BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1066, 6 July 1912, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

CURRIE V. HARRIS,

A very interesting and decidedly amusing mock breach of promise case was conducted by the Foxton Literary and Debating Society in the Presbyterian Hall on Thmsday evening. Such cases, whether enacted in real life or burlesque, never fail to be ot absorbing interest to the weaker sex, which no doubt accounted for their attendance in such large numbers. The interior of the hall was made to represent as near as possible a hall of justice. The judge was seated on the dais, and on his right the jury panel of six good men and true ; a witness box, and suitable accommodation for solicitors and court officials was provided. The body 01 the court was filled with an expectant audience, who, despite the stentorian and oftrepeated command of the dignified crier.of “silence in the court!” indulged in frequent outbursts of applause and hilarity. The chief actors in the scene were the plaintiff Miss Gwendoline Currie (Mr Ken Furrie) an actress, and daughter of Mr Peppercorn Currie (Mr John Ross), who sought to recover from Adolphus Harris (Mr Claris) a surveyor, the sum of ,£SOO tor breach of promise of marriage ancl ,£l5O special damages. Mr O’Kell (Mr Kellow) appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr Homeless (Mr Hornblow) for the defendant. Dr Mandl occupied the throne of justice, and the following were the jury—one of whom was challenged by plaintiff’s counsel and had to retire —Messrs Rough (foreman), Henderson, McEwen, Jas. Ross, G. Alexander and T. Simpson, Mr F. D. Whibley officiated as Registrar, and Mr E, Huntly as crier. Witnesses for the plaintiff were Mr J. Ross, and W. Speirs, and lor the defendant, Rev. Mr Thomson, and Mr Whibley. The court was opened according to ancient custom and usage. The jury was sworn and commanded ton ,rn a verdict in accordance with i evidence, and the witnesses i to

speak the untru . ’ untruth and m .hiac I 1-. ''’e untruth —so help their The ju. ;e included the choice of the CL”.ncoath. Counsel for the pic

outlined his case an 1 called witnesses to prove that his client had been basely treated —the antics, interjections and hysteria of the injured party creating roars of laughter the while. The love letters produced and read tickled the risible faculties and upset the dignity ot the learned judge and the court. Plaintiff, defendant and witnesses underwent a severe examination resulting in much conflicting evidence. After counsel had addressed the jury the judge gave a very careful summing up of the facts, stressing the point that the plaintiff's hysteria—so common to her sex—should not prejudice them in arriving nt a just verdict. He dealt with the conflicting evidence in regard to plaintiff’s age and suggested as a compromise that the jury mathematically split the difference. After a brief retirement the jury found for the defendant. f The proceedings were the most enjoyable, from a mirth-provoking point ot view, yet held by the society.

It is anticipated that the next meeting will be held in the Masonic Hall, when an address on proportional representation will be delivered by Mr Robt. McNab.