BREACH OF PROMISE ACTION

Chronicle (Levin), 14 November 1946, Page 6

BREACH OF PROMISE ACTION

GISBORNE, Nov. 13. ; A elaim for £1000 damages for breach of promise to iuarry, niade by Ellie Noeline Buseke (Mr. K. A. Woodward),. spinster, of Gisborne, against Harold Riehard Hieford (Mr. H. W. Dowlihg)', a vulcaniser, rvas h'eard by ■the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice O'Leary, and jury, in the Supreme Court today. Plaintiff, in evidence, said defendant boarded at her home from 1934 or 1935 until he left for the war. They became engaged in 1937 before he left the Dominion with the Coronation Contingent. On his return they discussed plans for the future, inspecting a seetion and applying for a State house. He purchased linen for her box and they attended ehurch together. Before defendant left with -the First Echelon in January/1940, they decided to wait until the end of the war before marrying. She wrote up to three times weelcly to defendant overseas and after he was taken prisoner in Greece she visited Napier to comfort his mother. A lile of 33 letters from defendant from December, -1939, to June 27, 1940, was produced and extracts in alfeetionate termS were read. Other letters from defendant 'from a German prison camp in 1942, 1943 and 1944, referred to plans for a honeymoon tour of thp South Island^ Tliere was a marlced cliange in tone oi: his November, 1944, letter which started "Dear Ellie" and referred to ' 'your dominjiting letter to hand," and objected to the manner in which she addressed his mail. A letter from Margate on 'May 2, 1945, described his release and he warned her not to resign from offi.ee until he saw her. From tlien onwards all affectionate tenns disappeared from the letters. He mentioned his ha.tred of the Germans, especially Prussian-Germans. 'On August 10, 1945, she reeeived a letter from defendant who aunounced that he did not love her any more and referred to her Prussian descent. His experience of Prussian methods as a prisoner had given him, defendant wrote, knowledge of their methods, ar 1 he said he had soen their methods in some of witness'-s actions. She refused a requesf to break the engagement. On January 4, 1946, she met defendant at a f rieud 's place. Ile askedc "Are you going to go me?" She replied. "I don't know. I still love you. ' ' Defendant added that he intcnded returning to England in three months and he did not love her. Defendant in March, 1946, had married a Hastings woman. Wituess said the trousseau cost £210. Under cross.-examination witjicss said she Avished to vin'dicate herself in the eyes of her friends and m^lce it clear she had done nothing wrohg. Mr. Dowling: If I make a public prououncemeut to that effect would that tlien satisfy your reason for takiug this action? I'laintiff: No. Mr. Dowling: What other reasous? Plaintiff: T think he had 12 years of iny life and tlien he has thrown me aside liko a bit of paper. She admittcd that in addition to claiming eompensation for liurt, feelings she dosired to show defendant. up.