AN ENGLISH BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 116, 25 May 1885, Page 3

AN ENGLISH BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

In the Queen's Bench Division, beforoMr Justice Hawkins and a jury, on March :j, the case of Barrick aj^ninsfc Murray wan tried. Eleanor Jano Barrick' sued tho defendant, Oscar Murray, to recover damagos, her cwo being that in or about tho month of Juno, 1883, tho defendant vorbally agreed to marry her, nnd that it was afterwards arranged that tho marriago Hhould take place at CliriKtraas, but Mr Murray rofused to marry hor eithor then or at all. Tho defendant pleaded donying tho promise Mr Murphy, in opening tho enso for tho plaintiff, said hia client wan a young Indy of 26 years of ngo, and that dofondant was a gentleman of independent monna, but was also connected with tho shipping trado, and livod at Tho Pines, Whitby. Ho wns acquainted with a Mrs Harrison, who livod in the north of London, nnd upon his froquont visits to London he gonorally stayed at her houso. Mrs Harrison, again, was v friend of tho plaintiff's family; ond she introduced the defendant to Mies Barrack and to her father. Aftor a timo the doftndant visited at tho houee of Mr Barrack, and at an early period he seemed to nave taken a fancy to the young lady. He went three or four times n weok to the lioute und spent his evenings there. In tho month of July, 1883, an ongagomont was entered nto. In the Bummer of that year tho deendant wa3 about to take a trip to France, and ho suggested that Mrs Harrison should accompany the plaintiff, and that they should both go at his expense. One day while on this tour tho defondant gavo Miss Barrick a description of the sort of wife that would suit him. Sho said, " But whero shall you see thia modol creature?" and thereupon ho roplied, '' You go homo and just look in the lookingglass." [Laughter.] It was quite obvious what this meant; and when they got homo a formal engagement of marriago wns entered into. Tho dofondant mentioned the engagement to tho plaintiffs father, and upon one occasion ho broke out into pootry, which ho (Mr Murphy) beliovod was usuai on such occasions. Mr Lock would —No. [ Laughter. ] Mr Murphy obssrvod that ho must say yea, and must also ask hia friend to admit what was obvious. Tho defendant presented tho plaintill' with tho picture of a very pretty young lady, and on that picture was printed these lines : Oh, what would the sunshlno and flow'r bo to Or moan of tho Btraamlct, without love for theo? On tho other pido there was something still more important; that was some original poetry, addressed 'Nelly," which was in these terms: Tho niaidon's face is (air to boo, The maiden's form is slight, Her protty self Is mado to bo Hor lover's dear delight. Laughter.) The defendant did not write lotters of the kind usual in such cages ; thoy wcro in more of a pusiness form, unfortunately. He bought som propsity at Walthamstow ; tho plaintiffs brother had something to do with it, and the result was a quarrel, followed by a lawsuit in tho county ccurt, Theroupon the defendant broke off his engagement, and now said that there had never been any engagement at all. Ho [Mr Murphy] would only read one letter, and that was one that the defendant wrote in answer to a remonstrance from the plaintiff. It was dated Feb. 1. and was addressed "Dear Nelly," and said : I entirely repudiate your note, which was forwarded to me here. I am perfectly amazed that anything I might have said to you gave you the idea that I ever intended to marry you. I am exceedingly sorry that you should have misunderstood my intentions which were only those of a friend. I only gave you presents in the same spirit as to my other lady friends. If I had been engaged I would have broken off the engagomont after the shameful way in which Tom behaved to me. lam not engaged to Miss Davis or to anyone else. Miss Barrick, thepaintiff, was called, and had given some evidence when Mr Murphy interposing, asked that he might be allowec to speak to his client, and soon afterwards he said that the parties had been guided by their advisers in the matter, and with His Lordship's permission, a verdict would be taken for the plaintiff for £200 damages. Mr Justice Hawkins directed the jury to return a verdict for that amount.-(From the "London Telegraph")