SINGULAR BREACH. OF PROMISE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6667, 31 March 1883, Page 2 (Supplement)

SINGULAR BREACH. OF PROMISE CASE.

Is the Court of Common Pleas, bofore Mr. Jntice O'Brien and a special jury, the case Of Kingsley v. Pelie was heard. It was an action by Thomas Haliday Kingslay, residing in London, to recover from the dofendant, Eliza Anne Piele, damages laid at £2000, for alleged breach of promise of marriage. The court was crowded. The defendant,- in lier statement, pleads that she did not agree to marry the plaintiff; that if there was a promise it was rescinded before the breach ; aril thirdly, she pleaded that she agreed t-> marry the plaintiff owing to the false and fraudeh nt representations of tho plaintiff that he had sufficient means to enable him to marry. In a counter action she claimed £100, which she alleges she lent the plaintiff. Plaintiff, in reply, denies that defendant has lent him any money. Mr. T. Macdermot, Q.C., in stating the case for the plaintiff, said his client was * gentleman. The lady's substantial defence ■was that she was misled by the plaintiff, vrho, she assorted, was guilty of fraud—not legal but moral fraud. She alleged that he pretended to have money or mraus which he had not. If it was true, the jury would have little consideration in coming to a verdictifor the defendant ; but he (counsel) would showby the lady .- letters that this defence was purely fictitious. So far back as the year 1564, the plaintiff was a resident pupil iu one of the Dublin hospitals, and was a chemical Clerk for the latu Sir Dominiek Corrigan.

la the year 1804 lie wa3 on intimate terms ■with the ilefemiant. In the same year the

plaintiff was only 14 or 15 yesr3 of age, am the d-fundaut was some 15 years his senior He was well known to the lady's family, auc was a particular friend of her brother. H was continually at her father's house. Ii the yc>:*r iSSO '.he plaintiff left for London where In? g.<!. amployment as a doctor's assis tant. Notwithstanding his change of resi aence, the lady was determined that eh< should not ioae him, and from IS7O to ISSI she pursued him with persistent and deter mined zeal. She pursued him by letters o the most affectionate character, and lated to provoke affectionate letters iu return She sometimes complained that ha did no reply to her 1 tters, ami although some o the letttrs commenced with "My dear Mr they ended "Yours affection ately," and v.-ith other endearing terms. 11 JS76 Miss Piele's father died and plaintit came over to the funeral. Ke stopped a the house, and there was some love-making Hiss Piule, he might mention, was left £301 or £400 by by the father. Toe plaintit returned to Loudon, and he wrote to thi defendant stating the condition of his affairs She, in reply, said she did not mind that She was quite satisfied to aiarry him. Ii the same year he told her that he was anxious to become qualiti -d as a surg-on, and sht said she could get him £100 to enable him tc do so. She did get him a loan of £iOO, anc that was the sum she sued for by counter claim. From the letters she wrote fron: 1576 to ISTShe (counsel) would read extract.' which wculd show that she wrote to him ir terms of love. Ia fact, her expressions ol lore far transcended those which came frorr him Indeed, the love appeared t.> be all on her side. In IS7S a coldness came about, and the marriage was broken off Although it was broken off, she had pointed out that they had not means enough to bo married, and then parted good friends. Coming on tc the year ISSI, the lady insisted on resuming the matter, and she went to London. She wrote from her hotel to him, asking " Did he still care for her The result was that they were formally engage.!, and various preparations had, of eourso, to be made for the marriage. The plaintiff had lived in a small cottage, for which he paid £20 a year, but in which he had a valuable interest. He had to give up this cottage, and a house hail to bo taken in London, iu order to take his future wile into it. Miss Piele went over to London, and she assisted him in hunting up for a residence, in which she was very hard to please. They tried St. John's Wood, Regent's I'ark, South Kensington, East Kensington, and Bayswater—in fact, almost every part of London brfore she was satiaried •with a kousa. The house he took at a rent of i'6o a year, and she selected a piper and described how she would like to have the house furnished. The plaintiff had to cive i:p his situation, and, in fact, broke up his establishment to be married. lie came over to Ireland in October of last year to be juarried, having gone to various expenses for the purpose. The lady suggested to him that lie should insure his life for £200, but he refused to do so ; and it was arranged there should be a marriage settlement by which he was to have a life interest in the •whole of her estate, with the remainder for the childr n : and if there were none it was to go to her family. Afterwards, instead of its being left an interest iu the whole of her property it wai reduced to a half interest. He had an annuity of £90, his mother left him £2 i a year, and he had £S0 as a doctor's as.si;tan f . The license had been got, the settlement signed, and the day fixed, yet no marriage took pHce. After the signing of the settlement the plaint ff said it would be well to have a smill sum of money fir immediate purposes. The defendant said it was not necessary to keep any sum out of the marriage settlement, as she had enough herself. This took place in the solicitor's oliice, and when they came out she commenced to Jipeak very hotly to him, and there was, in fact, something of a row. (Laughter.) He (counsel) believed that they parted in bad temper, but an appointment wa3 made. The next day plaintiff went to 43, Leeson Park, where she was living, aid the first thing the did was to walk up to him nad kiss hiro, saying. "Here is £20 to qo b.tck to Loudon. Let there be nothing more about the marriage." (Laughter.) He said the marriage could not be broken off then, that he hai given up his cottage and made himself liable r >r the rent oi the house, and had given up his situation. Ho pointed out that it wa3 distressing such a thing should occur at such a moment ; but it was all no xi3e. When it wa3 coming near the time of marriage, th» plaintiff being in London, the defendant wrote him saying that he should come over on Saturday in order to be married on Thursday ; that there was nothing to delay, as everything was settled ; and she added that she had to pay extra for the license. In a further letter she stated that he sh-uld be over on Monday to

