BIRMINGHAM BREACH OF PROMISE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9184, 13 October 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

BIRMINGHAM BREACH OF PROMISE.

CRUEL SUGGESTIONS BY HER OLi:> | LOVE. j Ax action was tried by Mr. Justice Wills and a common jury at the Birmingham assizes, a few days ago, in which Miss Mary Elizabeth Parish, milliner's assistant, of West Bromwich, sought to recover damages from a gastube worker, named Parkes. Defendant admitted the promise, bub sought to justify the broach on the ground that after it was made the lady became intemperate and addicted to the use of immodest expressions. Mr. Kettle and Mr. Shakespeare were counsel for plaintiff; and Mr. Alfred Young and Mr. Vachell for defendant. Damages were laid at £'200. The parties had known each other from childhood. They were engaged eight years, and counsel for the plaintiff urged that the defence constituted an aggravation of Parke's conduct in discarding his client. Miss Parish a lady of 27 years of age, gave evidence, stating that the defendant began to pay her attentions many years ago. Once in 187S ho made her an offer of marriage, which she accepted. Defendant's family—tho lady members of it —looked upon their engagement with disfavour. Plaintiff consented to go to the wedding of his sister in October, 1886. At the last moment, however, her father having died shortly before, she thought it better to keep away. On tho day following she met a Mrs. Parkes, sister-in-law of the defendant, who accused her of being in disgrace. THE I'IKST TIFF. She repeated these slanders to her lover on teeing him in the evening, but he took it very coolly, and said, " Take no notice of it." She was very indignant, and lost her temper. She, however, did not describe his mother and sisters in disparaging terms. They parted in anger, and after the following Saturday defendant ceased to visit her. He never offered her any explanation of why ho broke on" the match, till in a letter written on November 4, 18S7, he gave the reasons alleged in the defence. In this he reproached her with having used immodest words in speaking of his family, and said he could not bring himself to forgive her, as he had done so often before without her improving, and lie .saw no better prospect in her future. " You will not sneak to any of my people,' , he added, "except to call them all you can lay your tongue to, and every night; you have yet something to call me or them, and I can't stand it any longer. As I have told you before, I don't care what comes now. I shall have a bit of the world. "i SHALL BE A DEVIL -VOW." " I have always been steady before, but I shall turn out a perfect devil now, and care for nothing at all. If I have been a scamp, as you have called me, I. can't help it;. I thank you for all your kindness, but you must consider the engagement at an end. You have told me nobody will have me but a dummy, and I hope you will not make a dummy of yourself." She indignantly repudiated the charges of intemperance and immodest language. The man must be a scoundrel who would accuse her of such things. In cross-examination by Mr. Young, plaintiff said she had not been angling for ire.sh admirers. She had none. Did you write this letter to defendant on March 7 last, six months after tho engagement was broken off. "I am quite able to consider myself, and I am sure there are worse matches than Miss Parish, which I think your experience tells you; but of course please yourself about that, for I cannot marry any man unless I love him, and I love you. Therefore I cannot pick up with the others, who are making me offers. lam so troubled with them that it is impossible for me to .stand it any longer. You know I will be true to you till death," &c. You wrote that? After examining the letter, plaintiff said she did. Was it true that you had so many good offers and were so troubled with them that you could not stand it much longer ? Well, I may have written so in fun to make Mr. Parkes come back to me. AEOITT THE BEEK-DRIXKING. In farther cross-examination plaintiff denied being addicted to excessive beerdrinking. Do you still mean to represent that you never got rather the worse for drink '! Certainly, I never did. Never in your life? Never in my life (indignantly). Don't get cross with me, please. I'm only doing my duty, you know. I think when an innocent girl is charged with such things as that it is enough to make her cross. Plaintiff further denied that her charwoman had seen her in tiie shop the worse for drink, or that Clara Trumans, her assistant, ieft in consequence of her drunken habits. Didn't Miss Trumans fetch beer and spirits for you ? Never ; and as for spirits, I never had a glass in my life. Now, about these offensive expressions which you arc said to hare used towards the defendant's mother and sisters—do you deny using them? Yes (emphatically). It is a shame how this man has treated and scandalised me ! If my poor pa had been alive he would not have dared to do it in any shape or form. WITH A NOVEL AKD A JUG OF ALE. Mr. Young, having addressed the jury, the defendant went into tiie witness-box and stated that once when he visited Miss Parish at her shop he found her with a novel in her hand and a quart jug of ale on the table. He complained to her of having too much drink. She smelt, he said, once, like a man who had been drinking all day. They quarrelled over this question of beur. After he accused her she would run to the cupboard whenever he came as if to hide something. Shortly before her father died she sent for him on tho pretence that she was ill. Ho went to tho shop, and found her lying at full length on two chairs, vomiting beer. Sho was drunk the night before her father died. She attempted to take some fire upstairs, but let the coals fall all over tho place, neai-ly setting the houso on tire. Her brother George spoke of her on that occasion as a drunken woman. Mrs. Parish eaid, " Qeorge, do you know what you are saying?" and he replied, " Yes, what I maan is she's always drunk." Once, after defendant saw her the worse for liquor, she observed, "So you've come, have you?" He said, "Yes," and she replied, " Then you had better go back again, because I don't want you." They walked along in the direction of her home, and on the way sho called him all the scamps, rogues, and vagabonds sho could lay her tongue to. Sho also disparaged his mother and sisters in most offensive language. He told her if she repeated the calumnies lie would strike her. She repeated them, and ho struck her; but sho would nob leb him go until ho had promised to see her the next night. He kept his promise, and plaintiff again insulted his mother and sisters, and in consequence lie left her. She refused to go to his sister's wedding* saying she wouldn't " be seen in a pig race with any of the family." NOW ON' WITH SOMEBODY KLSK. Cross-examined, the defendant said he was now engaged to a lady who had had an illegitimate child. He knew of plaintiffs fondness for drink before ho promised to marry her. Several witnesses were called to depose to plaintiff's intemperate habits, among them being two girls who had worked for her, and who said they left because of her loose and tipsy habits. On behalf of tho plaintiff rebutting evidence was called, Miss Parish herself denying tho imputations against her of drunkenness and immodesty in her language. Sho was subject to fits, and the defendant had sympathised with her in her affliction. A number of witnesses deposed that bhey had never heard the plaintiff use immodest language or seen her drunk. Mrs. Parish, the mother, said her daughter's fits were accompanied with sickness. Mrs. Lewis, a neighbour, said she usually saw the plaintiff at her home. Mr. Vachell: Anywhere elso At a place of worship. And she was sober ? Yes. The jury, after long deliberation, awarded the plaintiff" £60 damages.