SHOULD CONSUMPTIVES WED?

Taihape Daily Times, 7 June 1919, Page 5

SHOULD CONSUMPTIVES WED?

--—:——--o:——:_ DOCTOR’S SON AND FIANOEEH The qua:-tion of whether ,c'ollsufllptives ought to marry was raised in a breach of promise ‘action I'ecell.tly he:u'd in London, in which a doetorfs son claimed that he brokeilofi’ an ‘engagement because his‘ fiancee wzl.s‘s’uiferillg from tuberculosis. Mr Justice Lush, who presided, said the case was unusual and important. A contract to _nlal'ry was like any other contract, and the pzn"cy breaking it had to justify this course. There was justifieation if one person was shown to be unfit to m{Ll'l'y. If the promise, however, was made with the knowledge of the illness, such a defence could not be maintained.

' His Lordship said he would ask the diary to say if the pla.3nt.ifi' had ‘tuberculosis on June .1: the date of the pr-enli.~‘-.0, or at. the date of the breach, or at Christmas. when the marriage was {i.\:ed. The evidence of Dr. Stevens, who was a disinterested party, was that he sent her To a sanatorium, and that afterwards. he detected active rigns of the disease. Then she got better, hut he could not say that she was cured, and he would not have recommended her last autumn to Inarry. The plaintifi’ had not called any medical witnesses as to her health. They niight think the evidence of defe.ndant’s ’r'alher. Dr. Barnard, was extreme, that the sliglltest taint should debar marriage. but, it did not follow i)er=,uxse many people were rash enough to marl'y when this disease was atta.g]u3d to them, and were willing to risk Inving‘ children, who would be predi.s'pw€...=d to it, andof infecting one another, that a mall’s refusal to marry under such conditions was unreasonable or wz~)n;zful. The jury had to take a broad View of the case. The jury disagreed, and were discharged. His Lordship asked the parties if ‘hey would agree to take a nlaj)r?fy vcrdict. but they declined.