be married on Friday. If not the marriage would be postponed indefinitely. His mother at the time was ill, and she reminded him that that lady was not to make their home her home. He came over, and they went to Mr. Pim, solicitor, to have the settlement papera signed. The plaintiff suggested that there should b>i a utim of £60set aside for expanses, , but she said "No," that she had £170 in i the bank ; but whoa they walked out she i immediately attached him, and said that ! he was greedy, and next day what took place he had already deßcribed. Mr. Kingsley. the plaintiff, was then examined, and stated that he first became acquainted with t.'ie defendant at St. James's, Monkstown, where he formerly was living. Her brother, through whom lie became acquainted with her, was a medical student, and they were very friendly with eich other. He positively everted that he made no false representations to Mra. Piele, who was perfectly aware of bis circumstances. He did not know at first taat she had money. Ihe plaintiiT then corroborated the statement of counsel as to his relations with the defendant, and stated that after the settlement had been signed in Mr. Pirn's ofhee, and when she came outsi le, she reviled hue and atked him jeeringly "Could he pay for a cab?'' He did get a cab, and still she kept on abusing him. When they arrived at her place she called out to her sister, " Oh, he lias nothing ; ho has only £95 a year." Tne plaintiff u\is cross examined at great xc-ugth. He said be loved the defendant deeply. He lias not got his doctor's degree yet- A Uoc';or Curtis had at one time au otbee in Lis cottage, and the plaintiff got a per-contige on the case 3, besides £20 a year lent. Did not know Dr. Curtis's address. .Defendant hurt an annuity of £95 from a gentleman in San Francisco. He thought (krendant s!:<i himself would get on well together, He represented to her that ho had between. 170 and £200 a year, and he waa under tl:i .■iiprcssioii that she had between ;uv' X. 00 per annum ; hut in that he vas mistaken. He admitted that iu order to avo : I »ori£ tro iblod by a Mr. Harris, who in»H a ■- 11 o. his, lie took, the name of Stanley wliieh l -as not yet ven up. Defendant';! ujuusji ' -tended that plamtiil''was a desigai::r, her.r- -a f-llmv, and the lady had n marvellous • scape from him. Defendant iu cnid-oxam ition, said she told plaiatiir she could r.ot marry him, as she did not want to end her days iu a poorhoust*. and he agreed to I. the engagement drop. The jury found that there was a promise of marriage, hut it wus obtained by a fraud, aiid a farthing damages. On the counter claim tliey found that the plaintifl' owed the lady £100. The- Judge accordingly gave udgmeat for the i.itendant.