AN EXRAORDINARY BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6936, 9 February 1884, Page 2 (Supplement)

AN EXRAORDINARY BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

f , » — '•■ ■;.■■■ liri the Queen's Bench -Division, before Mr. Justice Cave and a common jury, the case of Jackson v. Cutler was heard. This was an action to recover damages ior an alleged breach of promise.of marriage. Mr. Uigby Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Forbes Lankeater were" counsels for the plaintiff; Mr. Willis, Q.C., and Mr. Roumiest represented the defendant, Mr. Frank Egerton Cutler. It apperred that the defendant wan the son of the late rector of Brixhaic, Devonshire,' arid the plaiutiffs friends resided in the neighbourhood6i Cambridge. In the autumn ov last year the plaintiff met the defendant at tbe-'-JPfoyal Aquarium, Westminster, shal J immoral life at the time. He , , eaw her three or four times, and in the October following promised her marriage. On the "29th of that month, however, he declared that "conscience had triumphed over sin," ■ and that the engagement must be btoken off. On the Ist of December it was arranged that the plaintiff should return his presents and letters, and she did so, rereceiving from his solicitors £30 as compensation. Whilst, however, the plaintiff was witb. the''solicitor for this purpose the defendant that the marriage , notwithstanding, lake place, for he bought a wedding ring; and gave notice to be Registrar for the marriage on the following Monday. He, however, did not keep the appointment for the marriage; the aatffcer was then finally broken off, and the present action was instituted. Miss Jack- > 80D, - the plaintiff, a faahionably-dresaed /Oang lady, said her correct name was Eliza Ellington, but since leaving her home she iofcd ;gone by the name of Nellie Jackson. She was the daughter of a furmer in Camhridge. She left her home at the beginning <rf; list- year.' She went into some sort of Bituatton in London, but afer a little while she took-rooms in Clarendon-street, Pimlico. Iα May she met defendant at the Aquarium, add be accompanied herShome.' After that Bhasaw him' pretty' often, and be told her that he was' the son of the'rector of Brixhftm, - Devonshire.- Hβ asked her if she

would like to get married, and she replied that she Had nothing to get married for. A month afterwards lie mentioned the subject again, and she then said that ahe would like to get married; One evening she dined at the Continental, and they subsequently went to the theatre together. Whilst there the defendant said he would marry her, and take her out to the Cape. On the 26th of Ootober he threw a letter at her. In that letter he addressed her as " Dearest Nellie," and suggested that she should take an inn down in -Cambridge, and that he _ would marry her from her home. She fell in with the idea with regard to the inn, but said she would not like to live'in the same village as her father and mother. The defendant was anxious that the marriape should take place before Christmas. On the 29fch she received another letter from him, and on this occasion addressed her aa "My dear Mies Jackson." ■ This was the letter in which he spoke of his conscience, and breaking off the engagement. She replied two days later, addreeaing him as "My Dear Frank," and saying that he had placed her in a very false position, whioh she was unable to get out of, adding that she should expect him to fulfil his promise.' At the same time she wrote to his father, addressing the letter to the Kev. Egerton Cuther, but the next day tho defendant came up from Devonshire, bringing the letter with him, and stated that it had not got into his father's hands.' He asked her to break off the engagement, and offered her £100 to do so, but she said she wanted him, - not his money. He seemed in great distress,_ and thereupon she consented to see his solicitors. While the visits to the solicitors were taking place he said to her, " It is folly for us to quarrel, which would you rather have, me or the £100?" She replied, "I do not want your £100." He told her to take whatever the solicitor offered her. On the same occasion he gave her a wedding ring, and said he should go to Mount-street, Grosverior Square, and take out a license. On the Bth of December she again went to the solicitors, who prepared an agreement, in obedience to what" defendant told her. On her return she again saw the defendant, who placed the wedding ring on her fiuger, and 'bold her that he had taken out a license at the Mount-street Registry, and that the wedding was to take place on MoDday, December 11th. The defendant left her, but, as-he did not put in an appearance on the 11th, she proceeded to the registry, where she discovered that the license had been cancelled the day after it was issued. She went straight down to Brixham, where she saw the defendant, who told her to go back to town the way she had come. Cross-ex-amined by Mr. Willis : She did not know that the defendant was 21 years of age when she first saw him- He told her that he was 23. When she met him at the Aquarium she was in the habit of receiving visits from gentlemen.* He paid her when he first went borne with her. In the morning he spoke to her of marriage, but she did not then believe that he wanted her. During one of the subsequent visits he informed her that he was the son of a Devonshire olergyman, and that he was engaged to be married to a young'lady there, but he did not say he was engaged with the sanction of his parents. In one of his letters to her from Brixham ho said, " I ehall not break off my engagement now, as I have been treated lovingly lately, and do not feel as if I could. However, I will not forget you, Nellie, dear, and if you write me I 'will answer jour letters. It is a good, thing I am not living near London, for I should be always wanting to be with you, and you know I could not afford that." She supposed that that was in reference to the payments he was in the habit of making to her. Her father had been a farmer in Cambridgeshire, bnt was reduced in circumstances. She could not say that her father was now a labourer, because she had not seen.her for two years. The defendant did not tell her that he had nothing but what be expected from his father. She made enquiries into his position. In another letter to her the defendant arid, "I have come to my senses again, and, though I like you'very much, I feel that I could never marry -you. - As I am the eldest son of an old English family I have to keep up the line, and I will not raise any more false hopes in-your breast;." Notwithstanding that, she fully believed that the defendant intended to marry her, and that his father would sanction the marriage, he being a clergyman of the Church of England. When, she was., receiving the visits of the defendant another man was looking after her —not keeping ; her—and paying her £5 a, week until he could get; a business for her. Mr. ..Robert ; Welborn, -Deputy-Superinten-dentßegistrar a.t the Mount-street Registry, produced the copy of an application at his office on the B<;h December, last, by. Frank Egerton Cutler, gentleman, residing at Brixham, for a liceniie to marry Eliza Ellington. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. Mr. Frank Egea-ton .Cutler, the defendant, said he lived at Brixham. He admitted that there was a' promise to marry plaintiff prior to the "Bth of December last, but he denied that there was any promise made, or any-ring given -after that date. Cross-ex-amined' by' Mr. Lankester: There were many points on which he disputed accuracy of the plaintiff's-evidence. It was not true that he told' her to sign anything his solicitors might give her, and that he said the agreement was a farce. He told her to take whatever - money was offered her, but he did not say it would do for the trosseau. He certainly regarded the agreement as a release. ■ Although he told her to go to the solicitors' office, he then certainly intended to marry her, but when she came back au- , , told him what she had signed, he said to himself, " I will not marry you now. Theru is no occasion for me to do so"—(laughter), Mr. Lankester :. I will ask you no further question,- Mr. Cutler. After the learned counsel had addressed tho jury, the Judge summed up the evidence, remarking that neither of the parties was entitled to much sympathy- at the hands of the jury. He thought at first the' defendant was simply fond, and foolish, but, after hearing his evi-. dence, the jury, would probably think that there'was a good deal of the scoundrel about him in having cheated his father by getting £30 out of him, still intending to marry the plaintiff. He .afterwards saw the release which she: had;signed, and he then turned round, and tried to cheat her too. J?Lo had received £30, and it - was for the jury to decide how much she was entitled to, remembering the sort of character she had admitted herself to' be. After half an hour's consideration, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages £150.