LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14276, 17 August 1910, Page 7

LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT.

XOUNG MAN PAYS FOR IT, Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, August IG. Ihe claim for £3UU damages for breach of promise made by Amy Webb, of Christchiirch, formerly of Auckland' against Joel Double, described as a grocer and butcher, of the Thames, was heard in the Supreme Court today.

Jn outlining the case for the plaintiff, Mr Mahony stated that the parties met "t 1007, ono living at To Aroha. and the other at the Thames. It was practically "love at first sight" and after a tew months of acquaintanceship an engagement was entered into. After the usual vicissitudes of courtship the month lor the marriage was iixed but tbe day was never decided upon. Finally m April of this year defendant wrote terminating the engagement and nu" s for the return of his ring. the plaintiff stated in the course of her evidence that she met defendant about Easter, I<X)7, and lie paid attentions to her, making a proposal of marriage m November of the same year. Plaintiff was residing at Te Aroha and defendant at the Thames. On occasions she went in, to the ."names and sometimes stayed with defendant's people. In August, 1908, ho gave her a ring- to seal the engagement About October, 1908, a breach occurred m their relations, defendant intimationby letter that ho was too much of a flirt to bo true to his avowals and could not make up his mind to stick to one. Plaintiff said she did not reply to that communication .and did nothing to release defendant, who however" n"'}\ l "i r -, in I '' cbrU! "T. 1909, saying that be had been broken hearted since they had parted and asking that he bo taken back—"Do not refuse your broken-hearted boy" he pleaded. " As t ie result of an interview following < m the letter, the past was forgiven and the course of love and courtship resinned Subsequently it was agreed that the marriage should take place m January and it was then postponed till the following month, plaintiff goin<r to considerable expense in preparing for a home and a trousseau. They continued ns an engaged couple till April of this year when defendant wrote to plaintiff then living at Christchiirch, curty breaking off the engagement. The letter commenced "Dear Miss Webb" and contained an intimation that business had not prospered and he was not in a position to get married and lie was not likely to be for some years I am stony broke, without a 'brass iarthing, so if.you will bo so kind send back the ring I gave you. I should esteem it a great favour." J laintifir saul she did not acknowledge the letter nor did she return the ring tut instituted the present proceedings, i f i \. wcro Produced written bv defendant, one. of these was signed "lours to a cinder." Questioned by Mr Earl plaintiff said she did not know defendant was getMrV ny "R "I * Cek from Ilis Mr Earl-Didn't you tell him that von "ore ten years older and were the prudent one? I am not ten years okler; there is only a difference of five years I,imP T°"i hnd a J,7 real affection for h.m?-I have. "When did it vanish? w t , 1 Itnow 1 tnow Aether it has vanish", n 'in f°o U l™ 7 ° carried a man on 30s a week?_Tt would not he equal Jli ♦ Wt 1 , ca . red for sli m enough for that. What is the object of the ac-

tion ?—To compensate mo in some way for the money I havo spent; the timu spout, and for the humiliation I havo suffered. ]t is money you require '( it is money, but money is not going to mend matters so far as all I have suffered. Isn't it that you desire to punish this man?—lf you care to look at it in that way. Let me know clearly whether you want to punish him and vindicate your character or get cash? His Honour: She wants both. Plaintiff : That is so.

Mr Earl in opening the case for the defendant pointed out that he had only been receiving a wage of 30s a week and keep and it would have been midsummer night's madness for the parties to seriously entertain marriage. The breaking off of the engagement was the. most expedient course in the interests of bo ill the parties. Defendant, 21 years of age, said lie was a. butcher and was employed by his father at 30s a week. His position did not improve during the term of the engagement which he broke off been use he bad lost the little money ho had saved and bad no prospects* His Honour drew attention to fhe fact that in bis various letters defendant spoke about the business in the plural and possessive, and suggested that such language was bound to deceive anybody. Defendant explained that he said "my shop'' as an indication not of proprietorship but of the shop at which iie worked. The jury returned with a verdict in favour of plaintiff to whom they awarded £l2O damages.