Humorous Breach of Promise Case.

Evening Star, Issue 7141, 19 February 1887, Page 1 (Supplement)

Humorous Breach of Promise Case.

♦ In tho Queen's Bench division, on December 1, Mr Justice Day was engaged in hearing an action brought by Miss Emma Parker, daughter of a jeweller at Bow, against Mr Alexander Stephens, manager of one of Lock hart's cocoa rooms in London, to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage. The defendant admitted the promise, but pleaded that a reasonable time had not elapsed for its performance. The action was commenced in Novemler, 1884, by the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff heroelf being at the time under age, but was not proceeded with until the banns were published for the defendant's marriage with another young lady, which took place in April of this year. The plaintiff and defendant first met at a Sunday school festival at the Crystal Palaco, in the year 1880, when the plaintiff's age was seventeen, and the defendant's over twenty. They fell in love at once, and soon afterwards became engaged. The young lady's father objected to the marriage taking place until she was twenty-one years of age, but eventually it was arranged that it should come off in September, 1883. The date was postponed until March, 1884, owing to the death of a brother of the defendant. Up to that time matters went on smoothly. The banns were put up in the beginning of that month t but the wedding was again put off, owing to the death of a sister of the defendant at Darlington, where his relatives lived, and where his presence was required. His parents being in reduced circumstances, he had brought them up to London with two young brothers, and took a house for them, placing in it some furniture he had from time to time bought at sales in view of his marriage with the plaintiff. Difficulties now arose. The plaintiff declined the defendant's invitation to go and see his mother, as long as the furniture he had bought for the plaintiff remained in the house, and the defendant in consequence refused to go and see the plaintiff at her father's house. A correspondence ensued by letter, and on the plaintiff's eidc it was ultimately conducted by her father, until it went into the hands of her solicitor. In refe' rence to her father's interference, the defendant, writing to him, told him: "I made no engagement with you. I did not even ask you for your daughter. She and I managed that between ourselves."— (Laughter.) The plaintiff*, in giving her evidence, insisted that the defendant was induced to break off the engagement through the interference of two brothers, who objected to her on religious grounds, they being Wesleyans, and one being of opinion that she was not a good enough Christian to be the defendant's wife. Another brother advised him to marry a pawnbroker's daughter at Darlington who had a fortune. Speaking of this situation, the defendant said to the plaintiff that he was " fixed between God and mammon."— (Laughter.) A brother of the plaintiff stated that shortly before the engagement was finally broken off the defendant started a conversation with him about breach of promise cases, and expressed the opinion that the laws in regard to breach of promise of marriage were wrong, and ought to be abolished. The defendant was called in support of his case, He said that after the last postponement he could get no answers from the plaintiff to his letters. He had been induced to believe that the plaintiff's father was at the bottom of it all. Defendant had accordingly gone to the house and seen Mr Parker, who had asked him why he did not marry his daughter like a man. He had not much opportunity for an explanation, as there was the father on his right, the mother on the left, and the plaintiff herself in front of him, while her two sisters brought up the rear. They all talked at once, telling witness, as far as he could gather, that there was no excuse for his wishing to suspend the publication of the banns or postpone his marriage. He had pointed out that he had neither means nor home for a wife, unless he took the furniture away from his old mother, which he had said he would never do. The plaintiff had then said that she would make him marry her, if he had to take her to a workhouse. The defendant stated that he had replied that he would only marry her in his present condition if she would sign a letter to the effect that she married him knowing how poor he was and what sort of a home he could offer her. Her father would not allow her to sign any such agreement. After that interview it appeared a correspondence ensued, and ultimately the father wrote to the defendant saying that he would give him one month in which to fulfil his promise, and if the defendant failed in doing so he should take such steps he considered best under the circumstances. The defendant did not answer this letter, because he meant to deal directly with the daughter. He and a friend endeavored for aome time to get a letter delivered to the plaintiff herself by hand in the street. In making that attempt he was attacked by one of the plaintiff's sisters. She set to scratching his face, and it was a good thing for him that her gloves were on.—(Laughter.) After he was married, the plaintiff, seeing the defen dant walking out of doors with his wife, went up to the latter, and said "I don't know, miss, if you are aware that this young man (the defendant) is in a breach of promise case."—(Laughter.) The defendant told her that tho miss was his wife; and she added, " I thought it right, miss, in justice to my sex, to inform you."— (Laughter.) The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with judgment for LlOOand costs.

After hearing part of the evidence in uu affiliation case at Welliugtou a few days ago, an adjournment was granted. Mr Wardell, R.M., looking at the infant which was the subject of the action, said the poor little thing did not look as if it would trouble anybody much longer, and told the mother that she need not bring the baby to Court again. The mother looked at her offspring and then at the alleged father in the dock, and replied that if it was all the same to His Worship she would prefer to bring it, because the public arid the witnesses could see how very much like the child was to its father. The First Law of Gravity.—Never laugh at your own jokes.