BREACH OF PROMISE

Hokitika Guardian, 2 April 1932, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE

TYPIST SUES CLERK. JURY AWARDS £l5O. Judgment was given by Judge Foster in Melbourne recently m a case in which Miss Martini Judith Mortison,j aged '23 years, of Flemington, . formerly, employed as head typist in a suburban factory, claimed £4o - J damages from Geoffrey Allan Dunn, of Seddon, a young clerk employed i" the Melbourne Library, for breach of promise to marry her. Plaintiff said that in December, 1930, she became engaged to defendant, and received an. engagement ring. She assisted defeiidant to •purchase « second-hand motor-car; and contributed £lß' towards the instalments. Toward i the end feif last yearmrit* was agreed ’that tl% should be married in MarcifPbf this year. Plaintiff - left;, her plate employment and 1 made a, ; number of purchases for her trousseau. Preliminary arrange.ments were being made for the wedding, but on the evening of December 23 plaintiff told her he did not intend to continue the engagement. There were, he said, plenty of other boys for her to choose from. Since then she had received no communication from •him. ' Defendant’s version was, that plain-; tiff’s father sanctioned the 1 engagement on condition that the marriage did not, take place before two or three years, because of plaintiff’s, age and the financial position of defendant, whose salary was £3/7/- a week. Defendant denied that any definite time had been fixed lor the marriage, and stated that Mis» Mortison had lent him.only £2 on account of the instalments on the car. At the time of his engagement his credit balance in tire Savings Bank'; was-'B/5& and Miss Moirtison' insisted that hip should save Up to £l5O or „£200 : before they got married, so that they -could pay a deposit on a house and pay cash for their furniture. ' '

A Number of Quarrels. In December last, said witness, he and plaintiff had a number of quarrels, mainly over plaintiff’s attitude towards defendant’s , mother.- On December 15 plaintiff said her mother did not want her to marry into defendant’s family, and had threatened to wash her hands of her if she did so. On the evening of December 23, in eon'sequenc-.e.' 11 "dfi 1 the quarrels, defendant suggested to plaintiff that she should consider whether it would be wise to continue the. engagement. He was leaving for his holidays, and asked her to let him know her decision by telephone when he returned in a fortnight. He heard no more from her until .January’ 4, when he received a letter from her lawyer.: Counsel: Were' you really - in love with the girl?- • r ,• - Defendant: Yes.- •. ;.. .•' >. You really desired.! flier —r“ Yes.” And respected’ her ?‘— f Yes.'” And you believed it was. wise for..the, engagement to be , broken ?/-r-“In view of the circumstances, yes.” The'judge; after hearing further evidence, said he accepted plaintiff's version of the events. Her - testimony of what had taken place. cfT December 23 seemed to him to he much the more probable version, having regard to what fluid happened afterwards. It was inconceivable and utterly unlikely that if defendant continued to love the girl as he said he had done, be could have refrained from making any overtures in writing, or by telephone, or in any other way.

Assessment of Damages. As to assessment of damages, his Honour said that some years ago a graduate of 'Melbourne University invented a scale for weighing the evidence in breach of promise cases, but there were no scales which would enable the courts to determine the value of a broken heart. In this case there was the problem of defendant’s position, with his small salary and poor prospects in the near future. Then there was the possibility that the girl inigilt, be well rid of a man who showed himself to be lacking in affectum for her,..ns defendant lu»d done. Fortunately, bis Honour continued, the girl was still young, and possessed of accomplishments which might we.il fit her for a better husband than defendant might have been. She was rtill two years short- of the average age at which girls married in Australia. On the whole, he thought £l5O would he a reasonable sum to award plaintiff, and he entered judgment for that, amount, with costs to be taxed.