CLAIM SUCCEEDS

Evening Post, Issue 51, 2 March 1931, Page 10

CLAIM SUCCEEDS

BREACH OF PROMISE

£175 DAMAGES AWAEDED

CASE AGAINST M.P.

Damages amounting to £175 were awarded in tho Supremo Court to-day against George Charles. Cecil Black,: member of Parliament for Motuoka, who was sued by Edna - May Bartlett, spinster, of Welling- - ton, for £1000 damages for breach of promise, of marriage. In the "course' of'his judgment the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) said that it had been clearly proved that there was an engagement to marry. In regard to tho second defence, that tie engagement had been re-. seinded by mutual consent, thereby ■ excusing the ■ defendant from the .performance of the agreement, his Honour, said that substantially ho accepted the plaintiff's version ot . the, matter., Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. J. S. Hamia, appeared • for the plaintiff, and Mr. 11; F. O'Leary. for the defendant. . Continuing his evidence, the defendant said that he was 'married .on 26th June, 1930. He,had become engaged at the end of May, 1930. Ho had intended to be married in December, but for particular reasons that arrangement was altered. During 1929 he had known his wife, but there' was no thought of marriage at that time, j Witness said that the announcement of his wedding on the morning of 27th June/ 1930, was made without his knowledge or approval. As' the bride's name was' not■ stated, he made, arrangements for a proper announcement in various evening papers; ■ Questioned in regard to the ring and the medal, which the :plaintiff sent *to witness's father after, his ; niarriago, witness said that it was not correct that he gave her. the ring in Central Park. His-definite recollection was that he. gave her, both the articles at the one time. .» "She speaks of having worn the ring frequently. . Did sho wear it frequently in your presence?" —"No.. I would like to explain that' the; ring was not given to her 1 as an engagement ring. It was my intention to give her a ring of her own choice and design." ■ '' When you could afford it ?' '—'' Yes. I am not disputing the engagement at that time." ■ .:..•. V'V- ' , ; Mr. O'Leary asked how the change of religion had come about; ' Witness: "In all matters of religion I am most tolerant, not only from dispositi6n or from any lessons of history. It so happens that in my grandfather's family on my father's side -" Mr.- Gray: "I submit this .is not a place for a member of Parliament to make an address." ■His Honour smilingly observed that to a certain extent it might be-a habit that one acquired. '.'"■':' ; PLAINTIFF'S RELIGION. Only in the Court on Friday, witness continued, did. he become aware that Miss Bartlett had been; a member of the Church of England. He had a distinct recollection that when the Census papers were filled' in :at Waitomo Miss Bartlett designated herself as a Presbyterian. Prior to the change of religion Miss Bartlett frequently accompanied him to church.' He submitted that he was an" influence in the direction of the change. "Were you the sole influence?"— "No."-';-:-' '■:••■■■-.■;■.■ .■'■■ A.: -■■■' , "Who was the. other influenceJ"— «Mrs;:Blaek." ■"'■■•- W— ;" His Honour: MMrs. Black knew that the two of you';were engaged to be' married?"—" Yes." . His .Horiour questioned whether it was necessary or wise to .go into the matter any further.. He said that he did not want to stop Mr. O'Leary, because he did not think he should, but he doubted whetheivit was necessaiy to continue. ;■ ■■■.-■ ■ '■:';.■■■. ': .' , Counsel: "I think I should bring: it out. He: never made it a condition." His Honour: "I don't think Miss Bartlett: went as far as,that. All she says' he said was thought theywould be happier in their married life.'' .-.Witness said that.he had left the matter open to the plaintiff. Prior to his marriage,, he had had no communication with the plaintiff, witness went on. He did not know where she was at that time. . ■ ,; Mr. O'Leary: "In any event what whs' the' position as between1 you arid her?" ■"-. :■- ''. ■■' ', ■■ ' .'•'.,- Mr. Gray objected to the question, saying that it ,was a. matter for his Honour. . , ..): His Honour said that he would not bein the least influenced by what the defendant tnought. .. . The question was not repeated. - Mr. Gray asked witness why he. had not communicated with Miss Bartlett .after 28th August, 1929. . Witness: "Because I considered the matter was terminated."": - "On what day did you consider the matter ■ terminated?' '—'' On 28th August.., ■ '~. -■'•'■:,-.'' ~". ■'. "Did you come to that conclusion on 28th August?"—"Ye£." , ; , "You made no attempt to; communicate with: Miss Bartlett?"—"No." "You did not inquire of Mrs. Black or her housekeeper where Miss Bartlett was to be found?"—" That is so." "After 28th August you considered you were free to pay attention to some other woman?" —"Yes, at tjie manner of her,leaving.".Witness added that Miss Bartlettfs failure to meet him after the House adjourned, was a repetition of what had happened previously. . . '"...' "Whatever might have given' you cause for dissatisfaction prior to that, you definitely determined that any reconciliation or correspondence must come from Miss Bartlett?"—"Yes." "You don't dispute that up to 28th August you were engaged to Miss Bartlett?"—"No." ' " ■■.".' "And whatever little differences you might have had had; been all overlooked, so .far as sho knew?"—-Witness repeated that Miss Bartlett had previously shown that she was not satisfied with his conduct. WEDDING ANNOUNCEMENT. In reply to further questions, witness said.that he became engaged to the lady who was now his'wife at the end of May, 1930. Mrs. Black was the daughter of the proprietress of the Post Office Hotel, Motueka, which had been his headquarters during the election campaign. Mr. Gray referred to-the announcement of the wedding on the following morning, and suggested that many of tho witness's immediate friends did not know he was going to be married. Witness replied that that was so. ■ Witness repeated his statement that Miss Bartlett had leftithe House on the afternoon of 28th Augiißt, 1929, without waiting for him. Mr. Gray: "Did she force herself upon you?"—" Miss Bartlett adopted a very possessivo attitude." "Well, you belonged to her. According to her evidence, she seems to have effaced herself."—"Her attitude

