BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 27 February 1924, Page 4

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

—«£>• CUmSTUIUUCH, Pcb. 20

Ai the Supreme Court., P.achael Clarke Keid, spinster. of Christchurch proceeded again-t William Houston, btdter, til iiaiiiiiton, for Jj.jfjl damages for breach ol promise. 'iiio uiemeiii oi claim set out that in .dareli. ]SCO. the deiiidanl had agree'! to marry piaintiir, mu! on January 1-lih. 1021. plaiutiif had given ! n th ti a male ehild. the father of

I "bieii ua.s delendant. The plaintiff claimed £..>111 as damages, the cost- of llie action, and stn-li furtlier or other relief as the Court slioultl deem to meet. -dr 11. i'v.ym-hntn said (he rase was ju-i -t simple breach of p : miso one. ! ' I! W—i'Ca, J. i'.,i-(|;,nt uromi-'d to ■ '' e’v" it iff, and hud C —it to that promise for a long time, f rom Jun e ; •• ■■ '-. 1., - !?: • d,- ] os;: :;t P.'pl suy, W-d pi a : jit iif with ‘'•'■■■ ' m ney to keot> hot-self and : their child. Plaintiff had kepi a large | numbers of defendant's loiters. l)e- ---! fondant had been in partnership with his brother as a baker in Ashburton. | but e>’i’e time ago the Adibntiou buvi- | -s lev! noen sold, and 1 In.' defendant j had di-app sued. Plaint iff }•••«> loariti '"'il later fb ■! rite defends! >d had gene i to idm .Vo; h b-bind and had evidently ; I ■’■ i b>;h.s ird urion t,- re-'rry her. ! J’laioClf in ei idmmo w.,;,..;' t u ; ii 'I dm V. ;. .sm if ago. Prior to 1221 i ‘'' ’ b-'-’d vtih !,, ,- pa I‘eut ii. .t-hliiif-I lon. admiited bring mgi; ted of | :l '-ha ;i_.e of fal.-i- 11 |v. ■( el ,\ slt- ; loir!<>ii ! • ICi '• I'a-ft a’ A: !,burton in I"’. . . n ’ ■ !!tir.h■. 1 o -ame iscmother of . o ill oitin hi i.. , oil- 1

Ai ibi- ism • m-s. lb- Tim- ev !•'•*;•!f of d •All,':"!! a-'mimed Jo a promise .■!’ m mring" had '■!> ui I.uid;'. Pl.i ini iff. continuing her cvidetiee. ..-aid depiubiiit ,s- a he.borv business in Asldiurten sud vented mfS O fur ii. Defendant had ,-enl witness to Cbri-t----chnreh, v.licri- Imr child had been hern is .T-inearv. 1921. \t this lime defeml- ' a'd tied to vend witness fiom £2 to ! £ I per S}e| had inld til-'' de- ! f-s'-'s no mi her-' other illegitimate ! / a' l '! whoa ; li" bad IV'-d corin' to | ( hr" '■■’mn-lt. "H" defendant- tdoo ■, that v, Arm- hail In- m in the ! Sjilvm: iio Army lh-rir fur ihre.' i mo'tibs. Pofau-lant continued to writs I tn I-"!-, and in ib" early part of Id:’!! I inf- rnn-d her lhai lie had - oh! hi- bmdj a,-- l) u-lani had rant sama furniture- up t, witness while, she v. a. • m Chrt-1.-Vtmll. dim had not seen d"-i'l-nd-' u , i-n a, : -he had proceetle'! owe* Ida: for : ; deleim’n.e and had foil.:! tht! 1- was in iim North H land. To Mr Tin " r ■ Tb - f d -■ ru ri--;ir-'-for w’,;.-’. •. i: s •. w was emivii tod in I OP! was forger.. Mr Thonue . fsr : he d leave, said tliai defeudaut '.’.st ip"iue *!y lon-1 o! the pluilitill'. and nil one occasion the pair bad ■.-one round In the registry ; Pij-.f fi I •> married. but the olliee had 1 I In-cl. D- 'endani had told pk.Piiji" |n>; be would marry her if .dm would get M"!te<!lic tn adopt lief l!i-vl. illegitimate child. As hue m A-!:bui'ioii In- found out about tin- appe;t ra itt-es e! plaintili belutv i he ( oui i. I!,, had been worried and laid tone to llie N’ I la ml. Defend., n t nad 1 . on a'Te-i-'d and wits pna e-sde ! again-t pl.iinlilf f-r maiub onm-e. |)e!"tidanl Air Th-unas admitted. v-a----j i : :: -s ,. d. and the pro-elit linm wasj ! d : - i. it I- u-o her w-.mtaa. i t i. |! 11 . in -."rel- so! la' had . i ;■ a;i ,| i-u- ine--- in Au-lihtirian to P’P l as. a hakev, lb- d'eie.ilcd hi.- period of s - - j 'a i ti I a : t b tie i d.t ittt t il, ami . d I ; '-it alt-i- is- I a-! lei t Ashburton he i.sd It ett arre-t-d ill Frankloll and ! : ( is ; !■ b-ga ' . -. hete he had e,-da!,-caw.' order ln- ,- ns- I - ~ pda g idm. Vs'itb. regard , d i- a . mu a v,,' a n Iran its wav a l i dm. v.:iP'-s - i"e 1 she v, as ■:a a 1 -‘- ’ . -ii v.-a ■ i'vlteially septiruO d has I .- s be d ••:,!. She had left Ashb ;ri v- 't b l-itn. ilia! pri< a l» ha ing Pad i 1 him of p“Oj h- v, In, i oultl tel! him. t.f piaiiitiir'a theft, ami forgery cliartie-. d , ' T- .i!•. v -aid he hail v.'i iti.ni in phiiuii'l' i .vi'-e a week during lies udmiia of the two and :i-hn!f

years ha watt in Chn'et-c-hnrch. Ha i»3 vcid her motley in most of these letters,. His Honour, in summing up. said that the (juestioii really was what amount of damages should I>o allowed. Counsel for the defence had admitted that there had boon a promise to marry, and as the defendant had licit carried it cut- there was a breach of contract and consequently damages, nominal or otherwise, wore due. After a retirement of 2d minutes, the jury returned and awarded £'2oo damages to the plaintiff.