BREACH OF PROMISE

Hokitika Guardian, 16 June 1925, Page 4

BREACH OF PROMISE

i GIBL RECEIVES DAMAGES. ! A SHATTERED BLENHEIM ROMANCE. BLENHEIM, .June 12. Considerable interest was manifested in ;i broach of promise case at the Supreme-Court this morning, the ease being one in which Hazel Maud Simson, of Christchurch, and formerly of Blenheim., claimed L'7so, damages from Dallas Checkley, of Weld's Hill station. Blenheim, for breach of promise of marriage. Tile gallery of the Court wits crowded throughout the hearing by a large number of fashionable women, the parties lieing very well known, and the whole ol the evidence wits followed with tit" keenest interest. Mr T. E. Bolling, ol Blenheim. acting on instructions ol Mr ( . S. Thomas, of C hristchurch, represented the plaintiff. Miss Siiuson. anil Mr C. 11. .Mills, of Blenheim, represented the defendant.

The plaintiff who appeared ju Court in a simple navy blue mat I ruck, with a becoming brown lint, was described as being a dental nurse in the employ of Dr Guy Haskins, of Christchurch. Sdio is a bout twenty-one years til age. The defendant, who is twenty-eight rear- of age. is a son ol the late Mr T. Checkley. of Weld'- Hill station. His Honor, .Mr Justice Alpers presided and there was a jury of twelve. A leal tire of the case was tlm product ion of a long scries ol letters couched ill affectionate terms from th,. defendant to the ulaintiiT. Counsel at, one stage rolerred to these ns being somewhat sloppy, but hi- Honor in his summing up commented on the fact that there was not one word in them of which cither party need be ashamed. The letters of the defendant iveie apparently those ol a very manly young lover, written to a very maidenly sweetheart. The plaintiff's case rested mainly on these letters, extracts from many of which were read in Court. Mr Belling outlined the tacts ol the (use. stating that the parties met in Blenheim, in November, lb'2.'i, the plaintiff who was then under twenty war-, of age being engaged to a Mr Wild. The defendant knew this but paid her attention and asked her to marry him, but she refused on the grounds that she was already engaged. Mr Wild, however, was in Wellington. and the delendant, wlm was in Blenheim or handy to the girl, continued to press his attentions on tk plaintiff. The plaintiff resisted him I'm

a considerable tin>". Inti she finally found that her affections were more for Mr Checkly Lhau for Mr Wild. She then went to AVelliugton and told Mr Wild exactly how matters stood. Mr Wild was unite willing that the engagement should ha terminated, and with this mutually friendly arrangement .Miss Sili’son returned to Blenheim. The plaint i If. had lost her mother when a little girl, hut she had three sisters in Blenheim anti lived with out' of them. They greatly favoured Mr Wild, and 011 this account, she practically resumed her engagement with him until Kebranry, 102-1. when she considered Bait It would he unfair to Mr Wild to continue the engagement with him. Conn-el read r. letter from (hetkley to .Miss isimson, (Isttoil February It). 1!*2I. showing that It" urged her to break with Mr Wild. Counsel said that from this date the arrang 'iia-nt between nhiiniiH' and Mr Wild tatr.e to an end. Then the letters went on. They '.cere quite m e. alfi'ctioiiale letter- cud Here was a big bundle of theta. But a good deal of the material in them bad no bearing Oil the ease, so that he vtuuld lead only cxti'ie. ts from them. Goimsei said thatin April there was some unpleasantness between the plaint ilf and her sisters, and she went to ( hrislehurrh. where she obtained employment as a I'enta! nurse, and there she still lived, la April the deft'tala nl -peni a iorlnight, in the plaintilf"s company in (. In i-uoinireh. He also visited (h'ixielntith in August, when b.- bought an engagement ring ami tlu-y becalm' formally engaged. ( oun.sel continued that it laid been agteed between tin* parties that they -houltl Be married- al the tint" of the wool sales in January or Eehmary. ami be read a letter written on November lit referring to the "great day." “our wedding," " bridesmaids" and so on. Following on this, said conn el. came a bombshell on November til, when the

defendant wrote saving that ‘’after montlr of < onshlcrut ion lie wished her lo release him from the < lit* hat! given ii much thought ami worry mu-'.* hiM in Christchurch (in August), ami Ik* thought it had all h*vn a I»!;4 mistak*. I i.* know ho had hotMi in hlamo. and ho wantod to do nothing \\ lti*-h would hurl lior. Inn if ir would h.*h> I,or it on old ho made Lmiiwii that > l:o broke it nlf. not ho. *:.• thought I '*;} j. aft or all. they worn ont suited in on** annlhor, and their low- would tmt ia-t. Counsel said that a I tor receiving tho last lot ter the plaintiff was somewhat stunned. particularly as ii followed so closely on the letter of November 10, which referred so intimately to their wedding. Plain! iff oniored the Imx and gave evidence on the lir.es of her counsel's statement, and was cross-examined at considerable Jongt h. The defence called no evidence. Alter a lon# retirement, the jury returned wit Ii a verdict for CMoO for plaintiff. Judivinent was entered accordingly with costs.