BREACH OF PROMISE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 897, 17 August 1910, Page 5

BREACH OF PROMISE.

VICISSITUDES OF COURTSHIP, "YOURS TO A CINDER." THE PLAINTIFF AWARDED £120 DAMAGES. (By Telegraph.-l'rcsa Association.) ■ , Auckland, August IC. A claim for .£3OO damages for breach of promise made by Amy Webb, of Christcliurcli, formerly of Auckland, against Joel Deeble, described as grocer and butcher of Thames, was heard in tho Supreme Court to-day.

In outlining the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Mnhony stated that the parties mot in 1907, one living at Te Aroua and the other at Thames. It was practically love at first sight, and after a few months . of acquaintanceship an engagement was entered into. Alter the usual vicissitudes of courtship the tnontti for the ■• marriage was fixed, but the day .was never decided upon. Finally, in April of this year, delendant Wroto terminating tho engagement and asking for the return of his ring. . Tne plaintiff stated in tho course of evidencs that she met defendant about Easter, 1907, and ho paid attentions to . her, making a proposal of marriage in November of the same year. Plaintiff was residing at Tβ Aroha, and defendant at tho Thames. On occasions she went : up to tho Thames nnd v sometimes stayed with defendant's people. In August of 1908 he gave ' her a ring to seal the V engagement. ■■.-'•■

About October of 190S a breach occurred in their relations, defendant intimating by letter that he was too much-of a flirt to be true to his avowals, and : could not make up his mind to stick to one. Plaintiff said she did . not roply to that communication, and did nothing to release, defendant,' who, however, wrote to her in February, 1909, saying that he had been broken-hearted since they,' parted, and asking that he be taken back. "Do not refuse your brokenhearted boy," he pleaded. As the result of an interview following on the letter the'past was forgiven and tho course of love and courtship resumed. Subsequently it was agreed that the ■ marriage should take place in January and it tvns then postponed till the fol- . lowing 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 wroto to plaintiff, then liv- . ing at Christchurch, curtly breaking off the engagement. i The letter commenced: , . "Dear Miss-'.' Webb," and contained an intimation that business hail not prospered and lie was not in a position to get married, and he was not , ' likely to bo for some years. "I am stony broke," he said, , "without brass farthing, so if you will bo so i kind to scud back tho ring I gave you ' I should esteem it a great favour." Plaintiff said she did not acknowledge) tho letter, nor did she return the rtngj but instituted the present proceedings. lotters were produced written by defendant. One of these was signed "i'ours - to a cinder." , '

Questioned by Mr. Earl", plaintiff said she did not know defendant was getting only 30s. u, week from, his father.

Mr. Earl: Didn't yon tell him that you were ten years older, and were the prudent one?— Witness: I am not ten years older—there-is only a difference,of fire years. ' ; . .

Have you had any real affection • for him?—l have. . . ■ ' ■

AVhen did it vanish?—l don't know whether it has .vanished. .-'. . ■

Would you have married a man on 80s. a week?—lt would not be cfjual to what I have been used to, but I could havo adapted, my self to circumstances. 1 cared for him enough for that. ■ What is the object of "the action?—To compensate mo in soino way for the money I have- spent, the time spent, and for the humiliation I havo suffered.

It is money you require?—lt is money, but money is not going to mend 1 matters so far as all 1 have suffered.

Isn't it that you desire to punish thia man?—lf you care t0"1561f at it ifi'thi , way. ■ . •-• ■ • ■■.

Let mo know clearly whether you want to punish him and vindicate your char< acter or got cash? ■ ■••■, - ' His Honour: She wants both. Plaintiff: That is so. ' . Mr. Earl, in-opening the case, for th< defendant, pointed out that he had onlj been receiving a- wage of 30s. a week and keep, and it would have been midsummer night's madness for the parties to seriously entertain marriage. ■■ The "oreaking-ofr of the engagement was the most expedient course in the interests of both tho parties. Defendant (26 years of- age) said he was a butcher, and was employed by his father at-.305. a week. His position did not improve during Iho term nl ihe engagement, which ho broke off because he had lost the little money ho had saved, and had no prospects.' His Honour 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 ho said "my 6hop" as an indication not of proprietorship, but of the shop at which lie worked. . ■• . ■■■'••.'

The jury returned with a. verdict in favour of plaintiff, to whom they awarded .£l2O damages."