BREACH OF PROMISE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12587, 17 August 1910, Page 8

BREACH OF PROMISE.

-AFTER A THREE YEARS' COURTSHIP.

£120 DAMAGES AWARDED

(Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, August IG. A claim for £300 damages for breach of promise, made by Amy Webb, of Cliristchurch, formerly of • Auckland, tvainst Joel Deeble, described as a. grocer and butcher, of Thames, was heard in tho Supreme Court to-day. In outlining the case for the plaintiff, Mr Mahony stated that the parties met in 1907, one living at Te Aroha, and the other at Thames. It was practically love at first sight, and after a few months of acquaintanceship an engagement was entered into. After the usual vicissitudes of courtship, the month for the marriage was fixed, but the day was never decided upon finally. In April of this year defendant wrote terminating the engagement, and asking for the return of his ring. The plaintiff stated in the course of evidence that she met defendant about Easter. 1907, and he paid attentions to her. making a-proposal of marriage in November of the same year. Plaintiff was residing at Te Aroha, and defendant at the Thames. On ocasions she Avent up to the Thames and sometimes stayed with defendant's people. In August of 1908, he gave her a ring to seal the engagement. About October of ISOS a breach occurred in their relations, defendant intimating by letter that he was too much of &■ flirt to be 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, wrote her in February, 1909, saying that he had been ' broken-hearted since they had parted, and asking that lie be taken back. 'Do not refuse your broken-hearted boy, ho pleaded. As the result of an interview following on the letter, the past •was forgiven, and the course of love and courtship resumed. Subsequently it Avas agreed that the marriage should take place in January, and it was then postponed till the following month, plaintiff going to considerable expense in preparing for a home and a trousseau. They continued as an engaged couple till April of this year, when defendant wrote to plaintiff (then living at Christchurch) .curtly breaking off the ■engagement. The letter commenced:— ''Dear Miss Webb," and contained an intimation that business had not prospered, and lie was not in a position to get married, and he Avas not likely to be for some years. " I am stony broke, he said, "without a brass farthing, so if you will be so kind to send back the rin(r I - gave you 1 should esteem it a ■'.creat favour.'" Plaintiff said she diet Sot acknowledge the' letter, nor did she return the ring, but instituted the present proceedings. Letters were produced Avritten by defendant. One ot •these Avas signed, '•' Yours to a cinder. Questioned by Mr Earl, plaintiff said s-io did not know defendant Avas getting only 30s a week from his father. . Mr Earl: "Didn't you tell him that you were ten years older and were the prudent one?"—"I am not ten years older. There is only a difference ot five years." - Have you had any real affection tor him?—l 'have. When did it vanish?—T don't know whether it has vanished. Would you haA'e married a man on 30s a week?—lt would not be equal to what I have been used to, but I could havo adapted myself to .circumstances. I eared enough for him for that. What is the object of the action — To compensate me in some way for the money I have spent, -the time spent, and for the humiliation I have suffered. It is money you require ?—lt is money, but money is not going to mend matters, so far as all I have suffered. Isn't is that you desire to punish this man?—lf you care to look at it in that Let me know dearly whether you ■want to punish him and vindicate your character or get cash? His Honor: 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 ft midsummer night's madness for the parties to seriously entertain marriage. The breaking off of the engagement was tho most expedient course in the interests of both the parties. Defendant, 26 years of age, said he v as a butcher, and Avas employed by his " father at 30s a week. His position did -not iinnroA'e during; the term of the engagement, ■which he broke off because iiQ had lost the. little money he had saved and had no prospects. -'His' Honor drew attention to the fact that in his 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" a.3 air indication not of proprietorship, but of the shop e.t which he worked. "''■■■'.'.. The jury returned a verdict in favour of plaintiff, to whom they awarded £120 damages: . ; I