BREACH OF PROMISE

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12614, 26 November 1926, Page 8

BREACH OF PROMISE

TROUBLE OVER RELIGION £l5O DAMAGES AWARDED. Per Press Association. PALMERSTON N„ November 25. The hearing was commenced at the Supreme Court this morning of a claim by Alice Josephine Greagah, supervisor of the telephone exchange at Palmerston North, for £795 from Hugh Parker. a commercial traveller, o| Whangarei, as damages for an alleged breach of promise. The statement of claim alleges that plaintiff and the defendant agreed to marry at Easter, 1925, but the defendant in November, 1924, refused to do so. The plaintiff in consequence suffered nervous shock, and for a considerable time had been rendered unfit to carry out her duties. The statement for the defence admitted the agreement to marry, but denied that any date was fixed, or that the defendant refused to marry the plaintiff. The defendant stated that after the contract to marry had been entered into, and while the contract was still subsisting, the plaintiff imported into it tho condition that all the issue of the marriage should be brought up in the religion of the Roman Catholic Church. The defendant refused to be bound by such a condition, and was wholly exonerated and discharged by the plaintiff from performance of the promise, or alternatively the contract was rescinded or lapsed bv mutual consent. His Honour (Mr Justice Reed) in his judgment, said there had been a breach of contract, and plaintiff was in consequence entitled to damages. The claim for special damages his Honour regarded as too remote, and this was not allowed, but. in order that the matter might bo pursued further by counsel if desired, he would make an observation on this point. “I find,” said his Honour, “that it is proved that following the breakingoff of her engagement the plaintiffhad a nervous breakdown, was unable to work for the period stated in the claim, and incurred certain medical expenses, but whether these were entirely or partially due to the breach of rontrnct bv plaintiff is immaterial.” Plaintiff was awarded £l5O damages.