from February onwards was anything but ■ what I expected from' a girl to whom I was engaged." "You made no complaint about it?" —"I-did not know wher'o she was." "She did not tell you she was going to Carterton?" —"No." "You, did not inquire from Mrs. Black's household?"—" Mrs. Black did not know." "Did you inquire?"—-"No." In reply to his Honour, witness said that "by 28th August his affection for Miss Bartlott had changed. "You were, then, no longer fond of her*?"—" Not to tho same ■extont." "Or at all?" —"I would not say at all." "Why did you not ring her up or write to her after that?"—" Because I did not know whore she was." "That is not correct because you have already said you know she was at' the Elliott's."—"Slic was only there a day or two." "You could have rung her up?"— "Yes." "And did notI.'" —"No." "Witness saidthat his father gave him the plaintiff's letter when ho and his wife were in Reefton towards the end of last year. His Honour: "Very well. Neither you nor your father wrote to her to say that her letter was untrue, and that the engagement had. been- broken off long ago?" —"No, your Honour." _ Witness said he would not dispute that in tho extract from one of his letters, which Miss Bartlett sent to him on 17th October, 1929, thero were the words, "I will do the very best for the girl of my heart." His Honour: "Did you draw- any infereneo from the receipt of that cutting?"—" Yes, and also an insult, because thero was no address or anything else. Had there been an address probably there would havo been a reconciliation." "Do you seriously mean that? You have told me already that on 28th August you had lost all affection for hor." —"Yes, but that was a sentimental occasion and probably there would have been a reconciliation,. because it was twelvo months to the day since I commenced the election campaign." Referring, to tho ring, hiß Honour asked: "Why did you not ask for it back if you considered the engagement broken? Would not that have been the natural thing to do I" —"Had I known of her address at the tinto I probably would have." "That won't do. You havo said that on 28th August you regarded the engagement as at an end."--—"Yes." "And that you knew tho girl was staying with tho Elliotts. Why did you not communicate with her at once and ask for the return of the ring?"— "I just regarded the matter as finished." No further evidence was called, for the defence. HIS HONOUR'S JUDGMENT. . After counsel had briefly addressed the Court, his Honour gave judgment. The amended statement of defence, he said, raised two grounds, the first of which was a denial that the defendant in January, 1927, or at any time agreed to many tho plaintiff. Of course, if that defence were made out.. there would, bo an end of the action, in the defendant's favour, but it had not been made out. It had been clearly proved that there was an engagement and that the defendant did agree to marry the plaintiff. The defendant in his evidence did not dispute that there, was an agreement to marry. The ■ second ground was that tho agreement, if any, was, before the breach thereof by the defendant, rescinded by mutual consent, whereby the plaintiff excused and discharged the defondant from the performance of it. After referring to tho authorities cited by counsel, his Honour said that substantially ho accepted tho plaintiff's version of tho matter. The defendant, in his opinion, had not proved that there was such an exoneration and discharge from the agreement to marry as was necessary to enable him to succeed. The plaintiff, therefore, ■in his opinion, had proved her case and was entitled to damages, which he would access at £17u. His Honour remarked that the Court had to be .careful in such cases in regard to the question of damages. No doubt, in some cases exemplary damages might be given, but the present was not such a case, apart, of course, from any statement which might have been made in tho .cross-examination of Mrs. Black (whose ( evidence was taken before the Registrar). In assessing damages, he was disregarding ' that aspect of the matter altogether. The plaintiff was awarded costs.