DAMAGES OF £175.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20176, 3 March 1931, Page 6

DAMAGES OF £175.

breach op promise ACTION. CLAIM AGAINST M.P. (FRISS ASSOCIATION TSLEGRIIC.) ' WELLINGTON, Mtfrch 2. Damages amounting to £175. were awarded in the Supreme Court by the Chief" Justice, Sir Michael Myers, against George Charles Cecil Black, member of Parliament for Motueka, who was sued by Edna May Bartlett, of "Wellington, for £IOOO damages for breach of promise of marriage.

Continuing his evidence, the defendant said lie was married on June 20th, 1930. He was engaged at the end of May, 1930. . Mr A. Gray, for the. plaintiff, asked witness why he had not communicated with Miss Bartlett after August 28th, 1929. Witness: Because I considered the matter was terminated? Mr Gray: On what day did you consider the matter terminated? < Witness: On August 28th. Mr Gray referred to the announcement of the wedding and suggested that many of the witness's immediate friends did not know that he pvas going to be married. -

Witness replied that that was so. He repeated his statement that Miss Bart-, lott had left the house on the afternoon of August 28th, 1929, without waiting for him. , Mr Gray: Did she force herself upon 'you? '/■ '■■■'. Witness: She adopted a very possessive attitude. \ In reply to his Honour, witness said that by August 28th his affection for Miss Bartlett had changed. "You-were then no longer fond of licrf" asked his . Honour. Witness: Not to the same extent. His Honour: Or at all? . Witness: I would not say at all. His Honour: Why did you not ring her up or write to ( , her after that? Witness: Because I did not know where she was. His Honour: Thut is not cprrect, because you have already said you knew she was at Elliott's. Witness: She was there only a day or two 1 . His Honour: You could have rung her up. Witness: Yes. Referring to the ling, his Honour asked: "Why did you not ask for it back if you considered the engagement broken? Would not that have been the natural thing to do?" "Had I known of lier address at the time," said the witness, "I probably would have." His Honour: That won't do. Yoij.lxave said that on August 28th you regarded the engagement as at air end. Witness: Yes.

His Honour, giving judgment, said it had been clearly proved that there was an engagement, and that the defendant did agree to marry the plaintiff. The second ground of defence was that the agreement, if any, was before breach thereof by the defendant re-, scinded by mutual consent, whereby plaintiff excused and discharged defendant from performance of it. His Honour said that substantially he accepted the plaintiff's version of the matter. Defendant in his opinion had not proved that. there was such exoneration and.. discharge from . the agreement to. mirry, as w® B necessary to enable him,., to succeed.-. Plaintiff therefore in,-/ his opinion, had proved her case, and was entitled to damages/ which he-would assess -at £175.,His Honour remarked that the Court had to be careful in such cases in. regard to -the question' of damages. No doubt in some cases exemplary damages might be >giVen; but the present was not such a case, apart of course from any statement which might"have: been, madfc in the cross-examination of Mrs Black (whose evidence was taken before the he was disregarding that aspect of the matter altogether. Plaintiff'was awafded costs. /