BREACH OF PROMISE CASES.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 26 September 1901, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE CASES.

Strong Remarks by Hon. Walker

(our pabliamentaty reporter.) Wellington, This Day. A few interesting opinions on the question of breach of promise of marriage actions were voiced by members of the Legislative Council yesterday during the discussion of the Law Amendment Bill. The clause under consideration set forth that in any action for breach of promise of marriage not more than £550 should be recoverable as damages, except where the plaintift proved to the satisfaction of the Court or jury that she had been seduced by the defendant.

The Hon. C. C. Bowen said he wondered, how the specified sum had been arrived at and what had induced the Statutes Revision Committee to add £SO to the £SOO originally in the Bill. Colonel Pitt explained that the £SO had been added in order to enable the plaintiff to have a trial by jury if she so preferred it, as under the law a breach of promise action for over £SOO must be tried by a jury and under that amount by His Honor the Judge alone. He (the speaker) thought the question of damages should be a question for the Court as proportionate to the position of the parties and merits or demerits of the case. It might be that a trifling lover was a wealthy man and £550 would be nothing for jilting a lady to him. The Hon. C. Louisson said he objected to the clause. He could not see how the amount was arrived at. There was no justice in it. The amount should depend on the position of the parties. There might be individuals who might think it very cheap amusement to be allowed to trifle with a girl’s affections for £550. A man might become engaged to a girl for a year or two without any serious intention, knowing that he could get out of the bargain at any time by paying £550.

The Minister of Education (Hon. W. C. Walker) said the action for breach of promise of marriage was the most un worthy that ever soiled a court of law. In nine cases out of ten the woman was not worthy of consideration who applied to the Court. His opinion was that the woman who could parade her feelings in open court and assess them at so much in pounds, shillings and pence, and have them assessed by the Court at the figure she demanded, or less, was not a woman at all (cries of “Oh!” and laughter.) He, therefore, as the clause stood agreed with it. There were cases, of course, where the plaintiff had been seduced by the defendant under promise of marriage. The woman who was so case-hardened as to put up with an assessment of her feelings in damages in money by the Court was unworthy of consideration. The cl .use w’ao struck out by 18 votes to 7,