BREACH OF PROMISE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10957, 27 April 1907, Page 8 (Supplement)

BREACH OF PROMISE.

YOUNG MAN'S DOUBLE ENGAGEMENT.

MELBOURNE, April 15. The difficulty m which a young man finds himself when he becomes engaged to two young ludies, both of whom insist on his marrying them, wus exemplified m a breach : of promise case heard :t the County Court to-day . Mary Beatty, oi Scott Canterbury, proceeded against Elston Tindall, wood merchant, of Railway Siding, (.-anterbury, to recover £250 damuges for alleged breach of promise . The parties became engaged m December, 1906, at Bendigo, aud it was arranged that the marriage should take place m February. Defendant Had previously been engaged to an Adeluile young lady for four years. About Christmas time this Adelaide lady, Miss Bak«_^ came to Melbourne, and the result wait that defendant determined to marry her und to break off his engagement with plaintiff. Plaintiff's sister .had spoken to defendant about his conduct with the other young lady. "Miss Baker came over from Adelaide to marry me, and she won't go back""till she has done so," said defendant. "But you can't do that. You're engaged to my sister." "Miss Baker told me not to take any notice of that." "But that's outrageous." "Thafs the trouble. That's the fix I'm m." He went on to tell Miss Beatty than the other young lady had threatened to ruin him, to pursue him, and sell him up. The fact was, plaintiff's counsel submitted, that defendant did not .know hi_ own mind. He had shilly-shnlleyed wi.h plaintiff, telling her first that there was nothing iv his attachment to the othar young lady, and afterwards . becoming cool and indifferent towards her. -nen he tried to break off his engagement. Plaintiff aeked him to give all his property to Miss Baker and marry her (plaintiff), but defendant made no reply. Subsequently plaintiff offered to accept £160 to settle the case. Mr Pigott did not call any evidence for the defence. Defendant, he said, did not deny the breach of promise, but had been forced into a position which lib sincerely regretted. He was willing to pay compensation, but not the amount claimed, which would ruin him. Judge Eagleson said he was satisfied from plaintiff's letters and conduct that she was a lady who would grace any home. He believed also that defendant had acted m a manly spirit m breaking off the engagement when he did. There was nothing m his case which aggravated the case. Taking into consideration defendant's income, which appeared to be about £140 a year, he thought a fair amount of damage would be £140, with costs, to be paid within seven days.