BREACH OF PROMISE

Hokitika Guardian, 24 August 1928, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE

PLAINTIFF AWARDED .9250. AUCKLAND, Aug. 22. Before Mr Justice Reed to-day Pearl May, of Ouehungn, sued Thomas W. Churches, of Tamaki, for £IOOO for breach of promise. Counsel for Mis.-> May (Mr Singer) said that lie could not imagine a more complete breach. The defence was that plaintiff’s character, disposition and family circumstances were such that the marriage would be unsuitable and unhappy, hut Churches had plenty of time to find out these things before the engagement. In September defendant was drunk in charge of his car, with a number of girls In it, and he was fined £3O, the report of the case showing tlmt he had been on a “boozing” party with members of both sexes.

His Honor: Aren’t you minimising the damages.? Counsel asked: “Is this the defendant in Sunday clothes, hut in a dishevelled state?” to which Churches’s lawyer replied: “*es, lie’s better than I usually see him. I told him he was coining to the Supreme Court, and that he had better have a shave this morning.-”

In evidence plaintiff said that she was twenty-six. The engagement was celebrated at a party in August last for which Churches paid. Tho wedding was fixed for March, 1928. In December sho heard that ho intended going on a trip to Sydney. He denied this on December 29. promising to meet her on December 31. The appointment was not kept, because he did sail for Australia on the intervening day. The shock nearly killed her, and she was ill for nearly two months. Asked by the Judge what were Churehes’s objections to plaintiff’s family, his counsel referred to certain trouble her brothers had been in. Plaintiff interjected that this occurred after the engagement, and anyway, Churches was marrying liei and not the family.

The Judge: I* shouldn’t think defendant would be very dedicate ahout such matters, if he takes women out in a car when in a drunken condition. Plaintiff denied throwing a cup of tea in her mother’s face. She had always believed Ghurches’s statements till the Sydney trip, but now knew he had been a liar.

Counsel: Don’t you think you are well rid of a man who is a liar? Plaintiff: You must remember that I spent the best part of five and a half years over him. She also denied keeping him out late at nights when lie had to get up to milk cows early in the morning. Churches- had on one occasion struck her.

The Judge: Perhaps the parties are Scotch. I understand in parts of Scotland that is a sign of affection. Defendant’s counsel jiUted that Churches was the son of a very old Tnmaki resident, who had amassed a fair amount of wealth, hut the son was quite an irresponsible type . of youth. He had certainly become engaged to plaintiff, but his affections had cooled oh to such an extent as to constitute a breach of promise. As far as damages were concerned, ho had nothing. He was getting £1 " week, and his keep as manager of his father’s farm, but had a motor car. Even that was smashed on Monday ln on defendant going into the box the Judge said: “Didn’t you have time to put on a tie and brush your hair?” Plaintiff was awarded £250 damages.