OLD LOVE AND THE NEW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19412, 21 August 1926, Page 2 (Supplement)

OLD LOVE AND THE NEW.

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

STORY OF 11 TWO CHARMERS." MAN BREAKS ENGAGEMENT. JURY AWARDS £4OO DAMAGES. Confronted with two young women, to each of whom he had plighted his troth and given an engagement ring, a young in an found himself in an awkward predicament. His only way of escape at the moment was by . declaring that ho could marry neither. Events proved, however, that his affection for the more recent charmer was too strong, and in a letter to his earlier sweetheart he broke off the engagement. So, of with the old love and on with the new! The sequel was an action lor breach of promise at the Guildford Assizes. The ' action, which was heard before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, resulted in the discarded girl being awarded £4OO damages.

Tho parties were Miss Ruby Howard Barford, aged 31, a schoolteacher at Scofton, Worksop, Nottinghamshire, plaintiff, and Wilfred Thomas Eyes, aged 30, a building inspector, residing at Oxtcd, Surrey, defendant. In addition to recompense for injured feelings, Miss Barford claimed special damages for about £BO, which she had lost in salary through giving up her position in contemplation of marriage, and a small sura for articles purchased for household purposes. In opening' the' case. for. plaintiff, Mr. W. Stewart explained that defendant was employed by the Godstone Rurai Council, and the parties had known, each other for 13 years. His answer to tho claim was that he always had been ready and willing to marry Miss Barford, but she was unwilling to marry him. They first met when he was 19 and she was 20, and three years later Eyes proposed marriage and gave her an engagement ring. From that time until the commencement of the present year they continued to correspond, and a large number of letters passed between them.

Plaintiff and defendant, said counsel, TS-ere both perfectly respectable young people, and counsel stated he did not intend to say anything against defendant, except that he kept Miss Barford in the dark a long time, during which he must have known that he was not true to her. For eight years she remained faithful to her engagement-, to- him,, and that was a long period in the life of a woman who might, owing to the delay, be deprived of opportunities to marry soma other eligible man. Time after time during the eight 'years, Eyes sent most affectionate letters, signed,, "Your husband that is to be." excuse after 1924 was that he found a difficulty in getting a house, but he mentioned that there were a number of which he wis to have the first refusal. " The Sooner the Better 1 ." Defendant now set up the defence that Miss Barford was unwilling to marry him unless she could have a house of her own, and would not go to live in rooms. One letter from defendant, .however, said Mr. Stewari, .proved that the very.', . opposite was the fact. .'. Shortly after Easter, 1924, occurred this' passage:— • Yea, love. 1 think it would be nice for you to leave school about September, which will not be so long now, darling. Yea, darling, as I, havo already, said, I think it would be real nice to have • the. wedding in I#ondon.—E'rom your ever-loving true boy. your • husband to be, Wilfred. " Then in another, written about the same tiirte, there was tho following reference to the house:'—.. .v, Yea,-: loved one, if those houses are not made; haste with, .we shall havo, to see about it. I would rather, have a house, and everything is going well in that direction. In another letter Eyes wrote:— ? It won't be long till August, when you are coming- to your bov at Oxted as his loving wife* The sooner the batter, darling. Eyes was encouraging her to'think that they would be married in the autumn, and , she resigned her. appointment as a school teacher. As the delay continued, counsel went on to say, and defendant, by one pretext v and another, continued to procrastinate, never, however, altering his tone of affection for her, plaintiff thought, after an interval of eight months,. that it would be better if she sought employment again, and in September, 1925, she secured an appointment. In tho interval she had lost in salary £B6 ' 13s 4d: In January this yean Miss Barford was staying with her aunt-at Anerlsy, and day _ after day Eyes visited: h'cr ' on. the same' affectionate footing. The jury, counsel thought, would be surprised to hear that there was no doubt that at that tima defendant, was engaged to another young woman. Meeting With Miss Harrison.

