Sensational Breach of Promise Cases

Manawatu Herald, 18 February 1899, Page 3

Sensational Breach of Promise Cases-

DELPHINE BARRY v. JOHN ORR JUN. At the Napier Supreme Court His Honour the Chief Justice heard the breach of promise case of Delphine Barry, of Taradale, versus John Orr, jun., of Puketitiri, in which £550 was claimed as damages. No defence was filed, and the defendant did not appear. Mr Cornford, instructed by Messrs Kennedy and Lusk, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr C. Hughes was chosen foreman of the jury. Counsel, in opening the case, said that it was the first time he had appeared before a jury in a case for assessment of damages where the defendant had made no appearance. The duty of the jury would not be at all an arduous one, though he thought that after they had heard the facts they would arrive at the conclusion that the young lady had every right to come before the Court, leaving it to the jury to say what was a proper measure of damage done to a young lady who had been treated in the way that plaintiff had. There was no doubt negotiations and arrangements were made between young people with a view to marriage which could hardly be taken seriously, and were nothing more than passing flirtations. But the present case was hardly of such a nature, for there had been an engagement for more than three years, and defendant's family recognised the plaintiff as his affianced wife. She had been treated with every affection up to a fortnight of the breaking of the engagement, and she had a right to ask that he should make compensation to her for the way in which she had been treated. , He was well-to-do enough to have taken unto himself a wife, though ashamed to come and show his face before this jury and say that he had any excuse whatever for breaking off the engagement. Delphine Barry, the plaintiff, deposed was the daughter of Mrs Mary ..Ty, of Taradale. She made the „ iuaintance of the defendant in January, 1895. The defendant made the proposal of marriage at her mother's house in June; 1895, giving her a ring a little while after. The engagement was for three years. He asked her mother's consent, which was given. At that time defendant was under age, being 20, and she was at that time 23. After the engagement his people got knowledge of it, and his family came to her mother's house whilst she visited her mother's place. Defendant was a farmer and said he had a farm of his own worth about £700 or £800. During the three years that passed from June 1895, defendant treated her very affectionately, and she went about with him in public. About a year after the engagement he. told her that his father had taken over the land. Defendant had money, showing her £90 once, while he said he had £200 of his own. In August last he told her that they would live at Hukunui ; they were not married in June, 1890, because the house had not been done up. Letter read dated September 18th MB9B, in which he wrote that it would be madness to thing of getting married in the financial position he was in then. Matrimonial happiness would be impossible until he was in a better position. He wrote that she had received an offer of marriage from a man wiih money enough to sink a man-o'-war. His love remained unshaken, and that he showed no partiality for any other girl. The plaintiff, continuing, said she had received no offer of marriage from a wealthy man as alleged. About this time defendant was keeping company with another girl, and took her to the *how. Defendant asked her to remain as a friend, but she said no, and he broke off the engagement. Thers was never any quarrel between them to lead to the rupture of this engagement. John Howse, grocer, deposed he had been staying in Puketitiri in November last. Knew John Orr, jun., and also knew a young lady there, a schoolmistress. Had frequently seen then together, Had heard the defendant called "The Lord of Puketitiri." Defendant was managing a run up there. When coming home from fishing excursions had seen them together as late as halfpast 10 at night. W. R. Jourdain, clerk in the Crown Lands Office, deposed he knew from j the records that John Orr was a Crown lands selector, and he had acquired the freehold of land at Pahui, for which £288 12s 8d had been paid, with improvements valued at £320. The freehold was acquired in February, 1896. Mr Cornford, addressing the jury, said he did not pretend that the defendant was a man of independent estate, but he thought he had shown that the young man was fairly in a position to make his way in the world. Until the last letter there was never any suggestion that defendant was not in a position to marry. He had behaved in a discourteous, discreditable, ungentlemanly, and cruel fashion to this young woman, and the best way for them to realise it was for the jury to try and put themselves in the place of the plaintiff. It was not a question as to whether defendant was worth /ioo or £1000, but the jury were asked to inflict such penalty on his conduct as to teach young men that they had no right in law, or in common decency, to treat a young lady the way in which the plaintiff had been treated. His honour said the question the jury had to decide was — what damage is she entitled to by reason of the defendant's conduct. The jury, after an absence of about an hour, assessed the damages at £150. Costs were fixed according to scale.