BREACH OF PROMISE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 110, 17 August 1910, Page 5

BREACH OF PROMISE

" TOO MUCH OF A FLIRT." | I BUTCHER MUST PAY £l2O. By 'lVlegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. A claim for £3OO damages for breach of promise made by Amy Webb, of Christchurch (formerly of Auckland) against Joel Deeble, described as a grocer and butcher, of Thames, was heard in the Supreme Court to-day. In outlining the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Mahony stated that the parties met j in 1907, one 'being at Te Arolia and the other at Thames. It was practically "love at first sight," and after a few months of acquaintanceship an engagement was entered into. After the usual vicissitudes of courtship, the month for the marriage was fixed, but the day was never decided upon. Finally, in April of this year, defendant wrote, terminating the engagement, and asking for a return of his ring. The plaintiff- stated, in the course of evidence, that she met defendant about Easter, 1907, and he paid attentions to her. making a proposal of marriage in November of the same year. Plaintiff was residing at Te Aroha and defendant at Thames. On occasions, she went up to Thames, and sometimes stayed with defendant's people. In August of 1908 he gave her a ring to seal the engagement. About October of 1908, a breach occurred in their relations, defendant intimating by letter that he was too much of a flirt to be true to his avowal, and could not make up his mind to stick to one. Plaintiff said she did not reply' to that' communication, and did nothing to release defendant, who, however, wrote her in February, 1909, saying that lie had been broken-hearted since they had parte:!, and asking that lie be taken back. "Do not refuse vour brokenhearted boy," he pleaded. As the result of an interview, following on the letter, i the past was forgiven and courtship re-1 sumed. Subsequently it was agreed that the marriage should take place in Jan-1 | uary, and it was then postponed till the following month, plaintiff going to con- | siderable expense in preparing for a [ home and a trousseau. They continued as an engaged couple till April of this year, when the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, then living at Christchurch, i curtly breaking off the engagement. The letter commenced, "Dear Miss Webb/' I and contained an intimation that busiI ness had not prospered, and he was not ! in a position to get married, and he was ! not likely to be for some years. "I am | stoney broke," he said, "without a brass , farthing; so if you will be so kind as I to send back the ring I gave you, I I should esteem it a great favor." Plain- ! tiff said she did not acknowledge the ' letter, nor did she return the ring, but instituted the present proceedings. Letters were produced', written by defendant. One of these was signed, "Yours j to a cinder.*

Questioned by Mr. Eai;l, plaintiff said she did not know defendant was getting only thirty shillings ta week from his father. Mr. 'Earl: "Didn't you tell him that you were ten years older and were the prudent one?" "I am not ten years older. There is only a difference of five years. "Have you had any real affection for ihib ?" "I have." "When did it vanish?" "I don't know whether it has vanished."

".Would you have, married a man on thirty'shillings a week?" "It would not be equal to what I have been used to; but I could have adapted myself to circumstances. I cared for him enough for that." "What is the object of the action?" "To compensate me in some way for the money I have spent, the time spent, and for the humiliation I have suffered."

"It is money you require?" "It is money; but money is not going to mend matters so far as all I have suffered." "Isn't it that you desire to punish this man?" "If vou care to look at it in that way." "Let me know clearly whether you want to punish him and vindicate your character, or get cash?" His Honor: "She wants both." Plaintiff: "That is so."

Mr. Earl, in opening the case for the defendant, pointed out that he had only been receiving a wage of thirty shillings, a week (and keep), and it would have| been "midsummer night's madness" for the parties to seriously entertain mar-! riage. The breaking-off of the engage-1 ment wias the most expedient course in, the interests of both the parties. 'Defendant, who is twenty-six years ofj age, said that he was a butcher, and i was employed by his father at thirty shillings la'weekl ■ His position did not! improve during the term of the engagement, which he broke off because he had lost the little money he had saved, and had no prospects. His Honor drew attention to the fact that in his various letters defendant spoke about the business in the plural and possessive, land suggested that such language was bound to deceive anybody. ■ Defendant explained that he said "my shop" as an indication, not of proprie--1 torship, but of the shop at which he worked. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, to whom they awarded I £l2O damages.