STAER V. SCHICK 10/1936

Here f 726. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

High Court of Australia, Principal Registry.

se

CH fog 37

H. J. Garex, Government Printer, Melbourne. 5080,

Copyraght Reserved .

(N.B. Copyright in this transcript is the property of the Crown. If this transcript is copied without the authority of the Attorney-General of the Common- wealth, proceedings for infringement will be taken).

IN THe HIGH OOURT OF AUSTRALIA

Original Jurisdiction.

BETWEEN

STAER (Plaintiff) - and - 5 i } SCHICK (Defendant).

(Action for damages for breach of promise of marriage).

BEFORE HIS HONOR WR. JUSTICN DIXON

BOURNE, FRIDA' 13 AT a A.M. i ZUDGMENT. a E $ is 7 HIS HONOR: This is an action for breach of promise of marriage, 4

brought by a young lady who, at the time of the engagement, wag under 21. The engagement took place in October 1935, and she became 21 in March 1936. The defendant is a

constable of police stationed in Western Queensland, near

aw

the South Australian border, at a place called Bidowrie, and is said to be somewhat older than she. The acquaintance | between the parties was not of very long duration, being some three or four months, and, on the occasion when the

proposal of marriage was made and accepted, there was some

+ GOR/S/la. 1. JUDGMENT.

18/6/37 0

Catt ionamin esto

GOR/S/Za.

discussion as to the desirability of marrying at once or allowing the engagement to stand for some period. The parties were of different religions, and both were conscious that this would cause difficulty and that objections would be bound to exist in the minds of their respective parents. The desirability of obtaining approval of the marriage on the part of the plaintiff's mother was discussed, and partly because she was under age and partly because of the situation of the parties and the lack of accommodation at Bidowrie for a young married woman, it was decided that the engagement should stand. The plaintiff was employed as a governess at a station nearby, but she gave up her employment and went to Adelaide, where, from some time in October until the following September - 1936 ~ she resided. The parties did not actually meet in the interval. Theytorresponded freely, and the defendant wrote particularly voluminous letters, expressed in language of enthusiastic affection. Finally, a date was fixed for the marriage - the 22nd September 1936. That date was fixed in relation to the leave which the defendant could obtain. In the interval, the plaintiff's mother had written to the defendant letterd which showed a very considerable degree of hostility to the union, and letters which he must have found unpleasant reading. Four of them have been put in evidence, and it does not appear whether there were more or not. In the plaintiff's letters to the defendant, she gave from time to time an account of the difficulties she was experiencing from her mother and from her brother, who were both opposed to the marriage, entirely on the ground of the difference in religion of the parties.