An Amusing Breach of Promise Case

Evening Star, Issue 8767, 7 March 1892, Page 4

An Amusing Breach of Promise Case

On December 16 last, in No. 2, Qaeen’s Bench Court, Dublin, before Mr Justice Gibson and a common jury, un amusing breach of promise of marriage case was tried. The plaintiff, Maria M'Auley, and the defendant, Michael Mahon, are both of the farming class, and reside near Kiloleagh, County Westmeath. Damages were laid at L 3.000. The defendant denied the alleged promise, and pleaded that no cause of action had occurred within six years before the bringing of the present proceedings, Counsel for the plaintiff—Messrs Adams, Q.C., O’ShaughncEsy, Q D., aud Condon (instructed by Mr Gerald Byrne). For the, defendant—Messrs Carson, Q C., and C. H. Teeliug (instructed by Mr P. J. Nooney). Mr Adams, Q. 0., in stating the case for the plaintiff, said there were elements in the action calculated to provoke a smile—first, because theparties were no longer young, having both arrived in middle age, and next, because the defendant nearly always had recourse to rhyme in conveying his sentiments towards the plaintiff, However amusing the case might be, it was a melancholy iustauco of a man keeping a girl banging on to him for years, and then giving her up. When the plaintiff was fifteen years old the defendant used to walk with her, and asked her to accept him as her lovrr, The defendant walked with the plaintiff frequently, and told her how much he loved her. She was at racos, where the defendant went about with her. The following lines were addressed to her by the defendant;

My dearest Maria, when first wo met, I chink that day I will never forgot, Sure you were but a child; Still in your childhood I could see Rich talent, pure virginity ; And all your nature (lulled. Oh ! do you mind that day, if you cm, Reluctantly he who took your hand Returning from the tact s ? No doubt sly Cupid aimed his darr, And pierced my unprotected heart, So neat the railway line. Ho again wrote :

Eternal union is my will, Could I bo siiro you love me still Oa principle of truth. Ia 1875 she asked him when they would be married, and, as be would not say, she broke it off. The next Sunday he renewed his offer ; and the Sunday after he watched her coming from the chapol, and give her a note containing the following effusion :

A load of dark distress Doth all my hopes repel, For to think you could express That choking word Farewell. Ho also wrote “ Why do you treat me so ? I cannot live without you. Do not punish in that manner any more. I will continue to come to see you, \ou need not thank me. I cannot help it. I entreat you to see me when you can. 1 could humble to no one but you, not my mother.” She then continued seeing him until the following autumn, but aa he made no definite arrangement, she again refused to aoe him, when he sent her the following verses:

Deep, deepening is tbe furrow Upon my careworn brow; My heart is filled with sorrow And weary wasting woe. To think no more wo meet or part, No more thou clingest to me, Though guardian of my heart— My Molly Dawn Maohree. No woman’s heart could resist this. She forgave him, He met her, and again promised to marry her soon, as he was going to settle with his father. A solemn contract was entered into that he would marry her when his father died. Things went on in this way until April, 1876, when he wrote to her in prose. He pretended to be impatient for the union. He wrote verses commencing in this style—

My days are as gloomy and dismal as night, Clouded o’er with distress when you’re not in mv sight. Now, star of the evening, rise up from your tea, And fling your effulgence one moment on me.

This girl, once a pretty girl, had to wait till she was now a middle-aged woman. She saw other girls happily matried while she was waiting for this man. He asked her to be faithful, and she was faithful. When his father died the defendant came iu for a large farm at a moderate rent, fixed by the Land Commission Court. He then renewed his promises, showed her a bundle of money and deposit receipts. He kept on this philandering. He brought her a piece of bridecake from hia sister’s wedding, and said; “Put this under your pillow and you’ll dream of me.” At length she found that be had cruelly dropped and discarded her, and was going to marry another woman. He thought she was too old for him, and then he went “ penning sonnets to the eyebrows ” of Miss Coffey. Maria M'Auley, the plaintiff, was then examined. She is about fifty years of age. She deposed that she knew the defendant since she was a child. He first commenced to pay attention to her when she was fifteen or sixteen. In 1870 she was at some races. This was tbs first time she “agreed,” He wrote her a great many letters in prose. In the letter referring to the races he said 11 Eternal union is my will.” In 1875 she asked him to break it off, but he was not satisfied, and it was renewed. She had had frequent conversations with him about marriage, and he told her he wouM marry her whenever his father died, even if it. were in twenty years, because her age made no difference. He would marry her whatever age she was. In a letter dated 1876 be said: “ May I

have the pleasure of changing your name into Mrs Mahon ?” Mr Justice Gibson: That Is very specific, Witness: Ho took a ring belonging to me as a pledge of our affection. Mr Justice Gibson: It is usually the other way—the lady gets the ring. When was the courtship broken off? Not till last Easter. His father died in 1888, but he had not made any move towards getting married. He kissed her frequently. The courtship went on till she heard the rumor that he was paying attention to Miss Coffey. She taxed him with it in Lent. She said she would take the LI,OOO he promised her. He said: “If you did a turn like this I’d be off to Australia.” She bad waited for years in expectation of his fulfilling his promise. She had plenty of suitors, Cross-examined by Mr Carson, QC. : Defendant was in every way her equal, except that he was inferior. His people were not always as wealthy as hers, He had often written letters to her, but she had lost them. She had kept the verses. Did be ever call you “ dearest ” in the prose letters ?—I think he did. Did he ever in these letters call you “ darling I think he did, There was not much about marriage, but there was love ?—I kept the verses because I thought they were pretty well done. He to d me he composed them all himself.

