BREACH OF PROMISE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18407, 13 June 1925, Page 8

BREACH OF PROMISE.

£l5O DAMAGES. (special to "thb press.") BLENHEIM, June 12. Mr Justice Alpers and a jury were engaged to-day in the hearing. of an action for £730 damages for alleged breach of promise of marriage brought by Hazel Maud Simson, now of Christchurch, but formerly of Blenheim, against Dallas Checkley, of Welds Hill Station, near Blenheim. Outlining the case, Mr T. F. Relling, counsel for the plaintiff, said that the parties met in Blenheim in November, 1923. The plaintiff, who was then under 20 years of age, was a dental nurse. She was at the time engaged to a Mr Wild. The defendant knew this, but paid her attention and asked her to marry him, but she refused on the grounds that she was already engaged. Mr Wild, however, was in Wellington, and the defendant, who was in Blenheim or handy to the girl, continued to press his attentions. The plaintiff resisted him for a considerable time, but she finally found that, her affections were more for Mr Checkley than for Mr Wild. She then went to Wellington and told Mr Wild exactly how matters stood. Mr Wild was quite willing that the engagement should be terminated, and with this mutually friendly arrangement Miss Simson- returned to Blenheim. The plaintiff had lost her mother when a little girl, but she had three Bisters in Blenheim and lived with one of them. They greatly favoured Mr Wild, and on this account she practically resumed her engagement with him until February, 1924, when she considered that it would be unfair to Mr Wild to continue the engagement with him. Giving evidence, plaintiff said that after fhe termination of the engagement with Mr Wild, the defendant asked her to marry him, and she agreed. Subsequently, she stayed at Welds Hill with Mr Checkley and his sister. Counsel quoted from a voluminous correspondence, including the following extract from a letter written by the defendant: "I think at least you should bo granted what is only right and just time to decide for yourself, and not be pushed into the biggest move in one's life by someone who will not bo able to make happiness if things are not just as they should be. They then will recogniso their mistake by probably ruining three lives." Then came a bombshell. On November 24th the defendant wrote to plaintiff, * then at Christchurch, saying that after months of consideration he wished her to release him from the engagement. It had all been a big mistake. Counsel for defendant (to plaintiff): What is your reason for this action?— I spent money in preparing for tho wedding, and I want to punish him. Then we may take it that this is a spiteful action, in that you want to punish him?— Not altogether. Replying to further questions, the witness said she had .spent about £4O on clothes for the wedding, but she admitted that sho had made use of these garments. So that your actual loss is nil?—Tes.

I suppose that at the time of commencing thes6 proceedings your feelings. for Mr Checldoy had changed?— Yes. ' And that if he had come along and asked you to marry him you would have replied, "Oh, no, thank you"?—I would have married him; I suppose your feelings will be salved if you get some verdict which will replenish your pocket , and punish Mr Checkley?—To a certain extent. Do you agree that if love is wanting between two people ''bout to be married, 'the affair is better broken off?— Yes. The defence produced no evidence.In summing up, his Honour remarked that though the letters between the parties had been read in Court, it was very pleasing that there was not one word in them of which either party need be ashamed. The letters of the defendant were those of a manly young lover towards a very maidenly sweetheart. The jury returned with a finding' of £l5O for plaintiff, with costs.