BREACH OF PROMISE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9325, 30 March 1889, Page 3 (Supplement)

BREACH OF PROMISE.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, a few days ago, before Mr. Justice Grantham and a common jury, Miss Annie Johnson sued Mr. Thomas Johnson for breach of promise of marriage%nd for board and lodging. Both parties are of middle ,age, and reside at Nottingham, where each v is the owner o| some house property. The defendant denied liability in regard to either part of the claim.

Mr. Stanger was counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Etherington Smith was* for the defendant. *

Mr. banger, in opening the case, said the parties had been long acquainted, and in November, 1885, the defendant made the promise of marriage, which the plaintiff accepted, bub no particular time was at first specified for the, event. Mr. Johnson used to come and dine at the lady's house, and eventually, having no settled home himself, he went to lodge there. Although no precise time was fixed for the marriage, it was considered that, as both parties were of middle age, and each had some little property, there was no occasion for long delay. Meantime, something was done in the way of arranging a marriage settlement, but that fell through, as the defendant wanted to get full possession of the plaintiff's property, which she would not consent to. The defendant continued to lodge at the plaintiffs house until the end of 1887, and her claim for board and lodging embraced a period of nearly two /fears. The plaintiff had brought an action against the defendant to recover a sum of £260 for money lent, with interest, but that was ultimately disposed of by the defendant paying the amount claimed. He set up that payment, however, with vouchers for some bills he had paid for the plaintiff, as a ground for crying "quits" with regard to all claims whatsoever.

The plaintiff., in her evidence, maintained that she provided the money for the payment of the bills. She said the defendant advised her not to go into litigation, and remarked, "You have money and I have i money, and the lawyers will not care whose money it is so long as they get it." (Laughter.) Cross-examined, Miss Johnson said the promise of marriage took place in her sit-ting-room, where affairs generally were talked over. She denied that the defendant paid anything towards keeping her house. He did pay for some drinks—glasses'* of wine and the like—at the Unicorn an& other public-houses. He did nob complain that it had become very expensive to pay for these drinks.

Mr. Smith : Were there not also some drinks provided at the house, which the defendant ordered ?

The plaintiff: Yes; he ordered them, and I paid for them. (Laughter.) Mr. Smith: Besides wines there were some other drinksbrandy, Irish, gin ? Mr. .Justice Grantham: Irish sin? (Laughter.) b Mr. Smith : No, my lord ; Irish whisky and gin. (Laughter.) The plaintiff declared the drinks were partaken of by the defendant's relatives— brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, daughters and granddaughters. (Laughter.) _ „ Mr. Smith : In fact, ycfu kept the whole Johnson family in drinks? Yes. (Laughter. )

In answer to the judge the plaintiff said the defendant wanted her, as a condition of the marriage settlement, to give up the title deeds to her property, but that she refused to do this, thinking, as he would have the income, that he was not entitled to more.

Other witnesses gave evidence for the plaintiff, one of them stating that the defendant, when asked why the marriage was not coming off, remarked that it was "all owing to Nance" (the plaintiff) and that he himself was perfectly ready. The defendant, in giving his evidence, said he had been a widower for seventeen yaars, and became acquainted with the plaintiff during the goose fair, from which everything dated. Mr. Justice Grantham, speaking to a juror who had returned after a short absence, said: The only thing of importance that has transpired since you left is that this young gentleman and this young lady first met at a goose fair at Nottingham. (Laughter.) The defendant, examined by his counsel, affirmed that it was the plaintiff who invited him to come to her lodgings. He was lodging with a Mrs. Harrison, and the plaintiff said, Why don't you come and lodge with me? I can accommodate you better than Mrs. Harrison." (Laughter.) The arrangement on which he began with the plaintiff was that he should pay for the drinks in the house and for the drinks out of the house(laughter)—and for the coals and meat. (Laughter.) That was to pay for his lodging. Mr. Smith : Did you pay anything ? The defendant: Yes; I paid for the liquors and for the meat and coals. (Laughter.) But at length I saw I could not go on doing that, and that I would rather pay a pound a week, which I did. With regard to the drinks, I told her it was a bad thing to go to the public-house at night to have a drink, and that I was ashamed of it. The proposal about marriage came, from the plaintiff. She said, "We ought to get marriedand I replied, " There is a consideration about that." (Laughter.) I have a family, and I would not marry anyone without a marriage settlement. She asked me what I wanted, and I said if I married her I should require possession of her property after my paying off a mortgage upon it, and I would then settle upon her £1 a week after my death. She agreed to that. Mr. Sfcanger (cross-examining the defendant) : You have an aversion to marriage without a marriage settlement ? Yes.

- Has any lady proposed marriage to you before during the*eeveftteon years you ha# been a widower ? Oh, several. (Laughter.) Did you settle with any of them ? Yes ; I paid one £111. «; (LaughYou say you told the plaintiff it was a bad thing to go to the public-house at night ?»I told her itnvas a bad thing for women to go. (Laughter.) & .* . Why didyou take her ? She Would go, (Laughter.) *?' M 11 « \yhy did you pay the £260 to her for ? To get. rid of her.' ; (Great laughter.) Some further evidence was given in support of the.defendant's case., . _ * Mr. Justice Grantham, in summing up, remarked on the peculiar circumstances of the case. He would , not say it was a scent from the Sublime to the ridiculous, " ; but certainly if "an ordinary action , for breach of .promise of marriage reached tliOi, sublime, this one did very nearly reach the ridiculous. (Laughter.) The defendant was said to be sixty years of age, the plaintiff's _,v. age wa&not stated precisely. It was said V* islie was of a certain age, and that might betaken to mean an uncertain age. (Laughter. According to the plaintiffs qwn showing, the defendant had been in rather an impecunious position, and she could not be '•said to have lost much in his fortune, whic&v. would not go far defraying long the cosf of,drinks. (Laughter.) » ; In the result the jury, after some deliberation, gavejbhe plaintiff a verdict for .£3O on her claim for board and lodging, and' a verdict for the defendant on the question of breach of promise of marriage. ( » His Lordship gave judgment accordingly. *