Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE

WEDDING CEREMONY STOPPED. PLAINTIFF AWARDED £IOO DAMAGES. A breach of promise action brought by Annie Lydia Rice, of 48 Bettington street. Miller’s Point, against James Llewellyn Lloyd, blacksmith’s striker, was concluded in the District Court at Sydney on November 10. Judge Rogers awarded plaintiff a verdict for £IOO. Rev. Edward G. Noble said that on tho 29th August last, about 6.30 p.m., be was marrying a couple, when a young woman came’ forward and objected to tne marriage. He held up his hand and asked for quietness, as they were in God’s bouse. On Saturday morning the intended, bridegroom asked if the wedding could be postponed, as his young lady wished it put off. Ho told him that a young lady nnd called that day and asked if the marriage was to take place that evening. In that case, said tho young man, lie would go on with it. Defendant’s brother and sister came that evening and told him that defendant already had a sweetheart, and warned him against marrying the parties. Consequently ho was not surprised at what took place in the church. The verger came to him while ho was in the vestry, and told him there were people inside and outside the church who had revolvers, and that ho had already rung up for the police. Witness stopped the ceremony. He did not want any police interference. Ho quietened down the parties, and they dispersed. It was a most dreadful occurrence, and he did not want another. When asked whether ho would go on with the marriage, he told the parties that they had better go soniewhero else. Ho did not refuse to marry them. Richard Thorp Rice, father of plaintiff, said ho had known defendant lor over three years. When he first camo ho asked permission to keep company with his daughter. Witness replied: “Yes; but, remember, no funny business.” It was about two years ago that defendant said he was going to make a homo for himself and plaintiff. He used to call witness “ dad ” and the girl’s mother “ raa.” Defendant, James Llewellyn Lloyd, said ho had known plaintiff for about three vears and a-half. He had gone out with her. but had never asked her to marry him. He gave her a ring on her last birthday as a present. She had told him she was going to got married to him next Easter, and he replied : “ But I am not taking you.” He had not announced an engagement with plaintiff, as had been said.° He used “to walk with her.” Ho had not “walked out” with plaintiff or with his present wife at tho same time. He commenced “walking out” with his present, wife about nine weeks after he fell out with plaintiff. She had told him she did not want him, and he went home. He denied having consulted tho father of plaintiff regarding the. purchasing of land for a home. He had won a £SO tournament at Newtown, which only netted him £lB after paying for his sparring partner. He was devoted to his religion, and one night said he would not change his religion to marry any girl. A photograph had been taken of Inc wedding group. ' His Honor; Were all the accomplices there ? Witness : Yes. To Mr Bertram witness said ho had , walked out with a girl prior to meeting ; plaintiff. He was a bit of a bruiser, j but did not teach boxing. He did not know a girl named •' Flossie Lloyd.” He did know a ''Rosie” Leiw. An order by concent had been made against him in the children's court for preliminary expenses in 1912 in connection with her. He was hard of hearing, and did not understand what it was all about. Frederick Ernest Wright said he was married to a sister of Lloyd. Plaintiff had never said the ring she had received from Llovd was an engagement ring. Mrs Charlotte Lloyd, mother of defendant. said she had’ known plaintiff for some time through her daughter. No word of marriage between the parties had ever been mentioned. His Honor gave a verdict for plaintiff for £IOO.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19141128.2.35

Bibliographic details

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE, Issue 15662, 28 November 1914

Word Count
694

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE Issue 15662, 28 November 1914

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.

Working