( 443 )
I am farther instructed by him to inform you that there was a talkof marriage, and that even notice was given, but as your client failedto give the dowry that was promised^"and fulfil other agreements, my clientis unable to marry.
I am, Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) B. N. Asibwatham,Proctor.
A. St. V. Jayawardene, for defendant, appellant.
J. S. Jayawardene (with him P. M. Jayawardene), for plaintiff,respondent.
March 5, 1920. Ennis J.—
This was an action for breach of promise of marriage. Theplaintiff is a minor, and sues by her next friend her mother. Twoobjections have been taken to the decree in favour of the plaintiff:(1) That the learned Judge had failed to notice that Rs. 417.71 ofthe damages claimed were for expenses incurred by the mother, withregard to which the minor plaintiff has no direct claim; (2; it wasobjected that no written promise of marriage had been proved. Thefirst objection appears to be good on the evidence of the mother.With regard to the second objection, the learned Judge, in findingthere was a written promise, has relied upon the notice of marriagegiven to the Registrar of Marriages, and a letter written by thedefendant's proctor after the plaintiff had made a claim for breachof promise. In holding this a sufficient compliance with theMarriage Ordinance of 1907, section 21, the learned Judge cited thecase of Jayaeinghe v. Per era.1That case was decided on the inter-
pretation of a letter written by the defendant himself, which theCourt held to be a promise of marriage. The learned Judge’sattention does not appear to have been called to the case of MistNona v. Amolve,2 where it was expressly held that a notice given tothe Registrar of Marriages does not amount to a written promisewithin the pceaning of section 21 of the Marriage Ordinance of 1907.
On the authority of that case I would allow the appeal, withcosts.
Loos A.J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed.
i (1906) 9 N. L. B. 62.
* (191S) 17 N. L. B. 425.