BREACH OF PROMISE

Hokitika Guardian, 1 September 1926, Page 4

BREACH OF PROMISE

SUIT FOR DAMAGES FAILS. CHRISTCHURCH, Aug. 31. A claim for £SOO damages for alleged breach of promise was hoard in the Supreme Court yesterday before his Honour Mr .’Justice Adams. Plaintiff was Nellie Ketteuburg , of Christ-' church, spinster, and defendant Michael McCormack, of Lakeside, farmer. Mr Thomas appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Sim for defendant. Air Thomas said that plaintiff, a domnxlie servant, st'iyed, in October, 1925, at Lakeside, and met defendant. After returning to Christ church she received letters from defendant. Mr Thomas read letters from defendant, including some extracts where fie had indulged in poetry. PL AINTIEF’ S STOIIY. Nellie Ketteuburg said that she was a domestic, living in Christchurch. Her age was, roughly, 25. She hlul known the .defendant almost a year. She met him at Lakeside, and on'coming hack to Christchurch they corresponded. Tn March she stayed at Lakeside with her aunt for two weeks, and defendant asked her to marry him. They be-

came engaged, and lie gave her a diamond ring. From March to June they corresponded very frequently. AYhen they first became engaged lie. said they would bo married in six months. She had everything for her trousseau, including household linen, and had spent £63 on it. Then sho went, in June, to stay with the defendant’s people. The defendant then told her that his friends did not think she was strong enough for farm work. A few weeks after she returned to town the defendant sailed on her and said he wanted to break off the engagement, as lie did not

think she was strong enough. She said sho was all right, but he said he thought they should break it off for six months. She replied she did not know wlwt he wanted to do that for. Ho asked her for the ring, but she said her mother had it at the time. She had no idea why the engagement should ho broken oft'. 'They had always got on well together, and she would be prepared to marry him to-morrow. She had twice been engaged previously, but had broken off her engagements for good 'and adequate reasons. CROSS-EXAMINATION.

To Mr Sim; .Between when they first mot in October, until March, lie had come down to town two or three times. They had kissed and embraced only once between October and March. The defendant had shown affection for her. They were out walking when they became engaged. He said he was tired of “baching,” and would she marry him. In .Tune, when' she went to stay with tho defendant’s mother, she used to go over with defendant’s sister every day to visit him on his farm. There was a dance which she went to; defendant would not take her, because he did not like dancing. She was engaged to a man for two years, and broke off the engagement. She broke it off because he drank, and not because she found lie had no money. The second time she was engaged for three months only, and it was broken off by consent. Since becoming engaged to defendant, she had spent £63 on her clothes. She had £lO in the bank when they got engaged. To Mr Thomas: She broke off her second engagement, by consent, when she found the man took fits. This closed the case'for plaintiff. THE DEFENCE.

Mr Sim, for the defence, said that plaintiff’s evidence showed she had some experience of the ways of men, while defendant- knew little about women. He had serious financial setbacks. aint suggested breaking the en-

gagement for six months, plaintiff then saying that she would break it off altogether. j The defendant, Michael McCormick, in his evidence, said that when he met the plaintiff she said she had no men friends in town, and asked him to write to her. He had never written to a, girl before. He had a place of T2O acres which ho bought during the boom for £53..an acre. It was now worth about £45 an acre, and mortgaged for about £SOOO. Ho had an overdraft at the bank. When lie became engaged he had good barley and clover crops. The clover crop failed, as did the potato crop. He told the plaintiff of his posi-

tion. He asked her to postpone the engagement for a period. She “'vent right up in the air,” 'and said she would break it off for ever. Tie asked about

tbo ring, and she said it was no good to her. She said it was at her mother's and she would post it to him. Instead of 'posting the ring she saw her solicitor, and witness saw she had no regard for him. Mr Thomas: I hope so. Sir.

Witness said that in writing to her he put kisses because she put crosses in her letters. Mr Thomas: I see, she really started tht ball rolling? tlis Honour: Say rather, the crisscrossing. SHE I>ID THE PROPOSING.

Between March and June he had not kissed her much. He had kissed her when she put her arms round his neck and kissed him. He had loved her n good deal, and enough to marry her, ho thought. His Honour: You must realise, Mr Thomas, that it is not always necessary to have a. very largo amount of love. Marringes of convenience are historical. Before March, witness said, lie was not courting the girl; lie was only writing to her. His Honour: I can quite see the defendant’s trouble, and can sympathise with him. lie finds some difficulty in gauging the amount of his affection. Hr Thomas: He seems to have no difficulty in estimating the amount of my client’s Inflection. Witness, continuing his evidence, said that she did all the proposing. He had never bothered about girls. He had been friendly with a girl when he was 18, but since then had not bothered about them. He was now 30 v«us of age. i' Susan McCormick said that she lived ' with her mother. She was a sister of the defendant. Her brother had never bothered about girls. Witness described the .scene when they went to see plaintiff, and she overheard a. conversation between plaintiff and defend-

ant. Mis Honour: How far away were you standing? Witness: Well, just far enough so 1 co,dd hci.ir. Witness said that she heard her brother suggest they should break off the engagement for six months on account of his financial position. Plaintiff said “I’ll break it off altogether.” Mr Thomas: You arc very great friends with your brother? Witness: Well, why shouldn’t I he?

Mr Thomas: Quite. 1 must congratulate you. It is a very nice tiling to see. She did her best to look after her brother, witness, said under crossexamination. She had lent him money and used to go over to look after his house. “TRYING TO ELITE ME.” “You’re trying to bluff me, Mr Thomas,” said witness when questioned as to the distance she was away when she heard the conversation. Witness replied indignantly. “Thank von, I won’t,” when Mr Thomas asked her to name the distance, but in answer to his Honour replied it would be about five yards.

William Joseph Hawkcn said that he worked all round the district. He came to town with defendant and his sister. "Witness described the conversation ho overheard. He could not hour what defendant said, but he heard plaintiff say, “"We’ll break it off altogether.” This concluded the case for the defence. His Honour, in awarding judgment for defendant, with costs, snid that 1,0 was not prepared to say ti lit three witnesses had come before the Court with a. trumped up story, ami sworn to falsehoods. He preferred to believe that plaintiff had tailed to cai ry away a correct impression of the conversation which was alleged to have taken place. He found that the contract ha.i been terminated by mutual consent when the last conversation took plan between plaintiff and defendant, ii the hearing of two witnesses.