JILTED!

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3278, 25 July 1911, Page 7

JILTED!

PARIS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Actions for breach of promise are so rare in France that whenever one comes on it is bound to excite curiosity. Such is the case with a lawsuit to which a Paris Court has just had to give its attention. The plaintiff, a good-looking young woman, declared that she had' been thrown over from one day to another by the defendant, a commercial traveller, and this after the banns had been published, the trousseau ordered, and all the usual preparations duly made. Yet, argued her counsel, the defendant seemed to entertain the most tender affection for his client. Thus, on December Ist he wrote:—-“Ma chero adoree: I long to be living with you; I shall love you all my life!” Five days later, however, he addressed a last farewell to her in the following terms: over, and I have given up the idea of marrying.” The defendant, who was in court, asked the learned lawyer to allow him to explain that he had been led to break off the match by something that his financee had said to him, and had simply acted as his conscience dictated, whereupon the plaintiff’s counsel retorted that as he had such a tender conscience, he might as well give the real reason, adding: “You had, no doubt, also vowed eternal love to that particular woman.” “ The case is heard,” said the presiding magistrate, and then the judge read out the judgment deliberately and distinctly in very serious tones. It began thus: — “ Considering that in ancient times marriage was based solely on, love. “ Considering that since those times Christian morals have subjected it to important evolutions, and that in these days marriage is regarded as a financial contract to defend the two parties against possible escapades, as the real motive for marriage is money, the man being on the look-out for a dowry and the woman for a protector, she is supposed to be more experienced in the management of her property. “Considering that it is to be regretted that, owing to the new character of marriage, young couples do not get into the habit of drawing up a document at the time of their betrothal with a forfeit clause, as is customary with certain foreign legislations, like the Armenian legislation.” The judgment went on to say that the defendant had not brought any proof that the plaintiff expressed a certain wish which had led him to break off the match, and that the plaintiff has on her side sustained manifest loss, “so,” it concluded, “he is condemned to pay one franc for the moral prejudice, and 387 francs (about £ls 10s) for the material prejudice.” As will have been perceived, damages for breach of promise in France are not heavy, and this, perhaps, helps to explain why such actions are so rare. As for the wonderfully business view of matrimonial unions taken by the learned judge, there are happily many exceptions to the cases which he instances. There are, with all due deference to him, such things as marriages of affection; but, all the same, prudence is not a bad counsellor, even when people are still in the romantic age.