Mr Justice Gibson: You are not a poetess ? -No. r

Mr Carson: Did you ever show him any poems in Moore’s Almanac ?—Never. Whose are these verses ?—I suppose the effulgence of his own brain. Mr Adams pointed out that one of the poems written by the defendant was address to “ Mrs will be.” To Mr Justice Gibson: The defendant began to keep himself on the reserve when his father died.

In further cross-examination plaintiff said she saw the defendant after his father died, and he told her he was preparing a Paradise for her. She went to see his place, and he showed her the waterfall in the garden. She was in his father’s house on two or three occasions. She first suspected the defendant when he would not marry her about a year after his father died, She thought still be might do it. When he brought her the verses stating how he loved her he wrote only on one side, and he said " 1 want you to write one saying how you love mo,” She said: “Take this back, and write on the other side; you can do it better.” He took it home for a week, He called her " My lovely Annabella.” Mr Carson: What’s "My lovely Aunabella” ? *Mr Adams: The Italian for "Maria.” Miss Sheridan deposed that she often saw plaintiff and defendant together. Defendant told witness ho could not get married until after his father’s death, and that witness would be a bridesmaid. He said he would buy her a hat when she was bridesmaid.

Mrs Scott gave similar evidence. Defendant told her he would have her rooking the cradle for him yet. She had often seen his arm around Miss M'Auley’s waist, This closed the plaintiff’s case. Mr Carson, Q C., said the defendant was only a struggling farmer. The only date mentioned in the statement of claim was sixteen years ago, and accordingly the defence was that the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The defendant thought that after nineteen years the matter might be buried out of sight. There had never been any promise of marriage at all, and the case rested on the few bits of poetry copied from an almanac years before. The defendant, a man of apparently about sixty years of age, was then examined. He said ho was about forty-three. He had been at school with the plaintiff. He met her occasionally near the railway in 1875. It was there the boys and girls of the district met. Ho handed poems to the plaintiff. He composed none of them himself. He got the verses from Moore’s Almanac. He had not up to 1875 promised to marry her. Mr Justice Gibson; Did you ever court her ?—I did, sir. Cross-examination continued : The courtship commenced about 1875. He did not promise to marry her in 1870. He never promised to marry her when his father died.

Mr Justice Gibson : Why did you keep all this so quiet ?—She wished it as much as I did.

The witness, in further examination, denied the plaintiff’s statements as to the ring, the promise to give her LI,OOO, etc. Ho also denied the evidence of Mrs Scott.

Gloss examined by Mr Adams, Q 6.; Did you ever meet her coming from the races ?—I think not.

Cuunsei read four lines of poetry, which witness admitted he had taken from Moore’s Almanac, but part of it was bis own. He had translated it.

Did you ever make love to this girl ? Never.

Do you call this making love ? No doubt sly Cupid aimed his dart, And pierced my unprotected heart, So near the railway line. Where used you to meet?— Upon the railway line. Where did you got these lines ? The bitter wind is sweeping Across the railway line, The autumn hives are falling, And all the world ia dying. —I composed that myself.

Were you very anxious that this girl should keep all this courtship dark ?—No. You never wrote to her to keep these letters secret ?—No,

Did you write this: " Please let no eye perceive this ? ”—Yes. Why did you write that ? Because others might be laughing if she let them know.

You wrote—" May I have the pleasure of changing your name to Mrs Mahon ?” Did you mean by that to pretend to her that you intended to marry her ?—No ; I did not.

Counaal cross-examined the witness at considerable length aa to the sources from which he obtained a number of the poems which he sent to the plaintiff. Ho denied that they contained or suggested any promise of marriage, He admitted that they contained references to wedlock, but they did not say who was the girl to whom he was to be tied. He had given over poetry. There were no other witnesses examined. Mr Justice Gibson, in charging the jury, said he could have understood the defendant's case if he had said: “ True; I did once love the plaintiff, and might have married her, but that is long ago. It is all past and forgotten.” But instead of that he denied that he had ever made love to her at all. She seems to have kept their engagement to herself, and to have treasured up the rubbishy poetic effusions which had been read. Whether defendant composed these himself or simply cribbed them from Moore’s treasury was entirely immaterial. Poetry was the common method of expressing love at first, but after a while it gives place to prose. All the documents relied on in this case were of this poetic character, impregnated with gas, and of little real value. These long engagements frequently ended in disaster, and, in his (Mr Justice Gibson’s) opinion, short engagements were the only proper engagements. The defendant had made a lamentable exhibition of himself, and if the jury gave excessive damages against him the modest store of honesty which he possessed might disappear, and he might do what plaintiff said he had threatened to do—go away to Australia. It was a very peculiar thing that so many years were allowed to elapse before defendant was brought to book. The case was a pitiable one. They could not help feeling pity for both plaintiff and defendant, for both of them had been injured by these proceedings. The plaintiff had lust her opportunity of making a home for herself, and the defendant had been held np to public ridicule. The jury, after a few minutes’ deliberation, found for the plaintiff—damages, L 250. The result was received with some applause.