BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 278, 3 December 1901, Page 4

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

CLAIM FOR £BO,OOO DAMAGES. [Auckland Herald Correspondent.] London, October 18. Ox Friday last the remarkable broach of promise action, brought by Mrs Catherine “ M’Ewan or Brodie,” formerly of New Zealand, in which sho claimed £BO,OOO damages from Mr David Macgregor, a Glasgow contractor, was reheard. I sent you very full reports of the previous trial of this curious case. It will be remembered that one feature consisted in the allegation by the defendant of certain improprieties on the part of the plaintiff with two different persons in New Zealand, which, however, the Lord Justice Clerk ruled to be inadmissible. This testimony does not seem to have been again tendered, the Appellate Court having upheld Lord liingsburgh’s ruling against it. The outcome of the first trial was that tho jury awarded Mrs Brodie £SOOO damages, instead of the £BO,OUO sho claimed. But tho defendant was not satisfied even with this large reduction, and appealed against the award as excessive. The Appellate Court uphold this view, and granted a [new trial, offering Mrs Brodie, however, tho alternative of consenting to a reduction of the damages to such sum as the judges might deem adequate. This would have saved the heavy exponse of a second trial. I havo strong reason to believe that had she agreed to this course she would have been awarded £IOOO as solatium for her disappointed hopes, and would havo oscapcd all the fresh costs which havo since been incurred. Apparently, however, she was not willing to agree to this plan, and so the second trial came off.

It lasted three days, and concluded last Monday. It was tried, as before, by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Kingsburgh, but with a different jury. Tho same counsel appeared, and much of the evidence was identical.

Mrs Brodie, tho pursuer, examined by Mr Guthrie, again went over her history. Counsel for tho defendant admitted that his client’s means exceeded £IOO,OOO.

Mr John Sharp, who had acted as a business agent for tho defendant, said ho obtained at Mrs Brodio’s request a form of petition before the Sheriff. Ho supposed the object of this was “ to try and get hold of.defendant in some way or other.” A meeting, continued tho witness, took place in my office, at which the pursuer and defendant and I were present. Tho marriage was talked about then, and he went on denying the promise. I suggested that some agreement should be come to, and, taking up a piece of paper, wrote to the effect: —“l, David Macgregor, agree to marry Mrs Brodie, or, in case of not doing so, to give her sum of money.” Mr Macgregor filled in the sum of £2OO. Mrs Brodie afterwards filled in £23,000 or £30,000. Tho sums were so far apart that I saw it was useless to bother any longer, and I threw tho paper in the fire. After that meeting I had nothing further to do with the parties in relation to this question.

Mr D. Maegregor, the defendant, said ho was 62 years of age. He denied that he had over proposed or promised marriage to Mrs Brodie, nor had he ever indicated any intention to marry. Counsel: Did the lady on some occasions suggest that you should marry her ?

Her remark was that I ought to marry or to got married. She was perpetually speaking on that sort of business. Sho spoke in a general way, but I thought her meaning was that I should marry herself. Was she anxious that you should marry her ?

Certainly sho was. If I had wanted to marry there was nothing to prevent me. It was not true that I had a seuliie with tho pursuer, and tried to knock her down. Dr Whitson asked me by letter to call for Mrs Brodie, and some time after receiving that letter I called and saw her in her bedroom. I was there about 10 minutes. I ceased calling for her in June because I thought sho was quite an unsuitable person for mo to keep company with. From the first time sho met mo I thought sho was trying to weave her web around me, and was endeavoring to entrap me.

Can you explain, as a sane man, wiry when you thought this woman was trying to entrap you into marriage you continued to call upon her once a week, and sometimes oftenor?

Sho was perpetually inviting me to call. Other evidence having been called the Lord Justice Clerk summed up. Lord Kiugsburgh pointed out that with reference to the very disagreeable and sad incident in her life which resulted in her receiving .£IO,OOO from a man who had wronged her undoubtedly if she was going to marry another man and did not reveal that incident to him that would be sufficient reason for his refusing to carry out the promise. The jury, after an absence of half an hour, returned a unanimous verdict for the pursuer, aud assessed tho damages at £•300. They were of opinion that the pursuer was not debarred from maintaining the promise, and that the defender had promised her marriage. It appears that just before tho trial began Mr Maegregor made an offer of .£ISOO and all expenses. This was refused, and now the plaintiff gets one-third of that sum.