SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume LII, Issue 5165, 11 June 1891, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Bx Teieghjaph.) WELLINGTON, June 10. A rather peculiar oaoe camo before Mr Justice Eichinond this morning. W. J. Mock, of Wellington, sued Alice Atwood, spinster, of Chrietehurch, for the roturn of jewellery, rings, brnceletSjlockete, etc, valued at £70, and £30 damages for detention. From the evidonco of plaintiff, who is a widower, it appeared that his wifo died m August and m December he proposed and was accepted by defendant. He allowed her to wear the jewellery on condition that she mnrriod him m January, but the engagomont was broken off. Defendant refused to return the ]\i wellery, and he had never been able to get it back. From cross-examination it appeared that plaintiff's age wbb 66 and he had since married again, but the caso had only proceeded thus far when it was brought to a sudden termination by defendants counsel (Mr Hall) fainting. The case was adjourned till 2 p.m. Later. The caso was resumed m tha afternoon when the dofendant gave evidenco that whon sho recoived tho jewollory plaintiff made no conditions about returning it. When she broke off tho engagement her first impulse was to return the jowollory, but after receiving an insulting letter from Meek, she decided not to do so. In summing up Mr Justice Eichmond said that if a man handaover jaweilory to a pirl to whom he is ongaged the presumption is that the articles are presents. If the engagement is broken off the man has no legal claim to tho jewellery. The jury returned a verdict for tho plaintiff and the question of costs was reserved for argument,