A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1192, 4 January 1895, Page 13

A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

From Our Special Correspondent. London, November 16. Mr Septimus Marks, youngest son of the well-known Australian merchant Mr Jacob Marks, and a relative of many Hebrew •gentlemen of the same name in your part of the world, was haled before Mr Justice Hawkins and a special jury on Monday i last in a breach of promise case, the plaintiff in which was Miss “ Kit ” McCullan. ' The pair met in the first instance at the house of McCullan pere at Brighton, who in 1886 was finishing the youthful " Seppy’s” education. As has often happened before (both in and out of fiction) the lad fell in love with his tutor’s daughter. He met her frequently thereafter, and in 1892 was constantly at the McCullan mansion. He asked leave of Mr McCullan to pay his addresses to his daughter. Mr McCullan pointed out difficulties in the way of religious principles, the defendant being a Jew and the plaintiff a Christian. The defendant, in answer to that, said he was a Jew in name only, that these marriages had occurred before in his family, and that there would be no opposition, but if there was it would be only of a temporary character. He further said that his pecuniary position was such that he was entirely independent of his family, an aunt having left him a legacy of <£2oo to ,£3OO per annum, and that he was fairly prosperous in business. He said he would be able to take a house, have two servants, keep a trap and horse, and allow his wife =£4. per week for housekeeping purposes. In these circumstances, Mr McCullan gave his permission, and on the Easter Monday the defendant proposed, and the plaintiff, with due precaution, took a day to consider the matter, and then accepted him. The defendant left Brighton on April 5, and on the 6th he wrote a letter which commenced, “My darling Kit,” and ended, “Now, my darlmg, I must conclude, , with love and heaps of kisses, always yours fondly, Septimus Marks.” On the 18th he wrote, “ My darling Kit, —How happy your letter made me to-day. You cannot imagine how miserable I feel away from you.” Continuing, he wrote, “ I love my darling, and if I ceased to love her I should be a member of another world. While I am a member of this one I will marry no other girl but you.” The letter ended, “ With heaps of kisses and love from, yours lovingly, Septimus.” Mr Le Breton, continuing, said on Api*il 11 defendant wrote for the size of the plaintiff’s finger, and oh the 12th paid a visit s to Brighton. On the 14th he wrote : “ My darling Kit,— You cannot think how wretched it is to be away from you. It is worse than miserable.” (Laughter.) From prose the defendant in subsequent letters burst into poetry. From this time the defendant’s family appeared to oppose the engagement, and Miss Marks paid a visit to the plaintiff’s. After this defendant saw the plaintiff, and requested her to take no notice of . what had taken place with his sister. On May 11, however, he wrote that he would have to bring the correspondence to an end owing to the opposition of the family. The plaintiff proved to be an interesting looking girl, who told her story in a straight-forward manner. Apparently the defendant’s family objected to her on the sole ground that she was a Christian and they stric b Jews. “ Seppy’s ” elder sister, a practical person of uncertain age, descended on the McCullans at Brighton after learning of the engagement between plaintiff and defendant, and dissipated all the “ tarradiddles,” the latter told his love concerning his means. Instead of being independent of his father Seppy lived at home, and beyond .£IOO an aunt had left him possessed no money whatever. Mr McCullan expressed himself thankful to Miss Marks for letting him know the truth, and promised to break off the foolish engagement. Hardly had she gone, however, than gallant young “ Seppy ” appeared on the scene and talked so fine and large that he reassured his darling Kit. Immediately after, however, Marks pSre used his influence with his..son, and apparently his arguments were sufficiently persuasive. Amongst them figured, it was understood, a damsel of the true faith with a goodly bag of shekels. Septimus, who had (according to his own account) been up to this time “ only a Jew in name,” now commenced to be one in earnest, and put the blame on his family for breaking off the engagement.' Mr Justice Hawkins ruled both the Marks family and the McCullan family out of the case. The young man and maiden were of age and legally responsible for their acts. Master “ Seppy ” could not plead that he had been coerced. Ultimately the defendant was put into the box to shoAv that his means were nil. He had been “ in hats ” ( i.e ., agent for a firm of hat manufacturers), and was now “ in tea,” but his earnings were surprisingly small. Witness had fondly loved Miss McCullan, but when his parents threatened to eject him from the family

mansion if he married a Christian, witness realised that his affections required re-arrangement. Counsel extracted from him that his brother had committed this unforgivable offence of marrying a Christian, and yet had not been expelled the family circle. “ Your father did not apparently turn your brother out of doors ?” said counsel with triumph. “ No,” innocently replied Septimus, “ he didn’t turn my brother out of doors.” “Why not?” “He couldn’t do it.” :

“ Why not, sir, why not ?” “Well the marriage was a bush one—that is, it took place up in the Australian bush. Consequently, father couldn’t turn my brother out of doors in London.” “ Oh !” said the counsel disgustedly, and sat down. ; - ‘ >

Sir Henry Hawkins,, who has a weak spot in his tough old heart for pretty girls, summed up. against the defendant. The jury took his view and found for the plaintiff. Damages <£2so, and costs.