■■ “Once the doctrine is infringed upon and distinctions are made in certain cases where no harm has actually resulted or where the possibility of harm is remote, there is introduced into a doctrine designed to uphold the sanctity of marriage a wedge that can but end in its destruction.” . \, . His Honour made no order lor c:sts.