DAMAGES GIVEN

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 304, 18 August 1932, Page 5

DAMAGES GIVEN

(Press Assn.—

j EX-ROTORUA GIRL i I FRIEND WHO SIGNED LETTERS "FROM YOUR BLOKE ! BILL" BREACH OF PROMISE CASE

-By Telegraph — Copyright)

Auckland, -Wednesday. "For practically five years we were engaged, but he lcept putting the marriage off. He would not buy me a ring, because he said he had no time for rings, but said he was willing to buy me something useful," said Elizaheth Kennedy, aged 34, one time of Rotorua, who in the Supreme Court to-day elaimed £500 damages from William Overall, aged 32, land agent. She alleged breach of promise to marry. Defendant denied there had been any agreement entered into to marry, and if there had it was cancelled hy mutual consent two or three years before the present proceedings. Mr. Justice Herdman heard the case. Counsel for plaintiff said the engagement had talcen place five yeai*s ago. They first met at Mamaku, and later agreed to marry, but since the engagement defendant had consistently put off the marriage, until finally they had a quarrel in March last and parted. Counsel put in a num- [ ber of letters written by Overall to plaintiff, in which he addressed her as "Dear little sweetie," "Dear little dearie," and similar endearing terms. The letters closed with "From Bill in a hurry," "T7ill give you lcisses v/hen I come down. — Darling Bill," "With best love and lcisses from your bloke, Bill." Plaintiff Gives Evidence The plaintiff said she first met Overall six years ago, when she was employed at the Rotorua Hospital, where defendant's father was a patient. At the father's invitation she visited his home at Mamaku, and there she met the defendant. Their acquaintanceship ripened, and about two months after they met he asked her to marry him, but she would not then consent, as she considered she had not lcnown him long enough. She saw him frequently from then on, and in July, 1927, she agreed to marry him. He said he would not buy her a ring, as he did not believe in rings, hut he said he would buy her a machine or anything useful. She then went to Waihi and Hamilton, and he wiote letters to her. On going back to Rotorua in 1928, they agreed that the marriage should definitely talce place during Christmas time of that year. In 1930 she came to Auckland, and later he follewed and she toolc over an apartment house he had in Parnell, paying him £3 a weelc. He was endeavouring to dispose of his house property for a farrn, and they were to be married when he secured a farm. The Quarrel On March 4 of this year, when they were at the house in Parnell, / she was toid something,' and she accused him of knocking at the door of a v/oman in the house at eleven o'clock at night, and told him she was not going to remain. He chased and struck her, and she left the house. Up to then she had always been willing and ready to marry him. In answer to his Honour, plaintiff said that in none of the letters written by defendant did he mention marriage. Did you ever tell him you would not marry him? — No. Are you still prepared to marry him? — No, not since he gave me a thrashing on March 4. If he had come along the next day and offered to marry you would you have married him? — No, I couldn't, not after the way he had thrashed me. But you never told him you would not marry him? — No. "Never Engaged" The defendant, William Overall, described himself as a "bit of a land agent," and added that he had done a little farming. Never at any time had he been engaged to, or promised to marry, the plaintiff, nor had she ever asked him to marry her. The first intimation he had that he had brolcen an agreement to marry her was when he received a letter from her solicitor. Questioned by counsel for plaintiff the witness admitted that he had been adjudged the father of an illegitimate child and was paying for its maintenance. When plaintiff heard of the matter he did not see her for some time afterwards. He had been out with other girls, but did not think he had ever written to any of them. After hearing further evidence, his Honour said that he had great difficulty in deciding what should be allowed the girl in the circumstances. He thought that if he awarded her £250 that should be sufficient. He gave judgment for plaintiff accordingly with costs.