July 16. BREACH OF PROMISE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 234, 25 July 1872, Page 6

July 16. BREACH OF PROMISE.

Elltn Brown v. David J. Peter was an action to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage. The action was undefended. Mr Harris, who appeared for the plaintiff, said his client was a young woman twentytwo years of age, and the daughter of a respectable farmer in the old country. Defendant was lately in the employ of the Messrs Maclean, of Bellamy Station, having been their priucipal stockman, ftliss Bro«vn arrived in the Colony in August last, and went to live with her brother-in-law, who is priucipal overseer on the station. It was there that the intimacy, out of which tho promise to marry sprang, between the parties arose. The promise and the breach of it were admitted ; so that the jury had simply to determine what measure of damage the plaintiff was entitled to. The evidence as to the defendant's means was very meagre. He was Jbweuty-ithree years of age f and for three or four 3 r ears he received about LSO a year and found. Mr James Scott, livery stable keeper, was briefly examined. His Honor, addressing the jury, said un-fortunat-ly there was very little evidence as to the defendant's ci- cum stances ; what there was showed them to be of a very humble character. He was working for wages ; some two or three years ago had expected to receive L3O or L4O from a relative in Victoria, and had a horse which ho sold for Lls. Under such circumstances, although the law directed that an injury of the kind was to be compensated by damages, the verdict should not bring ruin upon the defendant ; the damages should be suited to the parties' circumstances. The jury would lay their heads together, and say how much they would give to the young woman. The jury, after a short retirement, found for the plaintiff— damages L4O.

July 18 His Honor took his seat on the Bench at ten o'clock. Pindar v. Campbell was an action to recover L 261 2s Bd. Mr G. Cook and Mr Bartou appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Macassey, with whom was Mr B. (3. Hacjgitt, for the defendant. The declaration stated that, in December, I?C9, the plaintiff sold to the defendant the goods described in the particular of demand, upon the terras that the goods should be shipped from London to Otago ; the defendant, on delivery to him of the invoice and bill of ladiug for each shipment, to pay, by his acceptance, for the price of the good 3, together with reasonable charges for packing . and freight, the acceptances to bo paid 100 days after sight ; and the goods to be of f air marketable quality, and to be in goo I order aud condition. That, in accordance with those temis, he shipped goods to the defendant by the ship William Lindsay, in 1869, and, in 1870, by the Vanguard, and drew, in re=>j>ect of them, bills of exchange, whioh defendant refused to accept : hence the action. The defendant pleaded a general denial of all the material" allegations contained in the plaintiff's declaration ; that the goods were not shipped within reasonable time after their Bale ; that they were not shipped in the order in which they were sold ; and that some of the goods ordered were not shipped. The plaintiff by his replication, gave the defendant credit for tho proceeds of the sale of the Vanguard's goods, particulars of which he received after the commencement of the action, Mhich reduced the amount sought to be received to the sum stated above. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of earthenware, carrying on business at Banlslem, Stafford shire, England j and the defendant carries on business iv Dunedin as Calvert and Campbell. The whole of the day was occupied ia reading the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, the bulk of it having been taken in England under commission. It went to piove that the whole of the defendant's orders had been faithfully execntcd, and the shipments made with reasonable despatch. On July 2, 5577 ounces of gold, valued at L 22,087, were exported from Hokitika He that loses his conscience has nothing eft that is woith keeping. Ingratitude. — To oblige ingratitude is as insuperable a difficulty as to fill a sieve with water.