POSTPONED WEDDING.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1286, 15 November 1911, Page 7

POSTPONED WEDDING.

AND MONEY THAT PASSED. (By Talegrflph.—Special Correspondent.! Palmerston, November 14. ' Thß magistrate at Palmerston gave judgment to-day in the case of G. Powell v. Miss Bland—a claim for tho return of .£SO, alleged to havo been handed to defondant for payment to plaintiff's account in the Havings Bank at a timo when the parties were engaged to be married. The S.M. said that, unquestionably, the wedding had been fixed for Easter, 1911, at Tainape, and ail arrangements wero made for it, but, at plaintiff's request, it had been postponed for a few weeks. The plaintiif afterwards made no further move in the matter, and, according to the defendant's uncorroborated evidence, left Tnihapo without telling her that he was going. During a period of eighteen months defendant had only had about three months' work—a fact which plaintiff know. Plaintiff denied that the JESO which ho had given to defendant in Woodvillo, was a gift or a recompense for trouble and expense caused by the postponement of the wedding, and her being so long out of work in consequence. In tho alternative tho plaintiff held that, if the £50 was a gift, it was given to defendant in contemplation of marriage, and tho marriage not having been fulfilled (and without defanlt on his part), ho was entitled to a Toturn of the gift. The defence denied any direction that the money was to bo paid into the bank to plaintiff's account, and alleged that it was paid to defendant as a recompense for tho expense and loss of work which the several postponements of tho wedding had caused her. Sho denied ever having had or wen the plaintiff's bank book.

His Worship went on to say that, on the -whole, he would accept the defendant's account of the payment—that the money was given to her absolutely as recompense for the expense and loss which she had suffered. lie might further sa,v that, if ho had felt bound to hold that the money was a gift in contemplation of marriage, he would still have held that it was not recoverable. It seemed to him that the money was essentially a thing which was "consumed in the using," and that it was no more than common sense to say (as was laid down by Chitty) that, on such gifts, an intention would" bo imputed that the done? takes absolutely. Judgment was accordingly given for defendant with costs.