BREACH OF PROMISE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 120, 4 April 1862, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE.

In the Court of Exchequer, on Monday, the case of iivihnah v. Shrubsole was tried. This was an action for breach of promise of marriage, to which'the defendants pleaded that lie did not promise, and that, the plaintiff had .exonerated him from tha performance of the contract. The plaintiff in ttiis action is a widow, forty-eight years of age, with six children, three of whom are of age ; Bhe resides at Paversham, on an income of £150. The defendant is a retired tradesman, living at the same place, where he keeps up a snug little establishment, and is in possession of landed and household property bringing in £400 a year. lie has his chaise and pair ibr outdoor exercise, and his daily wants are administered to by a footman and two maid-servants. Last August twelvemonth, the defendant was left a widower, - and almost immediately afterwards he became acquainted with the plaintiff, to whom he commenced paying such attentions as might have been expected from a gentleman of his age and physical condition. ; In a brief time he told her he wished to marry her, and she referred, him 'to her brother-in-law, Mr. Alfred ltedman, a butcher, in Lambeth. To him they both stated their case, and obtained his consent, so that the defendaut was established in the position of an accepted suitor. The gentleman presented the lady with his photograph and a book on ■' Meditation and Prayer." When she came to London to sec her brother-in-law, he saw her place at church vacant, and followed her to town. He took her to the Crystal Palace, to theatres, and to other places of amusement, and what .was perhaps equally gratifying, he spoke of his houses ia tiie Isle of Sheppy, his shops at Sheernets, and his property at Jtavershain, promising to make a settlement on her. But in May last the defendant found out he was too old to marry, and he broke off the match, leaving the plaintili her remedy at law, which she sought in the present action.—Mr. A. lledmau, the plaintiffs brother-in-law, proved the case for her. In his cross-examination he said defendant was not very firm on Ms legs, and generally walked with two sticks, except when he went courting, when he used only one. (Laughter.) The defendant was a little deaf, but he had a good appetite. (Laughter.) —Mr. James : Shaky legs, bad hearing, and a good appetite. (Great laughter.)— Witness : Yes, and a uiost liberal man. (ltenewed laughter.) The defendant had not told him that his surgeon had advised him not to marry, but he gave him to understand that the marriage was not to take place. At this stage of the proceedings the learned counsel consulted, .and Mr. Hawkins said it had been arranged to take a verdict lor £150. Mr. Sergeant Pewry said that this action had been brought chiefly for the purpose of vindicating the plaintiff's character, which-had been aspersed at i?aversham. Mr. Hawkins : There is uo imputation on the lady's character. The Lord Chief Baron—There is certainly no such imputation, and I do not see the necessity for a retraction. Mr. Hawkins :On the contrary, my lord, the defendant has the highest respect for the lady, or he would not give her £150. lint give us back our photoghraph. (Great iaughter.) Mr. Sergeant Pan y : You do not want your "Prayers and Meditations ?" (Laughter.) Mr. Hawkins :No ; . they may do you good. (Laughter.) The defendant here created some amusement by seizing on his photograph and cramming it hastily into his pocket. A verdict for the plaintifl'for £150 was then taken by consent.