CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9130, 11 August 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

A GROCER SUING A NURSE. In the Queen's Bench Division, on June '28, a curious suit for breach of promise of marriage was tried. The peculiar feature of it was that the plaintiff was a man. The plaintiff was about -4 years old, and the defendant was some four or five years older. The promise was not denied, but it was staled that the defendant had been exonerated from the performance of it. In opening the case, it was stated that the plaintiff, William Welsh, was in ISS7 a grocer's assistant, at Surbiton, and in April of that year he had to go into the Cottage Hospital there. Defendant, Miss Rose Reeks, was at that time nurse, and in that capacity had charge of the plaintiff. Very soon there were passages of affection between them, but there was 110 distinct promise of marriage until Jubilee Day. The defendant herself was more the wooer than the wooed, and in one of her letters she wrote that she " had been seeking his friendship more than ho hers.'' It. was stated that at this time the plaintiff was earning £1 a week, whilst the defendant had £100 a year and " everything found," and that beyond this she had "expectations from her friends." One of the letters of the defendant was read. She addressed the plaintiff as " -My dear old boy,"and she said, " What in the wide world have you to reproach yourself with ? You said you liked me better than a sister; that is nothing after all. It is very kind of you to propose going away and forgetting, but do not do it. 1 could not do without you. A man lias no right to tell a woman he likes her better than a sister, and then leave her to guess the rest." Other letters of the defendant were handed to His Lordship for his perusal. The plaintiff was called to make out his case. He said that after the engagement the defendant did not wish her friends to know of it, as they would not think him sufficiently educated for her. He answered her letter of July '26, but could not tell what lie said. When the engagement was made, she said that it would bo best that lie should leave the neighbourhood, as her friends would not approve of it. He, therefore, left, and went into a situation at Holloway. It was arranged he should go abroad ; she said that she could not marry him among her friends in England, but that she would get married the day that he was to sail, and join him afterwards. He understood that she would come into money —about £1000. He received a letter from a Mrs. Howell, who spoke of " the request of Nurse Rose to return all her letters, as she is determined .that all intercourse should cease." The defendant said that she had left everything to her friends, and they were against the engagement. They said that they would pay his fare abroad, and that, if they were both of the same mind in two years' time, they would send Miss Reeks out to him. Subsequently the defendant wrote that her friends "had persuaded her to have nothing more to do with him."

Cross-examined : He wrote to her, " You ask me not to write. Forgive me for doing so. It is only to ask you to let me keep your letters in remembrance of happier days." Later on he wrote that the person who wrote to him could have the letters "by paying for themand still later ho asked for " £50 for the heartless manner in which I was thrown over by Miss Reeks." He earned at Surbiton 30s a week.

Evidence was given for tho defence that the defendant, instead of receiving £100 a year, had, after she left the Cottage Hospital and become a parish nurse, only 10s a week and board and lodging. All the rest was pure invention. It was also said that defendant was in such a condition of health that she could not appear in court. Mr. Justice Charles, having looked at tho letters, said that he had come to the conclusion that there should bo judgment for the defendant upon the ground that the plaintiff had exonerated her from the performance of her promise. The defendant had warned him that, if he married her, he would have for a wife an invalid who would be lying on a couch haif her time. She was quite right, therefore, in seeking to break oil' the engagement. Judgment for defendant, bub without costs.