THE GOOD OFFICES OF A BENIGNANT JUDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 142, 17 June 1899, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE GOOD OFFICES OF A BENIGNANT JUDGE.

A charming little breach of promise of marriageY;comedy was played out In the London cWrts early last month—apparently to a happy ending—before Mr Jus. tice Lawrance and a common jury.

The parties were the plaintiff, Miss-Em-ma Lambourn, the daughter of a grocer in Botolph Lane, and the defendant Mr Walsh, a rising young grocer in Berraondsey.

There were no love letters to amuse the scoffers, but there had been a sensible, grown-up kind of courtship, which led every Sunday to the dinner table of the plaintiff's father, and there were evidently plenty of tiffs and lovers' quarrels.

On Sundays, according to the plaintiff's evidence, they used to walk out and return to her father's house to dlno together. The hour for dinner was 1.80. Once they arrived when her fathth was absent. When her father came in defendant said, 'Mr Lambourn, you are late as usuul.'

'No, Jimmy,' replied her father; 'it Is exactly half-past one.'

Defendant said the clock was slow; her father said It was not.

'We have been waiting long enough for you,' retorted defendant, who seemed to be out of temper.

She at once replied, taking her father's part, 'No, we have not been waiting long. You should not speak so to my father.'

'I am off,' said defendant on the Instant, taking his stick and hat and walking away. He NEVER RETURNED. After the writ he called upon her, and In a haughty manner asked what she meant by the proceedings. She asked him to apologise for staying away so long, and he said, 'Certainly not.' He said he was ready to marry her, and she said she could not marry him after his treatment of her.

There was a letter from defendant's solicitors to the plaintiff saying it was evidently a lovers' quarrel, and suggesting that It should be brought to a happy conclusion. Sho did not reply.

Mr Justice Lawranco: Why? If the young man were ready to marry you, why did you not accept his offer?

Miss Lambourn replied that she did not believe in his sincerity; he never apologised or seemed sorry, 'if his affection were genuine,' she pleaded argumentalively, 'why did he stay ay/ay so long.'

'Perhaps,' replied his lordship, 'you wanted him to go down on his knees. (Laughter.) If he had made an apology and expressed his sorrow, would you have married him?'

Miss Lambourn hesitated—a fatal hesitation—and then replied, 'that might

havn been sh.'

Then, said his lordship, perhaps the defendant might like to renew his offer.

There was a private consultation, in which plaintiff's father participated, and it was soon settled. Mr Siroud, plaintiff's counsel, said they had agreed that a juror bo withdrawn, and he thought this juror might prove to be the harbinger of peace, and of an amicable understanding between the parties.

'And you,' said a voice, 'should give

her away

Tho learned judge observed that plaintiff should be obliged to defendant's counsel for his father's advice. Curtain!