LOVE LETTERS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIII, Issue 113, 11 May 1909, Page 3

LOVE LETTERS.

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £50,

An amusing breach of promise case was heard in the County Court, Melbourne, last week, before Judge Box. The plaintiff was Nellie Brown, of Palmerston Street, Carltou, tailoress, and the defendant was William Henry Byham, of Warrnambool, tailor's cutter. Plaintiff claimed £500.

The defence was a denial of any promise or of any breach. . ■ The parties were a young couple, each a little over 22 years of age.

Counsel for the plaintiff said the engagement took place about the end of December, 1907, when plaintiff was on a visit to Warrnambool. She returned to Melbourne on January 17, 1908, and defendant from that on wrote to plaintiff long letters every second day, with postcards between times. In these letters1 he spoke of not being married for two years, as he wished to save money arid to get to one of the great cities before doing so. In August. 1908, he began to cool off, and referred to waiting four years, and said: "Of course, I would not become engaged until I see my way to get married shortly afterwards." He also said that he could not . blame

plaintiff is she left him for somebody else. In September, 1908, he wrote that he was not able to save money, and it was best that they should part, as he had found that they were totally unsuited to each other, and his love for her had not improved; and it would make them both miserable if they were to marry. Letters written by defendant to plaintiff were put in. The following are extracts from them: "February 20, 1908.— My Dearest Nell,— -I'i.y only wish is to make you happy and to place you in a position that I do not wish to place any of the other girls, as you know I do not wish to see you always a tailoress." "May s.—My Very Dearest Nell,— I was miserable Saturday and Sunday. I then began for the first time for the last two years to know I loved again, and knew that I misunderstood you, and then I had to write, as I could picture you alone and miserable also; and Monday after receiving your letter I could scarcely swallow my dinner. I only hope I-shall be able to mako up for it in the future, as I love you now, which I had not done I before, only liking you, but now knowing your true feeling, you have won me at last. I did not have the least idea you were so wrapped up in me, but it's only those who love can tell how sad it is to say farewell. Darling, I have learned that I have the best, truest, and most loving little woman m*the world for a sweetheart, and you have won by real love. The old love could not take me from you now if she wanted me, darling." "May 7.—My Own Dearest Girl,' Nell,—My love for you could not be deeper now. You are my only love, now, and always shall be; if you are always the same to me, as I have no doubt you always will be. Darling, I will love and work to make you happy." Mr Wasley, for the defence, contended that "there was never any real engagement between the parties. The couple were simply "keeping comoany." His Honor: Oh, I see; he was to have every privilege an engaged man would have, excepting that he was not to marry the girl—is that the cosition you take up? * Mr Wasley: That is so. - His Honor: He is to receive all the foyer's—what shall I say—symptoms? Mr Wasley: "Privileges" is the word your Honor wants. His Honor: Certainly ! Privileges, such as walking out with her at night —kissing her—arid, what was it you called it—"canoodling"—and all that. The only thing is he has to be' cautious, and not ask the girl to marry him, unless it is down in- black and white, and has the seal upon it. The judge, I suppose, is not to find out that young couple are engaged; they're only "canoodling." (Laughter). A verdict was given for plaintiff, with £50 damages.