Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BROKEN ENGAGEMENT

CAN THE RING BE RECOVERED? The civil case of Frederick Collego v. Sarah; Cohen,- which was partially heard on Thursday last, was continued before Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M., yesterday. The case concerned an engagement ring, - which had been given by plaintiff to defendant, and which plaintiff. sought. to recover as, the engagement has been broken off. Mr. C. R. Dix appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh for defendant. Mr. Dix said that if the notes of evidence did not show that plaintiff had demanded the ring lie would like to recall .him.. The magistrate: Perhaps it'may be admitted. Mr. Hindmarsh intimated - that he was not prepared to admit it at that stage. He would like to continue -his crpssTexanlination of the,plaintiff, which had not concluded when the case was adjourned. ' - Frederick College was again placed in:tho' witness-box.' He admitted that three .letters, produced by defendant's counsel, were in his handwriting. - Mr. Hindmarsh: In one of these letters you asked Miss Cohen to help you :—"so you are willing to help lhe, darling" (reading • from the ' letter). ■What did you want her help for? : Witness' replied that he;wanted her to help -him. in purchasing;a business interest. '■ . , , - , Mr.' Hindmarsh: You knew one good iinn that wanted five thousand and fifty for half a share? - , Witness: That should be live hundred'and fifty. ~' ' ■ Mr. Hindmarsh: ; Oh, but you said five thousand. - - . Witness: You must pardon me, I am no good ill writing./ ; Mr. Hindmarsh: Oh, no. You're a very good 1 writer. You were under ,the impression that this girl bad "monoy ?: Witness : said her relations told him. so when he became engaged. He was ongaged to her on August 13: He. was. not engaged on. July 12 when the letter referred' to .by Mr. Hindmarsh/ was written;-.; He !denied : being ./without; money when- he was -in Hawera. -He had 255., aiid used, it to, go back to •Auckland; He .would. swear that Miss Cohen ■ did noi/ - buy him -. - a -railw-iy ticket; .. ;Ho - remembeted ;. borrowing mdiiey'from a hoy (Louisson), hut'could, not remember the date. Mr.; : You took ;it,- didn't you? ; . / Witness: No, I borrowed 'it. ' Mr. ; Hindmarsh: Did Mrs'.x-Siegjol'. have to pay your tram .fare 'from Kilbirnie. ■■;-'; ,;■' "i ; ' ■■<-' ; . Witßess replied that; Mrs.; Siegel volunteered to, do so. ■ i ; ; .In' answer to further questions,:.witness'said Miss; Cohen did 'not"lend.him. £6 on. oiie.'occasioil at, thp : corner -of Willis Street and Manners' Street;. ;.. . Mr. Hindmarsh: Will you .swear that you: did ,nbt v get "this - girl to. lend you. £22 on Friday, August 12?- - - ;;; . , Witness: I will.'take.'my. dying .oath;. '■ Mr. Hindmarsh;: Did you not' tell : a lio when you„ wcnt ■ to ' purchase_ the ring? ■ ... . " ..' Witness said;' -he wouldV explain, and' stated that Mrs. , Siegel. introduced him ;to the: firm.', When. he ivent, to; buy the ring ho. saw a" gentleman:' It was pointed • out that the' firiii did; not sell retail, but. they J could-' sell. ' to ;: Mrs. Siegel's.brother,..who' was .in the wholesale business.', . : . ' In answer to questions by Mr. Dix, College .said hq had twice asked for . the Ting,-but defendant had;refused m .give it up. Slio said she would go' with College anywhere; but would not:part- with •the ring. Ho never received- a .penny from 5 her.; : ; V; \' '~, This closed the plaintiff's case. ;■, ;Mr. Dix .thori; ijuoted numerous."authorities 'with the object; of; showing, that /plaintiff had;.a right;.to recover the , ring,now that 'the' engagement .'was ; broken' off .':,; ■ Counsel for .defendant 'submitted; that; there was no case to answer, and asked for. a nonsuit on ,the ground that there wais a contract, hut the ring formed no part or consideration of that contract, ■ ■and wais merely a present in connec-; tion 'with .the marriage; or partnership; aiid; that'.':therefore' plaintiff s only.-., re-, medyj;was' to,, sue • for a breach of.con-; tract and ; claim damages." The' : ririg had absolutely passed,, and;could-not be. recovered in specie. :. ;■■ ~.. ■ ■'; His Worship reserved decision on. the nonsuit point-. ,

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19100921.2.72

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 927, 21 September 1910, Page 8

Word count
Tapeke kupu
647

BROKEN ENGAGEMENT Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 927, 21 September 1910, Page 8

BROKEN ENGAGEMENT Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 927, 21 September 1910, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert