THE DENISTOUN CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 6 April 1925, Page 3

THE DENISTOUN CASE

iUMTfe/OAAN AM 1) N.S. £AULK ASSOCIATION

THE JUDGE’S REAIARKS

(Received this day at 10 a.m.) LONDON’, April 5. The Court was crowded to hear Jus

tieo AleCardie’s complicated judgment, which, summarised, is as loliows: — Jfiidgmcnt was given tor plaintiil fui £472, for loans, with general costs, also the costs involved in establishing her claim and costs on the delendant’s two unestahlished pleas of collusion, and that if there was an agreement her chastity was an implied condition. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, on defendant’s abandoned counter claim for the furniture. •V, Judgment for dclciulnut, wit.u costs on his claim for £6lO, a loan, "here the statute of limitation applied, and also on his claim for damages for a hreaeli ol contract, with costs. The chief interest centred in Justice McCardie’s treatment of the jury verdict of £SOOO damages fur plaintiff for breach of agreement. Mr Justice AleCardie said he asked the jury to put any interpretation they could tin the alleged verhal agreement, and the jurv found the agreement claimed by the plaintiff, had not existed, but that the defendant had agreed to support her in ease of necessity, provided she did not become Holm’s wile or mistress. Questions then arose as to —• whether the agreement pleaded was so vnisue and indefinite! sis to ho logall.x void, also whether the plaintiff should he allowed to amend her statement in Justice .McCardie added: “I decline to be affected in the slightest degree l>v the normal defects ol the parties into a plea of agreement, from unccrtaintv. I need not an enquiry but an agreement indicated by the jury is even more vague. The jury could give no real meaning or certainty thereto, so 1 rule the agreement whereon the claim is based is void and unenforceable. Furthermore the words or phrases found by the jury against the defendant are too vague and uncertain to constitute a contract. It is also substantially different from what the plamtill Mended There is a difference between < supporting as pleaded, and assisting in the ease of necessity, as the jure found, but there is no evidence to support ilia. |;ndiim. Therefore it would nave been ii hardship to ijcd'euclant to allow the plaintiff to amend the claim alter the verdict. 1 have never known a case fought with greater bitterness and intensity. Half-way through the case the jurv urged that the hearing sliotnd l,e shortened. Though it was also my view l could not interfere task was one of exceptional difficulty. T venture to add that such cases do not. in any way represent the genei.il life of English well-to-do people I cy r ive a wholly false impression of E»W --C fish social family life. . Justice AleCardie defined the ]>“■>- tion as to costs as follows:—If he m - ai.ee after taxing, is agamst pi. nt It the sum of .£472 to be credited ho against the halai.ee, hut if the hahu.ee is in her favour she will receive it phi. c ,-.> McCardie announced a stay oi execution, with liberty to appeal.