BREACH OF PROMISE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12145, 31 August 1908, Page 8

BREACH OF PROMISE.

HALLAM t. HODGSON

Tlae Court resumed at 2 p.m., when tho action brought by Mary Ann Hallam, of Wanganui, spinster, against Elliott Hodgson, of Wanganui, gardener, claiming £300 damages for breach of promise of marriage was heard. Mr C. Jj). Mackay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. J. Treadwell (instructed by Messrs Burnett and Gordon) appeared for defendant.

Tne plaintiff in her statement of claim says:—(l) In December, 1907, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to marry one another; (2) under cloak of such promise the defendant seduced the plaintiff; (3) a reasonable time for such marriage has elapsed; (4) the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to marry the defendant; (5) the defendant has neglected and refused to marry the plaintiff; (6) the plaintiff prays judgment ;for £300 ■compensation for breach of the said agreement.

Tho defendant in his statement of defence says:— (l) He denies that he mew or was acquainted with the plaintiff in the month of December, 1907; (2) He denies that lie then or at any other time agreed to marry the plaintiff; (3) He denies that he as alleged in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim seduced the plaintiff under cloak of any promise of marriage. '.-" Mr Mackay briefly outlined his case, and called the plaintiff, Mary Ann Hallam, who stated she was a single woman, 23 years old, residing at Gonville, near Wanganui, with her father and mother, who were pratically invalids. Plaintiff was engaged in laundry work. :She met defendant -on 7th January, 1908. Her father asked defendant to the house, and introduced her to him. Defendant did not live far away. He came to her house frequently afterwards. Defendant proposed marriage to. her after he had known her about a weeK He asked her if she was willing, and she said " Yes.'' Defendant said he was going s to build a house on his section, and they would be married and settled in six .weeks. If the house was not ready lie would reside with her father. Plaintiff, when she accepted his offer, asked hini if he was honest and true. He .jsaid he was, and she took him at his • word. She did not know he was a married man. After being engaged about a week, defendant seduced- her. ■She saw him; afterwards several times, and he told her not to worry as things would be all right. He said he would -fix things up in a very short time. Defendant's visit then became less frequent. On Good Friday he had not ■ been near for three weeks. He came then and wanted to see her. Defendant was on the doorstep crying, and then went in and saw plaintiff, who said he didn't care about lien Defendant sat sobbing, and he said he had bought a place at New- Plymouth, and described it to her. He told her to cheer up, that everything would be fixed in less tlian a fortnight. Plaintiff asked him what he meant by "'fixed up." He replied that they would be married and settled in a fortnight. Her father asked defendant where he was going to get married. Defendant replied at New Plymouth, and her father said he would sooner have matters settled here. Hodgson said that would be all right. Defendant came again on the Saturday night and made the same statements. He never came again until, after June 4th . He was arrested oh June 4th in connection with the affiliation proceedings. Defendant came and saw her after his arrest. When he came her mother told him1 that he was a " bright onei " to go and leave a girl like that. Hodgson told her not to bother, that he would pay all the expense, and carry it through. He then asked for plaintiff who went to the fence and spoke to him. He said his solicitor had sent hinv and that he wanted her to sign some papers and would get them. Plaintiff emphatically declined to sign any papers, and defendant then went away. She remembered an interview at <Mr Mackay's office on Juno Bth. Plaintiff, her father and mother, and Messrs Mackay and Gordon were present. Mr Treadwcll strongly objected 1o this interview at Mr Madoiy's ofl:ce toeing brought in evidence. Tho interview was m connection with affiliation proceedings, and counsel for plaintiff had no right to refer to it, as this action wa^ one for. pure breach of promise.

After a rather heated argument between counsel, during which His Honour said he did not 'know that tho evidence should be admitted, it was deck«**; to leave over the question of' admissibihty, Plaintiff, continuing, said it was said at the interview that Hodgson, the detendant, was a married man, and could iiot^ fulfil his promise. Defendant said that had to be proved. When Mr Macisay nad said defendant was a married man, defendant did not reply. Hodgson had been to the house since then and her father had told him that she did not want to see the " likes of him " Defendant then went to her room and called out to her, but she took not notice. Defendant came again, and tried a window three times and then a a door and her father went out and told him to be carefu lor he would have him arrested, btones and mud had been thrown at the house till late at night. Ihen plaintiff-instructed her solicitor to write and warn him.

_ Cross-examined by (Mr Treadwell.— Had been engaged to be married at GisIne man went to South Africa to the war. He did not run away, but he came back and would not marry her feho did not know why. She had never been in trouble before. Had not discussed her previous engagement with Hodgson, but had told him the Gisborn man s imind was not sound. Plaint!: collapsed under cross-exa'in-ination, and had to be removed from the Court.

On resuming. John J. Hallam, of Gonville, painter, father of the plaintiff, gave evidence in support of the -case for his daughter. Mr _ Treadwell, for defendant, submitted that plaintiff must be non-suit-ed on the ground that there was no material oorrobo-ration of the promise to marry. The corroboration evidence in an affiliation case was different from that required in an action for breach ot promise or seduction. Material evidence was required in support of the claim, and counsel quoted the Evidence Act and cases in support. He referred to the fact that plaintiff said the promise was made before the mother, but the mother was not present to give corroborative evidence. The father's evidence was not corroborative within the meaning of the Act. Mr Mackay, in reply, said the evidence corrobated the .promise to marry It was physically impossible for the mother to give evidence. Defendant o +ITT+ 113 pr°Anise in the Pr^ence of the father Counsel distinguished gif. cases quoted on the point. Elliott Hodgson, the defendant, then gave evidence at considerable lenS giving M side of the case ' At the conclusion of' his evidence counsel did not address the Court and decisfoT 11' h6 W°nU COnsideV to The Court adjourned at 5.40 p.m. till 10 o'clock this morning.