DAMAGES CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 17 November 1932, Page 8

DAMAGES CLAIM

BREACH OF PROMISE.

PARTIES REACH SETTLEMENT

CHRISTCHURCH, November 15

A breach of promise case, with £250 claimed as damages, was heard by Mr Justice Ostler in the supreme Court to-day. the piaintuf was Olive Eileen Mai;ker, a spinster, of 26, Edinbridge S-icet, Spieyuon (Mr Tnomas); the uelenaurit was Coiin Parlane, a larmer, of “(lowan Dank,” CasnmerRoad, Christchurch (Mr Sim).

The claim stated that the parties agreed to marry on August 19, 1928, me plaintiff was ready and willing to marry defendant, but defendant had neglected to carry out his promise. The plaintiff, said Mr Thomas, was just unaer twenty years of age at the time of the engagement, and the defendant was wonting on his father’s farm. They had kept company for a y<.ar before tile engagement was announced. The engagement was to be for two years. For a year the deiendant worked in the same job, but aftci 1 , that he and his brother took over the farm. After twelve - months he said that things were going well, but he asked for a year’s extension of the- engagement. That took them till August, It3l. The matter was discussed, but no arrangement made. Tilings were normal between them. Defendant would visit her three or four- times a week and spend every Sunday with plaintiff. On Show Day, IL3I, he arrived to take her to the Show at.twelve o’clock instead of 10.30 a.m./xis usual; She said; “I- thought you were, never coming,” to which he replied: “You would -say I was a 'scoundrel if you knew all.” He said something l about offering a ticket to his best girl, but that she had not wanted it. Asked whom he meant, he said, “Oh somebody.” : Plaintiff becatne suspicions; and asked whether there was “anybody else.” Defendant said there was. At a subsequent inerting, after he had stayed away for several days,- he -said that there was “.ho use going on when there was no love between them.” The amount claimed -was £250, and included £B9 3s'.lod for trousseau -expenses. There had been much worry and mental anguish. Plaintiff carried on ’ with the making of her trousseau till December.

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

. Olive Eileen Marker, th 3 plaintiff, gave evidence as outlined in counsel’s addres?. 1 was not true, she said that she had broken off the engagement herself when she heard he was friendly with another girl. She had been willing to go, to the farm, as a farmer’s wife, and ,she was sure the marriage:: would have turned out a success, ip

’• -Mr Sim: You thought Mr Parlane Was a comfortably off man, and that you wferc making a good marriage ? Witness: I ‘Was fond of him, and 1 thought lie could maintain a "ife. i AVerei you not always having tifFs? - “No/,’ ’.replied witness, “only once whenH heard he was flirting with another girl.”

Counsel: Do you think you are losing much in not marrying a man who does not, : love you ?

I thought he would care for me again. There was love on my side.

“COULD NOT FORGET HIM.”

“Are you,” said Mr Sim, “keeping company with other men?” Witness: I could not forget Colin.

Margaret Marker, mother of the plaintiff gave corroborative evidence. “I was always very friendly with the boy, and wanted to see them get on well"together,” said witness. ' Mr Sim said that the ergagement 'was only satisfactory up to May, 1830. ■lt wr.s a boy and girl affair at the start, and defendant was frank in saying that his affections waned. He endeayoured to break it off several times, but in the end' it was plaintiff herself who broke off the engagement. There was no prospect of his getting married. “But I understand ho is married now ?” said the Judge.

■ “Since the estrangement with plaintiff Mrs Parlane senior died, and that altered the whole situation,” replied Mr Siifi.'

On election night, added counsel, plaintiff had said: ‘‘You’ll get your ring back after we’ve seen a solicitor. That, it was submitted, was final.

DEFENDANT’S DENIAL

Colin William Parlane, the defendant, denied in evidence that any particular time had been set down for tiro eng a S e _ merit. The farm, was of GO acres of freehold and 90 acres of leasehold. There were fifty dairy cattle, and fifty head of young stock. There was a £3OOO mortgage on the freehold. The farm returned him and his brother drily o*2s Gd per week each. The

only asset the partnership had was a bank balance ci> £136, and against that there- were -liabilities. He had told plaintiff that lie saw ilo chance of getting married, and that she had better get some man who could give her a better' home. Plaintiff then told '-witless to “toe the line” o she would sue him for breach of promise. Six ' months after that hfe again wanted her to break off the engagement, but she . would not, and would not let him do so.

“MANY TIFFS.”

Shot wanted to go to the pictures, and as he could not afford to take her there were many tiffs. As she talked about, breach of promise, and seemed to want liis to" spend money, he thought ho would be better without a woman of that sort. Witness’ father would not hear of his bringing defendant home. There were only five' small 1 rooms. When, in an interview, j he said he had been out with some other girl, plaintiff said; “That’s enough, you’ll get your ring back when we’ve seen a solicitor.”

To Mr Thomas, witness said his affections did not wane till plaintiff threatened to' sue him for breach of promise. He kept going round to see her as he did not want the bother and publicity of a breach of promise case. “She held me against my will,” said witness.

After the luncheon adjournment the parties conferred with the Judge and a settlement was reached.