Daily Kennebec journal., 1916-04-17
RESCRIPTS FROM
THELAW COURT


Maine law court will be Of interest
coming as it does so near the time of
the close Of the Garmong- Henderson
trial at Bangor and reducing, as it does,
a jury verdict Of $500 to $4,000 in the
case of Lillian T. Dinsmore VS.. Guy L.
Thurston for breach of promise. The
Garmong case now rests with the law
court to determine Henderson's guilt or
innocence as to breach of promise, the
jury having placed the damages-if
guilty-at $4,000. The Dinsmore-
Thurston rescript follows:
STATE OF MAINE
Cumberland County.
Supreme Judicial Court.
Lillian T. Dinsmore, plaintiff, VS..
Guy L. Thurston, defendant.
(Opinion).
Per Curiam This is an action to re-
cover damages because Of the defend.
ants breach Of promise to marry the
plaintiff. The verdict was for the
plaintiff and the damages were assessed
at $500. The case is before this court
upon defendants motion to set aside
the verdict and is urged because the
damages awarded. are excessive.
The plaintiff is trained nurse, 35
years old. The defendant is 49 years
old, the postmaster at Bethel and pro-
prietor of a country store and was dl-
vorced from his wife, for her fault, in
October previous to his meeting the
plaintiff in March or April, at which
time the defendant was i'll and the
nurse who was attending him left and
the attending physician sent for the
plaintiff The plaintiff attended him
from ten days to two weeks and re-
turned to Portland. There was some
correspondence between them before
the engagement to marry was made.
The plaintiff visited Bethel two or three
times, during which visits the defend
ant paid her considerable attention. He
also visited her at Portland several
times, and on the fifth or sixth of Au-
gust they became engaged and after
wards the defendant presented her with
diamond engagement ring and she
sent out notices of their engagement.
The engagement continued for 20 or 29
months, when the defendant broke it
and notified the plaintiff that he could
not marry her.
The plaintiff was entitled to recover
Just compensation for her loss and
damages by reason Of breaking of the
engagement, not damages as PUNISH
ment for the defendants breach OF his
contract, as clearly stated by the pre-
siding justice in his charge. The dam
ages should have been computed on the
principle of indemnity and reasonable
compensation for the plaintiffs loss by
reason of the breach Of the promise of
marriage, and the jury had a right to
consider the loss to her by reason of
the disappointment Of her reasonable
expectations-the money value or
worldly advantage to her Of a marriage
with the defendant; also the wounds
and injury to her affections caused by
the rejection and the distress of mind
and modification that she had suffered
as a result Of the defendants bad faith
in breaking his promise to marry her;
also the financial worth of the defend
ant. Hickey VS.. Kimball, 100 Maine,
433.
A careful reading Of the evidence
clearly shows that the jury in the as
sessment of damages either misappre-
hended or disregarded the rule Of dam
ages as stated to them by the presid-
ing justice, as a careful reading of the
evidence shows It is impossible to be-
lieve that $500 was not excessive dam
ages. How much the jury were au-
thorized to award 1t is hard to deter
mine, but It IL the opinion Of the court
that the extreme amount should not
have exceeded $4,000.
II the plaintiff files a remitter Of all
above $4,000, the mandate will be MO
ton overruled:" otherwise. Motion
sustained and new trial granted"