From January the tone of defendant's letters began to change, and this caused Miss Barford to write to him, and later, accompanied by her aunt, she called at his house at Oxted. In consequence of something which she had heard, , a message was sent to a-you,ng lady named Harrison, living in the same village, • asking her to. call at the, house. Before she arrived Eyes came in and," at first, maintained the same attitude toward Miss Bi.rford that he had always "shown. When Miss Harrison arrived, he showed marked symptoms of surprise, and was evidently disconcerted. Miss Harrison was wearing a ring, and plaintiff asked her who gave it her. Miss Harrison replied, "Mr. Eyes," whereupon Miss Barford inquired how long ago. Before Miss Harrison could reply, Eyes blurted out, "About three months," ' ■which showed that he must have given it before ho visited Miss Barford at her aunt's. Plaintiff asked Miss Harrison. "Are you engaged to him," and she rcplied, "Yes." When defendant was asked which of tho two he proposed to marry, his reply was, "Neither." This interview was on March 13. and the day after Eyes wrote to Miss Barford. Tho Judge: I notice that now it is not, "My own darling Ruby," nor is it signed, 'Your ever-lovihg true boy and husband-to-be." ' It has become, "Dear j Ruby, and is signed, "Yours very sin- 1 cerely." The Broken Engagement. Counsel: Yes. It is in a very different tone. This is what he wrote after he knew Miss Barford had discovered his deceit After sr-eing, you to-day. I think it j s t ar better for both you and .I. that we should look at ii from a sensible point, and that our eng&gwfuefit should cea»e. I am veiv sorry, indeed, to. hftrt you is any wav as .';ou know, but'refclly. I think, it is best' for both of us. Hooinß'that you will look at it la tJtie same wrjv a-r.d that you will r.ot worry and -Upset'yourself, for you know I should not like- you. to worry about rne To-day 1 was so surprised to see you that I was nwfcle to say anything. If I have done you any wrong. I hope you wil! fordive and try to forget the past. I expect .you will think real , bad of mo. but 1 really think 1 am doing.-that which is best. I do hope you will "find . happiness in the future and that you will not think too bad of rne.—Yours vory sincerely. Wilfred. In answer to' this, Miss Barford wrote to Eyes as follows Dear Wilfred.—l received your letter of-the 16th, in which you tell-me our engagement is finished, I cannot add much to what I have already said, except I think you have treated me m a cruel and heartless manner. You have been plajnns double game and have deceived me, for, a very long time. After saving"up my position nnd waiting so long for you to< set settled with a house, you have-broken-rqy. lKia.rt. I can only hope you may some day -.have cause to regrat the wionsr y'oa havo done ra.©;—-Youra, Hub?.

There was no farther correspondence between tho parties, solicitors being consulted, and on behalf of defendant his advisers suggested that, the two young people were. getting tired of each other, and that tho engagement was mutually broken off. The judge observed that this was not pleaded in the statement of defence, adding: "Sometimes when various stories are told jurios don't believe any of them." Mr. Stewart appealed to the jury to take into consideration the fact that plaintiff had lost the marriago market for eight years, and that since throwing her over defendant had married Miss Harrison. On the question of means ho mentioned that Eyes' salary was £4 a week, with 17s 6d a week allowance for maintenance of a motor-bicycle, and that his father had left him a freehold house in Cheshire. Plaintiff Tells Her Story. Miss Barford, a tall young woman in a terra-cotta costume, bore out her counsel's statement. She mentioned that she first met defendant in January, 1914, at a football match. Their fathers were in the samo employ. It was in February, 1918, Eyes gave her the engagement ring. He had always treated her very kindly and was an absolutely steady, decent young man. At the interview at which Miss Harrison was sent for, defendant treated her exactly as he always had done before Miss Harrison arrived. He did not say anything to indicate that he

was friendly with her in any way, and looked surprised when she arrived. She noticed that Miss Harrison was wearing an engagement ring. The Judge: There is a very wise saying about the expediency of, being off with the old love before being on with the new. Cross-examined by Mr. Douglas, counsel for Eyes, Miss Barford denied that he had expressed his willingness to marry her if she would live in rooms, and that she had declined. Mr. Douglas appealed to the jury not to award vindictive damages. Remarks By the Judge. . The Lord Chief Justice spoke of defendant's duplicity in courting Miss Harrison while he was still engaged to Miss B&rford. "I remember," proceeded the judge, "when •! was a young man at the Bat, a case in which a distinguished advocate, appearing in a breach of promise, depicted the character of his contemptible client in terms so strong, and painted a picture so lurid, that he asked the jury to , say that not only had plaintiff bpen lucky in escaping, tut that, really, she ought to pay something for having got out of it. That, however, is not a business way of looking at the matter." The judge suggested .to the jury that they ought not to be too chary in making this ycung man stump up. The jury found, for Miss Barford, with £4OO damages, and in giving judgment for this amount, with costs, Lord Hewart expressed his concurrence with the verdicts '