BREACH OF PROMISE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17042, 16 May 1923, Page 6

BREACH OF PROMISE.

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £75. Characterised by Mr J ustice Hoekmg as “a painiui case,” as a result of tne axtraoruinary evidence, produced by the parties concerned, tne supreme Court aad a jury of twelve were occupied in hearing a breach of promise action at Wellington on Friday, in which there were several peculiar features. W inured .Eileen Kiordan, the young ladv in the case, sued hXlward W liliam Vevtch for £750 as damage*. 'J he jury awarded her £75, with the dilution that the money watt to be paid direct to the plaintiff. They were only a little more than half an hour m arriving at their decision. Mr O. Beere appeared for the plaintiff, a quietly-dressed young woman, who gave her age as twenty-four. Though inclined to lie tearful at times, her evidence was given clearly and without hesitation. The plaintiff admitted that she had had intimate relations with a farmer in the AN anganui district, as the result of which a. child was bom, and of which he was adjudged the father. The defendant, it was stated, had overlooked the lapse and forgiven her. The engagement was proceeded with. Then for some months they parted, and for two whole years did not correspond. For the defendant, it was stated by Mr T. M. AVilford that he had not been fully cognisant of the facts of the intimacy referred to. He b®li« v «d that the act of the plaintiff had been against her will, and accordingly did not hold her responsible. AN hen, however, he read the notes of the evidence she gave during the affiliation proceedings, other suspicions were confirmed. He held chat his reasons were perfectly sound for breaking off the match. The fact that they met in 1916 wai mentioned by Mr Beere, in opening for Miss Kiordan. He went on to say that cwo years later they agreed to become ungaged when they became of age. though separated m 1920 they frequently corresponded. Tire formal offer

,vaai made in February of that year. In March of the following year the plaintiff went to live at Taihape, and made periodical visits to AVellington to see the defendant. All -"it well until February of 1922, when he ceased wntng to Mies Riordan. As a result the /irl became considerably affected. A . isit was paid to AVellington, and the nange in the attitude of A ; eitch wa» on firmed.

Counsel submitted that the girl had jiM.ii treated in a heartless manner. .xer father thought it only right and .air that she should be compensated, ioney had been expended in linen ana ,ther essentials of a trousseau. James Kiordan, carrier, of Taihape. >ut formerly a police constable at fv'anganui East, produced a letter in v hick the defendant asked for the hand ,i his daughter. She had been prei.ued to marry the young man at any Mr A\ T ilford examined the witness at .mie length concerning the •i liis daughter with the farmer a«. .v anganui. Air Wilford: Is this your case or our daughter’s?—My daughter’s, of lou are not after money from Veitch?—No, I do not want a brass jenny of it. Witness gave evidence as to the [filiation proceedings against a man mmed Cavanagh, Mho was adjudged iie father of plaintiff’s child. The plaintiff then entered the box lating that she was twenty-four last October. She first met Yeitcli at a lance at Okoia, near AVanganui. At lie time A eir.ch was living with his • ther on a farm, and she lived at V anganui. Air Wilford: If it will save time J un quite prepared to admit that they ell in love, got engaged, and did all he things that engaged couples do. Laughter.) His Honor thought perhaps counsel for the plaintiff had a right to take iis evidence in the ordinary way. AA r e must have a little colour ot life on it,” he added, amidst laugh Air AVilford : A’ou mean, sir, that it might have a better effect on the jury lor my friend. His Honor: If you put it like lhat Air AVilford: Oh, if he wants to put «- that way, I do not mind! (Laugh ter.) Witness said that after she became ultimate with Cavanagh she wrote vo Veitch and said that John Cavanagu *vas the father of the child. Sh 3 uiid she could no longer keep company with Air A r eitch, but that she would .ike to be friends with him. AYhat did he do ? —Pie cried and said he would still be the same to me. His Honor: The case was brought an a few days later?—l cannot say. After the case was over, what happened?—PJe frequently came to see AYhat did he sav to you?—He told me to cheer up, and that everything would be all right. AVitness said defendant later gave her a ring, and she was well received at his home. Air Beere: What was the manner of AJr Veitch to you?—Pie was always a respectable gentleman to me. AVitness added that she had everything ready for her marriage. The plaintiff said the only reason the defendant gave for discontinuing the correspondence was that he did nob care for letter writing. She thought she would go to AVellington and see him. She met Veitch in the street and said: ‘-AYhat do you mean by treating me like this, Eddie, after six years?” He replied: “ T think we had better cry it off.” He also said they could go to his solicitors. There was some talk of damages, ancf witness’s father mentioned £SOO. She was quite willing to marry defendant. To Air AVilford. witness said that though they had not then corresponded for two years, they were still sweethearts. * His principal line of defence, sub mitted ATr Wilford. was that there was direct misrepresentation in connection with what had taken place between the plaintiff and the man Cav anagh. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to break the contract. “He could then say that this -s not the kind of woman he wanted fothe mother of Ms children.” added counsel. Evidence was given by Louis Cohen, solicitor, regarding statements made bv plaintiff as to her relations with Cavanagh, and l>v defendant, who said that plaintiff had first said that Cavnagli had forced himself upon her. Hr* forgave her. hut when he read notes of her evidence in the proceedings against Cavanagh he h«gan to d.-mbt AVhen he spoke of “ calling it off.” Mr Riordan spoke of £SOO. After counsel had addressed the jurv. his Honor summed un, and a verdict in favour of plaintiff, awardher £75 damages, was returned. [