CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 74, 30 March 1910, Page 2

CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

A MALE PLAINTIFF'S REMARKABLE STORY. An action for breach of promise of marriage was heard in t>he Supreme Court at Adelaide the other day. Plaintiff is Peter Otto Pries, whose imperfect Englifch gave tbe court considerable trouble. Defendant was Annie Marguerite Glieber, boardinghouse-keoper. The damages claimed, including sums alleged to have been expended tor defendant, were £481. Counsel for plaintiff said he proposed 1o show that defendant bad, by promises of marriage, led plaintiff, who possessed property, to make houses over to her. When she had all she declined to marry him. At first she made several excuses, but when pressed she declared she could not marry until her daughter Elsie was mar ried. Thereupon Pries began looking round for a husband for Elsie, and found a man named Schultz, who consented. Schultz held no money, but at defendant'B request plaintiff undertook to provide the bridegroom with clothes in which to get married, and also ordered a dress suit for him. Plaintiff also purchased a wedding dress for Elsie. On the day appointed for, the marriage, however, Elsio was drunk, and the ceremony was postponed. A second day was fixed for the wedding, but in the meantime Schultz received a letter Staling that his prospective bride wa* already married. Mrs. Glieber, having secured plaintiff's property, refused to marry him, and this treatment on her part had caused plaintiff to attempt to commit suicide. There were sixteen witnesses. Defendant said that plaintiff went, to her boardinghouse in February last year. He asked her to marry him "lots of times," but she had never promised to do so. She told him, "I would not think of sucfi a thing. My life was too sad first time I was married, and I will not be taken in again." She also told plaintiff she would not think of getting married while she had a big daughter in her house. She received through the post two letters which had been addressed by plaintiff to MihS Anna Schmidt, of Gilles Plains, and officially returned. One envelope was open, and she read the letter, which when translated from German to English, Baid :—: — "My Dear Annie, — Your dear and welcome letter I received, and was bo pleased. I cannot forget our last meeting. I can say I am very happy. I am longing to meet you, and I can hardly wait for the timu to spend another happy hour in your company, so that wo can make further arrangements, and settle the happy day when we will stand before the holy altar and your dear hand is clasped in mine, and 1 con say, My dear wife. You will never regret. Then you will get a good bravo man. I am all impatience to see you, my dear brido. I conclude, your everloving, Otto Pries." Defendant paid she spoke to Pries about thta nnd the other letter, and he replied they were only business communications. Witness added that he used to bring men to see her about marrying her daughter, and she used to say to him, "Get away with your tomfoolery : I can't be bothered with yon." (Laughter.) A^ked what plaintiff had offered Wally Schultz to marry her daughter, witness replied that it was £500, but Rdded that the cheque was no good. Plaintiff denied that he had written the letter to Annie Schmidt, or that he knew phcli a woman. Hi 1 * Honour said promising to marry must be' proved In tho same way as any .other contract. Plaintiff had tailed to do this. There was no doubt that there had been talk of marriage amongst the parties, and that Mrs. Glieber had given some encouragement in her efforts to get Elsie off her hands. After a keen cross-examination, during which some amusing evidence was elicited, plaintiff was noa-suitecl as to the claim for a breath, and a verdict was entered for defendant on the claim for mone-v expended in connection with the daughter's "wedding."