BREACH OF PROMISE.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 August 1922, Page 7

BREACH OF PROMISE.

AN UNUSUAL VERDICT. CONTRACT TO MARRY, BUT NO DAMAGES AWARDED. AN AUCKLAND ACTION. By Telegraph.—Press • Assn.—Copyright. Auckland, August 19. Considerable interest has been taken in a breach of promise case, the plaintiff being Mrs. Emily Stewart (widow), of Thames., and Thomas E. Tasker, of the same district. Mrs. Stewart, who is the widow of the late Mr. David Stewatr (one of the forwards in the famous All Black native team that electrified Great Britain in 1888-89), claimed damages to the amount of £lOOO from the defendant, who, in the course of his evidence, said he had been engaged to several ladies, but had managed so far to escape matrimony. The plaintiff, in the course of her evidence, had modestly admitted that she was getting on in years, and had eight children and a similar number of grandchildren. In the course of his evidence, defendant admitted the engagement with plaintiff from 1919. and endorsed general particulars made in support of the claim. Mrs. Stewart, he declared, would not live at Thames or Russell, and he was not prepared to reside at Auckland, though he 'had seen about a house. He denied saying he could not get married until his sister married. They separated in 1920, and he considered tlie engagement off. He called several times on Mrs. Stewart, and was informed she was out. After he became engaged to Mrs. Stewart she told him she was engaged to Deeble and that he had given her a ring. Deeble was kept from the house when defendant was present. He cooled off because he thought he was not wanted.

“BOSS OF THE SITUATION.” To Mr. Singer: He carried two banking accounts. During the last . few years he had spent a good deal on lady friends, and he admitted a number of engagements, including one of less than a month’s duration broken off as late as July 31, because the lady heard o-f his meeting with Mrs. Stewart regarding this case. He had paid & sum of money to a previous lady to whom he was engaged. Counsel: Did you intend to marry Miss , to whom you wrote?—Yes. but I was not engaged. There was no ring.

And you stated you intended marrying in the letter? —Yes; and I meant it at the time.

And when she threatened an action later against you you paid up?—Yes, on the strength of those letters. You know what a jury might think? —Yes.

Do you suggest Deeble was the trouble?—No.

To His Honor: Mrs. Stewart did not want to fix a date of marriage because of Deeble. She had told him (defendant) that she had been living with Deeble.

Counsel: And yet in spite of that you continued visiting her? —Yes.

And you continued being engaged to her?—Yes, but she was boss of the situation, and I could not object.

But Deeble married about three years ago?—Yes. Well, why didn’t you say: “Now, my dear, the counter attraction has gone, what about making a date with me and we will get married?”—l don’t know. GIFT OF KINDNESS. And you have not counted her since 1920 ?—No. No present since then?—No. Mr. Singer: Ah! here is a gold brooch inscribed “December 16, 1921.” Did you give Mrs. Stewart that cn her last birthday?—Yes; she had longed for a gold bar brooch. That gift was just a passing kindness?—Yes. Tamaiwhauia Rawira. a native, residing in Parawai. said he overheard Mrs. Stewart in November saying she had fallen out with Tasker. To Mr. Singer: He and Mrs. Stewart fell out la«rt year about land, Wm. Dufty recounted some conversations and admitted that it might be three,to five years since Mrs. Stewart was friendly with Mr. Deeble. The judge summed up somewhat in favor of defendant, and a verdict was given as indicated. Mr. Singer asked leave to move for a fresh tHal, and the application was stood down in order to allow counsel to submit legal points regarding the verdict.