BREACH OF PROMISE.

New Zealand Mail, 21 February 1901, Page 49

BREACH OF PROMISE.

£30.000 DAMACG-o CLAIMED. TILE DEFENDANT’S DENTALS. AX ADJOURNMENT REFUSED. A £5,000 VERDICT. A-, Edinburgh, Mrs Catherine Brodie brought an- action against- Mr David MacGregor, described a.s contractor and money lender, of Glasgow, for breach of promise of marriage. Plaintiff claimed £30,000 dan ages. Plaintiff was divorced in New Zealand and afterwards came to Scotland with her three children and supported herself as an artist. She became acquainted with defendant, who is said to be worth half a million, and he proposed to her. The marriage was postponed at defendant’s request- from November. 1898, to August, 1899. but lib. failed to keep his promise. For the defence fche promise is denied. It is also said that in July, 1898, plaintiff .sued a gentleman for breach of promise and seduction, and that -the case was settled for £IO.OOO. Defendant is aged sixty-one and plaintiff forty-five. Questioned as to her relations with a Air Nelson. Plaintiff alleged that he druo-.cred her and that he promised to marry her.

A MAIDSERVANT'S EVIDENCE. Margaret Kiiighorn was oalled and said she had been with the plaintiff during the last- four and a. half years as maid and was still with her. Before Air Nelson came to the house Airs Brodie worked diligently as an- artist. Witness stated she lia-cl found Airs Brodie rai-con-cious on two occasions after Air Nelson had visited her. She discovered a phial beneath the tea-tray and showed itto Mrs Brodie. It was now in the possession of the plaintiff’s agents.. Mrs Brodie complained of the tirest-e of t-lie tea, but witness assured her the tea was the same as they always had. Witness then spoke to accompanying Airs Brodie to Mr Maogregor's house. She recollected Air Sharp calling on plaintiff with a form of marriage before the Sheriff to sign. - * Mr Sharp said the defendant’s property in Glasgow yielded £IO,OOO a year and was worth £IOO,OOO capital value. Witness spoke to Air Alacgregor about the engagement, but defendant did not deny it-, but later on lie seemed to have cooled down and then denied it. Witness made out. an agreement for Air Alacgregor either to marry Airs Brodie or pay , leaving the space blank, which defendant, or witness for him, filled in as £2OO. Airs Brodie wanted £25,000, and Air Alacgregor was. very indignant. Witness did not think there would be any marriage after that. Further evidence was taken as to the defendant’s ability to pay substantial damages and as to the drug said to have been given by Nelson to Airs Brodie. Plaintiffs case then closed.

The first witness for the defence was Douglas Cairney, a Glasgow .stockbroker, who deposed that the defendant had told him that his visits to plaintiff were on matters of business. Plaintiff's first husband, Mr Oswald Brodie, characterised the statements made against him as absolutely false.

Nelson, the man who is said to have drugged the plaintiff and afterwards paid her £10,050, failed to appear, although cited by the defendant. Margaret Williamson, housekeeper to the defendant, then said that, she had been with Mr Macgregor for twentyeight years. She was the only servant. The relations suggested between witness and defendant did not exist. It was false to say that she was secretly married to him. The plaintiff, said witness, visited the house frequently in connection with pictures. Mr Macgregor had given instructions that plaintiff was not to be allowed in and witness frequently denied her admission. On one occasion Mrs Brodie t6ld witness she was going to marry a publican and on another occasion she said she intended to marry a doctor. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE.

Mr Macgregor was then called. He said he was sixty-one years old and was formerly a contractor. Plaintiff called on him about pictures, more frequently than he wished, and he gave her the names of gentlemen on whom she might call to sell her pictures. It was untrue that the plaintiff asked him to advise her as to the Nelson case. It- was not

thru© that he proposed marriage to Airs Brodie. He had no recollection of Air Brown’s alleged congratulations and good wishes at the lunch party • the conversation was merely small talk. Defendant said he visited Airs Brodie at two holtels. She was a good talker and he rather enjoyed his visits. Plaintiff once told him lie should many, hut he said he was too old and treated the suggestion as a joke. He did hot want ever to marry. (Laughter.) Plaintiff often called on him in the evening, but she seldom got into the house. Witness admitted having had letters from Airs Brodie, but he always burned them when he had read them. She- offered him an irregular marriage form to fib up. but he would have nothing to do with it. She told him to take it home and fill it up there. He gave it back to her, but he found the form in his pocket all the same after he got home. At a- subsequent meeting the question of defendant many mg was again brought, up. Defendant said it iras the old story that lie* would be far better and more comfortable. (Laughter.) He supposed she was ‘‘setting her cap’’ at him. (Laughter.) Defendant never told Air Sharp that he had promised to marry plaintiff. What plaintiff said about a scuffle was quite untrue'. With regard to the ring which he sent- back to her, he explained that on one of his visits plaintiff produced a lot of rings she had bought in Edinburgh. Ho jocularly took up - one and put it on hi* finger. (Laughter.) Airs Brodie ran after him, but he said lie would keep it, as that was all he could get'for hi© trouble. He treated the matter a.s a joke, but some months later, when he took the ring back, sue refused to accept it. It- was not- the case that ho took the. ring in order to get an engagement ring of tile same size. During the whole period of liis acquaintanceship with plaintiff there had been ho familiarity between them.

Cross-examined : He said lie called on Airs Brodie for eighteen months , and his main object in doing so was to keep her from calling on him ; at least, that- was one object. (Laughter.) He never referred to Airs Brodie as a- dear old lady or said he would like to see her relieved of her worry. Defendant denied that he ever sat with plaintiff two and a half hours at a time. He admitted that at a lunch in Glasgow marriage was mentioned. but it was in a jocular way. He certainly never heard that marriage was considered in 1898 and he. did not know that Airs Brodie had sublet her house with that view.

Defendant, further questioned, said it was quite untrue that lie kissed Airs Brodie. He did not want to be pestered with her or her letters either. The evidence of Air J. B. AfcDonald, '* S.A., taken on commission, was read. He had known plaintiff about eight or ten years. She introduced herself to him and described lierself as a poor illused artist . Plaintiff was , very-** persistent and persuasive and- asked > him to touch up a few pictures. He did so for charity. All* Nelson was then called, but failed to appear.' Counsel for defendant asked for an adjournment for a week. This the Judge declined to grant and counsel addressed th© jury. VERDICT. The jury deliberated for half 1 an hour and returned a verdict for the petitioner and assessed the damages at £SOOO.