LOVERS’ LAWS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 22 March 1926, Page 9

LOVERS’ LAWS.

OWNERSHIP OF RING DECIDED. By Cable—Press Association —Copyright. Australian 'and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, March 18. , ill- Justice MoCardic, giving judgment in the Sc.lur breach of promise action, laid down a new lovers’ law. Counsel i’or plaintiff had argued that a man was not entitled to t'lie return of.ail engagement ring, and Mr Justice McC'arrlie decided that the girl was entitled to retain the ring. He pointed out that a seventeenth eenturv Jaw made it permissible legally for either to break off engagements, for reasons which unhappily constituted a valid excuse to-day. Lord Halshury’s .Laws of England set out that it was no defence in a breach of promise action to show that before the promise plaintiff was unaware that defendant had been insane, and also that no disease short of absolute incapacity would avail him or her as a defence, even though it proved that the performance of conjugal duties endangered life. Breach of promise actions were not a lowed under Roman law, which had been developed by modern Continental nations, and clothed with the obvious features of commercial disputes. Should a woman not fulfil her promise alter receiving a ling she most return it. On tin; other hand if ;r man did not fulfil his promise, lie could nut demand the return of the ring. Should an engagement lie mutually dissolved, in ihe absence of an agreement to the contrary, the ring and gifts should be returned to each party. Should a marriage be solemnised, the ring became the absolute property ol the recipient, and was not affected by subsequent divorce. Mr .Justice McCnrdio handed the ring to counsel for the gii'l.