BREACH OF PROMISE CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 September 1930, Page 11

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE

“A CAD AND A COWARD.” Love letters quoting scripture, hymns, and original poetry could be sung to the tune of “Annie Laurie,” were referred to at the hearing of a recent breach of promise marriage case at Manchester, in w^ c “ defendant was a, local preacher. The action was brought by Miss Doris Hartley, aged 27, hairdresser, of Settle, against Mr Richard Fothergill, builder and contractor, of Colne. “It is one of the most serious cases of breach of promise ever before these courts,” remarked Mr J. C. Jackson, K.C., who appeared for Miss Hartley. “Defendant is a local preacher, a man who talks about his religion. After hearing the evidence you may think it is all hypocrisy.” Mr Jackson said that Miss Hartley became engaged to Fothergill in 1923. At the time her parents were living in affluence at Colne, with servants, a chauffeur, and a splendid home. It Was while the was building a garage at the girl’s house that the 11 couple first met, and from that time the man seemed to have courted her. At the time Miss Hartley was training foi a career as a singer, but owing to Fothergill’s persuasions abandoned her training, which, after so long a break, could not now be resumed. In 1925 defendant gave plaintiff an engagement ring. When the cotton slump came her father lost all his money, and the jury would probably come to the conclusion that was the reason Fothergill broke off the engagement. After this Fothergill inherited an old-established business of builder and contractor and began throwing out remarks in regard to their altered positions in life. There were tiffs and the engagement was broken off twice, in 1926 and 1927. In 1928, however, at defendant’s request the engagement was resumed. In May, proceeded Mr Jackson, Fothergill gave Miss Hartley the engagement ring again. He did not give it in April because his mother had been wearing it and was reluctant to part with it. A letter that Fothergill wrote to Miss Hartley ran as follows: — “My only darling Doris and wife-to-be, —I am proud of you, and whatever has happened before that has displeased me, I forgive and will forget. And so it means I have faith in you and trust apd love you even more than I have done in the past during my early It is grand to feel and know we both forgive one another and to have that perfect peace and understanding; that we shall try and help each other; yes, even till death do us part. It was on Saturday you gave me the assurance that whatever happened I was to you the man. I hope you will never be disappointed.” “MY DEAR MISS MUFFET.” Then Fothergill went on to quote the hymn, “Lead, Kindly Light,’ with the following verse: — I was not ever thus, nor prayed that thou Should’st lead me on.

I loved to choose and see my path, but now Lead thou me on.

Other letters were addressed, “My dear Miss Muffet,” and signed, “Your loving sweetheart, Dick.” Another letter stated, “I have a brain-wave, a bit of poetry:— My dearest love, my Doris, I love you so, my dearie, Your lips I long to kiss, Because you’re Doris Hartley. Your lips as pure as a rose, Because I love you so. And your smile it is the cause Of captivating my soul.

“The above,” continued the letter, “may go to the tune of ‘Annie Laurie.’ ”

Mr Jackson added that Fothergill suddenly grew cold and complained because Miss Hartley could not play games as well as other girls. She told him she had not had the chance, as she had had to care for her mother, and he said he did not want her to be a “glorified charwoman.” For some time plaintiff did not hear from defendant, and when eventually she wrote to him he replied breaking the engagement and asking hei’ to return his letters. He became engaged to a rich lady, and early this year there was a fashionable wedding.

Miss Hartley gave evidence that she was now earning £2 10/- a week as a hairdresser. Her father was senior partner in Hartley and Company’s cotton mill, Colne, but when the slump came he broke down in health and lost all his money. Fothergill taunted her with her changed position. For the defence, Mr Neville Laski intimated that he was not calling any evidence, whereupon Mr Jackson, pointing at the witness-box, declared dramatically: “It. would require more courage than the writer of those letters possesses to go into that box. It brands him not only as a cad, but a coward. You have heard his letters calling on his God and his Christ, and calling the girl every endearing term he could. And having placed it on record that the girl agreed to break it off he has not the courage to go into (the box and face cross-examination. It just shows what a canting hypocrite •he is.” The jury awarded Miss Hartley £lOOO damages.