APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 181, 27 April 1920, Page 3

APPEAL COURT

BREACH OF.PROMISEiCASE

CLAIM FOR A NEW TRIAL

Thq Appeal Court was engaged yesterday in hoaxing .the case of Claude Balfour ' (otherwise known' as Carrodus), if Hastings! gentleman, appellant, and Magdalene I'aton Ritchie, of Bastings, spinster, .respondeat. The case arose out of ; a breach of promise suit heard in Napier on March 12, before His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury.

On the bench were the. Chief Justice (Sir Bobert' Stoilt), Mr. Justice Cooper,, and Mr, Justico Chapman.' Mr. C. I\.Skerrett, iv.C. (with him Mr, H. P. .Lusk, of Napier) appeared for tho appellant, and Sir JoJin landlay, Iv.C (with him Mr. B. J. Dolan, of Napier) for the respondent.

. In lier' statement of claim submitted in the Supreme Court, Miss Bitchie claimed to have suffered damage by tho defendant's breach of his prdmise tomarry her within a reasonable time Tho promise was alleged to hove beeu made in March, 1916, and on various occasions prior anil subsequent thereto. Plaintiff claimed ,£IOOO damages. Tho defence was a total denial of any promise to marry.

The jury/found for the plaintiff, and awarded her ,£IOOO damages, and judgment. Was given accordingly. , The Apical Court was asked to aside this -verdict, and order a new trial, on the .grounds that-the verdict of the jury was .against tha'weight of evidence ond that the damages awarded the plaintiff were excessive. •

'In-opening, the case for the appellant Mr. Skerrett referred to the statement of claim. He submitted that it contained no allegation that the ' plaintiff .had: either requested Ballour to marry her. or that she was, prior to tho alleged breach, at all times ready and willing Ito marry him. The matter wa» of importance, for the point was, was there a promise to marry on a fixed date, or a promise to marry on request? Further, said. counsel, althpugh the defendant had -given Miss llitehie several presents, he had never given her an engagqment ring, nor had there been any discussion, between them to account for •its absence. "I suppose," observed Mi. .Skerrett. "next to a wedding-ring tho engagement ring is most highly prized by it girl." Sir John Findlay: They don't bother with engagement rings in' Scotland. Mr. Skerrett said there were alleged to have been two promises of marriage— the first" in 1909 and. the next in 1916. The second promise was alleged to have been made while the parties were at Lake Taupo. it was claimed that Balfour had said to Miss Ritcliio "I want you to be my wife, Lena dear," and .that--the answer-had been, "All right, sonny." ■ If the statements regarding that dialogue were true, Balfour might iust as well have asked the lady to pass tte mustard. Both of the alleged pro-mises-were laconic in the extreme.

The case had'not concluded-when the Court adjourned.