A BREACH OF PROMISE CARE.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 34, 27 June 1877, Page 3

A BREACH OF PROMISE CARE.

Lambert v. Hodgson.—ln this ease the plaintiff was a young lady of about twenty ywuft of age and very pretty. She was tho daughter of the proprietor or the Fleece Hotel, the principal, or one of the principal, hotels in Darlington. The defendaut was the clerk of tbe Poor Law Guardian* and Assessment Committee ot Darlinstod. He became engaged to the plaintiff when she was about eighteen years of age. Mr Digby Seymour, Q.C., in opening tbe case, read many of the letters which had passed between the parties, commenting strongly on the latter ones and the excuses they contained. In * 1873 the plaintiff first made the defendant's acquaintance, and she beoame en» gaged to him in the year 1875. The engagement was mentioned by the defendant to the plaintiff's father, and after it had been sanctioned by him it was settled that she was to be married when she was nineteen, which would happen in August, 1876. In August, however, tbe defendant, instead of being delighted at the arrival of If that period, began to say that he really had not sufficient money to keep a house. The plaintiff's father, thinking this was really his difficulty, and not suspecting it was a mere excuse, promised to buy a house for the young couple, and on October 61 h, the defendant wrote that ho thought the proposed house was not worth the money, and that he certainly should not want it till next June. This, though somewhat unlike tho conduct of an eager lover, does not appear to have opened the •yes of the young lady or her parents to the real feelings or intentions of the defendant, for later on in the autumn of 1876 there was a dramatic entertainment in Darlington, at which the defendant took • part. The young lady went to see he^ betrothed act, accompanied by some friends, it being arranged that the friends need not take her back to her home after tbe entertainment, as tho defendant had expressed himself as delighted to under* take that task. At the close of the entertaiment the lady waited, bat waited in vain, for her loved one, and at length, much to her disgust, as it seemed, had to ro home alone. He afterward* went to make excuses for his conduct to the young lady, who, however, seemed to hare then been in no mood to extend to him her immediate forgiveness. This tardiness was the more inexcusable because during the latter part of the evening be had merely acted as the stage prompter, end go had no stage costume to get na of. Prom this time the attentions of the defendant to the young lady waxed less frequent and more feeble, though did not yet cease. On December 6ib, 1876, the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs— " Dear Amelia,—lf you only knew how difficult it is for me to begin and write this letter, I think you would almost pity me. I have been afraid all on that this would make you ill, but I want to tell you the truth, and you ask me to do it. You say thai- for months you have noticed the \ change that has come over me. I can 1 stand it no longer; my health is broken '■ down with the worry, and my nerves almost completely shattered. First, of course, has been the terrible change at home, where for months past we have been almost estranged, especially my sisters, and they have been at all times as ill as possible ; and then, again, to take them out, but once qr twice I have asked , you to let me, and I must say you have i not always objected," &o. Tho defendant, ] when asking tbe young lady's father to allow him to marry his daughter, told him chat he had an annual income as clerk of £400 or £500 a year, in addition to which he had various agencies. Soon after the above letter, the engagement was finally broken off by the defendant, who alleged various excuses for his conduct, and among others, that his mother did not like the match. The defendant, it appeared, was either thirty-three or thirty five years of age. Ma Cave, Q.C., for the defendant, said he did not dispnte the promise, or that it was broken by his client, but he should address the jury as to tbe damages without calling evidence, Mr Digby Seymour, Q.C., accordingly, having summed up his case in a speech which elicited a good deal of applause in court, Mr Cove, Q.C., suggested that the view of his pecuniary position taken by a man on the verge of matrimony when addressing his intended father-in-law was always a singularly hopeful one, and that it was probable the income was not quite as good as had *been stated < He further dwelt on the fact that no real or actual injury bad been done to the young lady, and humorously maintained that his client was the true loser and entitled to compensation, the young lady being, so far as expectations were concerned, in a better pecuniary position than his client, and unquestionably much prettier and younger. The leafned judge having summed up, tbe jury found for the plaintiff—damages, £500.