BREACH OF PROMISE.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 March 1920, Page 6

BREACH OF PROMISE.

NAPIER GIRL'S CLAIM. MAN WHO MARRIED ANOTHER. JURY'S AWARD OF £IOOO DAMAGES. A telegram from Napier on Saturday stated that Magadeiine Ritchie had been awarded £lOllO damages iu the Supreme Court against Claude Balfour or Carrodus, liie full amount claimed, for breach of premise to marry. The piaiuali', represented by Mr. Dolan, in giving evidence, said she wa9 not exactly sure of the defendant's name. He was known to her as Balfour, in Queensland he was called Carrodus, he had some brothers called-Blackburn," and one Nelson. Defendant lent plaintiff's brother some money when the latter went to Queensland in 11)07 and returned in I'9GB, when he stayed at her brother's house until he left again for Queensland in 1909. Plaintiff accompanied defendant to Wellington on this occasion to see him off, and he asked her to be his wifft tefore ho sailed, They were a week: in Wellington before defendant sailed. Plaintiff was in Brisbane in 1912 and when she left to come back Balfour accompanied her as far as Sydney. He passed as Mr_ Ritchie, her brother. He. spent a week-end in Katoomba. Defendant returned to New Zealand in December, 1915, and in accordance with fiis request she met him. Plaintiff went to Woodville, and they returned to Hastings together. In February, 1916, they went to Taupo and Rotorua. Whilst at Taupo they used to go out every night together. "ALL RIGHT, SONNY." One evening, - continued plaintiff, he s%id: "i want you to be my wife, my dear," to which plaintiff replied, "All right, sonny." Defendant again went to Australia in 1910, and returned in June, IBIS. He did not tell her he was returning on this occasion. Defendant stayed at the Grand Hotel and often had plaintiff there for dinner. Plaintiff never revoked the promise to Balfour, who is now married. To Mr. Lusk (representing the defendant) : He asked her to be his wife and said he was going over to Queensland to make a home for her. Defendant never gave plaintiff a ring. Plaintiff thought nothing of it, because many girls in Scotland did not wish for rings. PRESENTS FROM DEFENDANT. Continuing, plaintiff said slie received a necklace and pendant and gold watch from defendant. Neither party had ever broken the engagement until defendant married Plaintiff did not notify Balfour that she was going to Australia in 1912. She had told a friend she did not wish it to be thought by his people that she was running after him. When in her brother's business plaintiff supplied Balfour with balance-sheets because he hud £4OO in the business. The present?, however, were not given'her in recognition of her * interest in the business on his behalf. In a letter to a friend in January, 1917, plaintiff said she did not wisfi Balfour to think he wag tied to lior. Balfou# brought an action against her brother in 1918 with regard to the business, and at the last moment her brother's counsel gave way, admitting that a partnership had existed. Later defendant brought an laotion against plaintiff for the recovery of a' P.N. for £3OO, and obtained judgment. It was not until after this action that the claim was made in respect to tlie breach of promise. VINDICTIVENESS DENIED. Mr. Lusk: Is it not a fact that these proceedings were brought because you are vindictive and want to get something back on Balfour? Plaintiff: No; I came her to stick up for my rights. Mr. Lusk: Do you consider you have I oft anything in Balfour? Plaintiff: I don't suppose so; I am jolly glad. I came here for justicePlaintiff stated th.it she did not take action previously because she was%dvised not to. In re-examination a letter from defendant to plaintiff was produced. In this Balfour wrote in familiar strains, and signed himself "Dreamy Daniei." ' Evidence taken in Queensland was read by the registrar. The depositions were relative to remarks said to have been passed by Balfour concerning Miss Ritchie. He was said to have referred to plaintiff as "my girl," and adding "that she was the best girl in the world " He was also credited with having stated that he was going to New Zealand to get married. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence Mr. Lusk stated, in opening, that it was the most extraordinary breach of promise case ever brought before a court of law in this country. The case for the defendant was that he was always an intimate friend of the Ritchie family. Miss Ritchie was engaged in the firm in which defendant was a partner, and she did a great deal of work for him in sending balance-sheets and looking after his interests. There was no doubt that defendant was on intimate terms with the Ritchie family. None of the other Kitchies had been called by the plaintiff. Balfour would state in evidence that he never at any time proposed marriage to Misß Ritchie, and therefore there had never been anjr breach of promise. Balfour had given presents to other members of the Ritchie family. The presents to plaintiff were because she was a good friend and had done a considerable amount of work for defendant. With regard to the witnesses in Queensland it would be shown that they were all people who had broken off friendly relations with Balfour, and .were only too keen to "get one on to him." Defendant stated in evidence that he had never asked plaintiff to be his wife. Letters written to him by plaintiff were all in conncotion with business- He stated that Carrodus was his father's name. His parents separated in his infancy, and he assumed his mother's name, which was Balfour. Plaintiff had never written asking when he proposed to carry out his promise to marry her. ■Defendant denied having referred to Miss Ritchie to witnesses in Australia as "his girl." After a retirement of a little over an hour the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and awarded the full damages claimed, £IOOO and costs. Mr. Dolan moved for judgment In accordance with the verdict. Mr, Lusk gave notice to move for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that the damages were excessive. , His Honor entered judgment for the Slaiutiff, with costs according to scale.