Skip to Content

Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899

Plim v. Jacob [1894] NSWSupC 1

breach of promise of marriage, civil procedure, change of venue

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Foster J., 19 March 1894

Source: Sydney Morning Herald , 20 March 1894, p. 3

In Chambers. - (Before Mr. Justice Foster.)

PLIM V. JACOB.

Mr. Pring, instructed by Mr. M.J. Macnamara (for Messrs. Robertson, Norton, Robertson, of Hay), appeared for the defendant, and moved for a change of venue from Sydney to Hay. Mr. Whitfield, instructed by Mr. H.R. Way (for Mr. J.F. Willans, of Narrandera), appeared for the plaintiff, Alice Plim, to oppose the application. The action is one in which the plaintiff, a domestic servant, is suing the defendant, John Jacob, storekeeper, to recover £1000 for alleged breach of promise of marriage, and the defendant desired to have the case tried at Hay on the ground that, as he lived at Carrathool the and the plaintiff at Jerilderie, it would be much more convenient and less expensive to have the hearing at the next circuit court at Hay, which would come on shortly. The case was in the list of No. 2 Jury Court, Sydney, on the last day but one of the sittings, and was therefore not likely to be reached; but as both parties would have to come down, they might be put to unnecessary expense. The distance from Jerilderie and Carrathool to Hay was much less than from the places named to Sydney. The plaintiff's solicitor, on the other hand, filed an affidavit in which he stated that as defendant had been a storekeeper in the district for a number of years, the plaintiff was not likely to obtain as impartial a trial at Hay as at Sydney, where she and defendant were not known. It was also stated that plaintiff had very little means, and would be unable to retain counsel to proceed to Hay.

His Honor granted the application. The preponderance of convenience was much in favour of the trial taking place at Hay, and there was no reason for supposing that plaintiff would not obtain an impartial jury there. The costs of the application would be costs in the cause.

Published by the Division of Law, Macquarie University