BREACH OF PROMISE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 275, 16 August 1919, Page 9

BREACH OF PROMISE

SPIRO V. SCHNEIDEMAN PLAINTIFF AWARDED £350 DAMAGES A breach of promise case; came before His Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and ft jury of 12 in tho Su- . preme Court yesterday. The parties to the suit wero Minnie Spiro, spinster, of Dunedin, 27 years of age, plaintiff, and Philip Schneideman, if defendant. - ]$■*• -H- l'; O'Leary appeared for plainu, and Sir John Fincllay, K.C., with im Mr. L. I/E. Edwards, for the de- . .eiidant. Mr, T, Hewlett was foreman I - of the jury. The statement of claim set out that defendant, on May 14, 1918, promised to marry the plaintiff; that tho plaintiff had 6vflered damago by the defendant's - breach of his promise to her, and plaintiff claimed from tlie defendant .£5Ol as damages. ■The statement of defence was; (1) A (Jcnial that on May 11, 1918, or on any other date, defendant promised to; marry plaintiff, and for a further and alternative defence defendant contended (2) That if he had promised to marry her as alleged (which ho denied) the plaintiff ii> the month of February, 1919, put an end to any contract of marriago bttween'the parties by -refusing to marry the defendant, and for a further ami alternative defence he Said: (3) If ho ! id promise to marry plaintiff as alleged (which ho denies) the plaintiff, prior to and on the fourth day of March, 1919, put an end to any contract for marriage between' the' parties by refusing to mttrry (ho defendant unless he agreed that the relationship between tho plaintiff awl defendant when married should be purely platonic. Mr. O'Leary, in opening, stated that the parties becamo acquainted in Auckland some four, years ago. There was at • tho time a mutual attachment which ripened, with the result that in May last year defendant visited Dunedin and became engaged to plaintiff; it was understood that tho engagement should bo for dne year, and he gave her, an engagement ring. The fact that there was un engagement was denied, and it was for him (counsel) to provo that there was one, and lie ivould do so by a num- * ber of letters written by defendant which would show that thero was an engagement. .After Schneideman left Dunedin a course of correspondence took placo between tho parties in affectionate terms. In a letter written shortly after they becamo engaged, Schneideman signed himself as "Your ■ future husband." The correspondence continued until tho end of last year, when the plaintiff no- " ticed a decrease in quantity and a decrease in ardour.. -However, things went along all rignt until February last, when Schneideman paid a visit to Dunedin and wanted to marry Miss Spiro in tho following month, but she refused to comply for. good end sufficient reasons— her brother had returned from the front and needed her attention. However, before he left Dunedin, ■ matters between them iwere satisfactorily settled and the defendant'returned to Wellington. Later, on February 26, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant asking him for an explanation of his brothers letter to her. which she resented. On the same date Schneideman wrote to plaintiff stating t that his brother was against hid marriage. On March 3, the defendant again wrote to plaintiff breaking off the engagement. On - March 26, ho wrote asking to be released from his promise, and on April '14 lie telegraphed to her asking for a replj to liis letter. Miss Spiro came to Wellington in the following month and met the defendant in tho street, but ho would not speak to her. Counsel said that in February last defendant desired to get rid' of the girl for reasons best known to himself, and got his brother to assist him in the matter. Mr. O'Leary, who put in a number of 'letters, then proceeded to call evidence. Minnie Spiro, the plaintiff, in her evidence, -said she was 27 years of age and a spinster. She became acquainted with defendant about four years ago, and hecame engaged to .him on May 14 last year in Dunedin. He gave her an engagement ring, and the engagement ' was to bo for at least 12 months, , because she was in luourning. In February last defendant came to Dunedin and wanted witness to marry him tho next month. Witness refused ' for good reasons. Ho went away on that, and appeared very upset at parting with her.. The understanding was that they should be marTied in September. On February 15 ho wrote to her from Wellington, and again on February 22. On February 2G 6he ro- . ceived a letter from tho .defendant's brother, Henry, which she did not like, and on February 28 she wrote to defendant asking him if lio wished her to release him. Oo March 3 the defendant wrote saying "Good-bye" and practically breaking off the engagement. On March 4 she wrote to him. She did not reply to Schneideman's letter of March 3, or his telegram of April 14,, in which, lie asked for a reply to his letter. Qn May 26 the defendant wrote to plain. ' tiff asking her to release him. She came to Wellington in. Stay and met tho defendant in the street, but he would not 6peak to her. . Cross-examined, witness said her.father was a Russian and the defendant wasalso a Russian. She first met defendant in Auckland about four years ago. She went to his shop in Auckland and spent a considerable time with him while she was staying in Auckland. .At that time she had no thought of marriage. Her father came to Auckland with her five or six months later, and both of them went to Schneideman's place _of business. Sho had a communication Irani Schneideman prior to that and received a present from him. Her father asked the defendant in her presence his intentions towards her. Ho put the matter off. Sho met him again in April, in New Plymouth. She met the defendant's brother at Hawera before-she met Philip Schneideman. She did not know thai; her uncle asked Henry Schneideman to marry her. She saw Philip Schneideman for about four days in May last year and altogether she saw him for nbont a month. . Tho contract of marriago was mado in May . last. No fixed date was arranged for tho marriage when tho engagement took place. When Schncideman enmo to Dunedin in J-'®'-*" vuary, 1919, he wanted tho marriago to take place in the following month. There was a "row" between them on oho occasion when sho handed back his ring. Sho did not hand back tho ring bccauso she was not inclined to cany the dnues ol a wife, or bccause- sho thought such duties degrading. She gavo up 'her employment as a typist in April last year because her mother had died and sho had. to look after tho home. She received a diamond ring worth .£lO iioi" defendant which sho had «ot returned. She also received a purso worth JA 45., n gold-mounted fountain pen, worth sus. 6d., aud an inskstaud worth J!5 as. as gifts from, the defendant, and those sho Sniro, brother of plaintiff, gavo corroborative evidenco as to the engagement of tho parties. No evidence was called for tho jlcfcnce. Sir John Findlay, in addressing tho jury, said that ho was not one ot those who thought that an action for a breach of promise should not be allowed, there were circumstances under which such actions should 1» brought and substantial damages claimed. Marriage assumed that tho , two parties camo ito the altar mutually willing and mutually eady to go through lifo together m the closest intimacv. When a promise of marriago was made and te« n# i cl 7 t w 2 the affections of oithor p.uty it was hvpocrify for that rarty to go through u-ifh Ihn marriage. Tho man might have : to lW for it, lint it was ten thousand ■ times better that ho should do ,so than . that he should practise hyprocrisy A : case of broach of promww of this char■ictcr was not one that should bo. enconrUd l>v giv'.n? dninaßcs of any severity. Jin nppwileil to them as men of the world that it was not really the injured woman wlio sought damages, but t was women who lacked womanly nJ To "ive substantial damages would be to encourage adventurers to come be- ' fore the Courts. Sir John Fimllay then - dealt in some detail with the evidence given bv tho plaintiff- ! Tho issues submitted to tho jury and Iho answers thereto were as follow:- ( j 1. Did the defendant promise to marry i Uio plaintiff?— Yes. _ . „ 2. Did he break Ins promise?— >es. 3.—lf he broke his promiso what dam- i ages was the plaintiff entitled to? ,£BSO. . Judgment was recorded accordingly. !