AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6811, 15 September 1883, Page 2 (Supplement)

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

Jodgmevt has been delivered in the Queen's Bench Division.. London, by Mr. Justice Stephen, in. an action of a remarkable character. All the parties concerned in it occupy . good social positions, and the plaintiff,, previous to the present etpose. moved in the most fashionable society in Yorkshire, and is a lady of great personal charms and considerable Culture. Mrs. Jouas Brown, the lady in question, sought to obtain specific performance of au agreement entered into with the defendant, Mr. Riley Briggs, a. gentleman residing at Leeds, i;nd-r which she was to receire an annuity >)f £3JO a year. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that, as he alleged, the agreement was entirely voluntary, or in the alternative that the consideration for it was immoral. Mr, Cookson, Q.C., in stating the case for the plaintiff, said the defendant was a widower, his wife having died some years ago, leaving four children. The plaintiff undertook services, in connection with the education of the children, and, being of an iswthetic turn Ot mind, the learned counsel said, she assisted in selecting the furniture for a large houge. Having, rendered nlbstantial services to the defendant she receired from him a cheque, for £2000. which she did not present for payment, but A terWatds handed over in return, for the annuity. Of the annuity i-he reaoived three quarterly payments of £75 each, being the amount due up to the beginning of July, 1881. Since that time She had not received anything. Giving evidence in the witness-box,, the i plaintiff said that by the agreement si-e was to receive £300 a year, and a settled sum of . £6000 in the event of the defendant's death. —Cross-examined by Mr. Bompts, Q.C., on b;-ha!£ of the defendant, she denied that for years before ISSQ Mr. B-iggs spent £1000 a j year upon her. She received some dresses along with dresses ordered for his children. She was on terms of intimacy with him some time before 1880, after the death of Mrs, Briggs, and before the agreement was ma- e. She received the cheque for £2000 from Mr. Brigg3 to induce her to give up study ng for the musical profession, and not, as alleged, to induce her to stay at Leeds instead of going to London and meeting there with other gentlemen, — Re-examined by Mr, (Herbert Reid, the plaintff said she was married to her husband when Bhe was a very y.ouug girl. Mr. Briggs was a good deal older than herself, and Was a great friend of her husband'a. The settlement wax made because two of her children wra Mr, Briggs'. She had to keep these children, he being, a rich man, and she being a woman without a penny. The cheque and pap-rs she bad were handed over by her to Mr. North, a solicitor in Leeds, acting for the defendant, and she did s\ on the express understanding that nothing should be given up until matters wefe arranged; but that understanding was not carried out.—Mr. North was called, and stated, in answer to Mr. BompaS, that Mr. Briggs had refused to recognise any cKim of the pUin tiff's against him, and while prepared to do what he ought to do, insisted that first of all everything must be given up. Ho told that to the plaintiff. Who thereupon handed him the papers, which were afterwards handed, to Mr. Bfjggs, who insisted on having them. He (the witness) acted not professionally, but merely as a friend between the parties, and he tried to do the beat for the plaintiff in the circumstances. He negotiated with her about the payment of her debts. Mr. Brigas' obj-ction was that she had a large amount of jewellery, by realising whiqh the could piy what debt* she owed. The arrangement wag to end all interviews and everything.—Cross examined by Mr. Reid,' the witness said Mr. Briggs I had a-ked him whether the disclosures made by the plaintiff were not a breach of the agreement, and he replied that he consider d tiiey -were.—Mr. Bompas submitted this point to the learned judge, as ?11 as the points relating to consideration for the agreement, asking his birds-hip to say that there was no agreement of which specific perfo m ance could be merved | hia judgment at the time, Mr. Justice Stephens now held that the agreement was | void, iud commented strongly on the scandal of such an agreement having been entered into, as it was, while the plaintiff was Btill living with her husband, and he waa not aware of it.