BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT.

Thames Star, Volume XXV, Issue 4669, 24 February 1894, Page 1

BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT.

AN INTERESTING CASE. £700 DAMAGES AWARDED.

London, February 1. An interesting case has been beard in the Quern's Bench Division before Mr Justice Lawrence and a common jory, Heing that of Weutcott v. Phillips. Thii was a claim by Miss Lydia Matilda Westcott to recover from Mr Ward Phillips, an accountant, damages for breach of promise. Defendant denied that there was any promise, and pleaded that, if there was any promise, it was conditional on the consent of bis aunt, and that a reasonable time had not elapsed between the breach and the institution of the action. Mr Addison, Q.C., and Mr Doldy appeared for the olauitiff; and Mr H. E. Duke appeared for tbe defendant.

Mr Addieon, in opening the cue, said that the plaintiff was the daughter of a gentleman known aa Captain Weatcott, who was formerly in the merchant service, bat wm now a marine surveyor carrying on business in. the city of London. Captain Westcott and his family, who reside at Dalst<m, were friends of a Mrs Dunn, who kept a private tiotel in Norfolk street, Strand. The plaintiff was in the habit of visiting Mrs Dunn, and whilst on these visits hhe became acquainted with the defendant and his annt, Mrs Arless, who stayed at Mrs Duun's on their visits to London from Plymouth. The intimacy rif ened. and at the beginning of 1890, on the invitation of the defendants-aunt, the plaintiff went to Plymouth on a visit to Mrs Arless, and remaioed there for a few months. At the end of the same year plaintiff paid another visit to Plymouth! and on that visit she contented to become the paid companion of Mrs Arleis. In February, 1891, plaintiff became engaged to the defendant, but was requested sot to let his aunt know just then, though she was at liberty to acquaint her family. In March, 1892, the plaintiff left Mrs Arless and returned home to be present at her sister's wedding. In the August of that year defendant announced hisengagement to his aunt end to his fsther, a clergyman in Northampton. The defendant also wrote to plaintiff's father for the consent,whieh be obtained. On September 14,1892, defendant wrote to the plaintiff:. "My own darling baby,—l am so very glad that you and aunt get on so well together; it lightens my heart so. fou know, though, if it came to be the case of her money or you, the money wonld go overboard, so far as I am concerned, yet the money is not to be despised, as we should be more comfortable with it than without it. When I have you to come home to I shall not want to stay out so late, so the sooner the better." That letter the defendant ended in this way "You say you lote me, darling, and I believe it. I know this much that if I felt you did not 1 should—well, 1, don't know wha* I should do, so much do you occupy my heart and thoughts. Best, love, darling from your loving-Ward;" In March, 189.% procee«iin s were .taken to fit the wedding, and the defendant proposed to settle on the plaintiff two policies of insurance of £500 each, and a further sum cf £500. The wedding was to tnke place on the 10th of Jen ', and they were to be married in London by defendant* father. On the 13th of April, 1893, defendant wrote to plaintiff, informing her that he had had a row with his aunt, and felt inclined to end it by putting a bnllet through his brain. To that letter plaintiff', who was very much worried over it, replied that she was sorry he had had a row with his aunt, and asking " How it is she is turning on me now, after giving her consent and being so sweet with me last summer? I really believe there is some one down at Plymouth who talks about us and runs me down. Rather than Mrs Arless should cut you off on account of me, I would release you, much as I love you." On April 17th defendant wrote to plaintiff breaking off the engagement stating th »t "#y pride will not allow me to offer you a twine which must of necessitybe , far inferior \to the one vouf leave. After that the plaintiff heard no more from him, and Hd not see him again, (bough she bad requested an intervi*». He fMr

Addison) submitted that it was a very heartless proceeding, and when the jury had heard the case, he should ask them to do that -which was just. ' The plaintiff was than called, and related the facts as stated in counsel's opening statement. - In cross examination plaintiff said that the defendant had told her that he bad promised his uncle that he would remain •with his aunt during her life, and he considered that a solemn promise, as it was roade when bis uncle was dying. Defendant also told her that any expectations he had were expectations from his aunt. She understood the defendant's partner on the dissolution too* the bulk of the business with him, but she was not told the business worked out at £150 a year. Mr John Westcott, the father of the plaintiff, having given evidence proving the engagement and the breach, Mr Duke said he would at once put the defendant in the box. Mr Ward West Phillips was then called and stated that the engagement was conditional upon his aunt's consscnt, but bis annt never gave her consent, though she allowed things to go on after she knew of the engagement, when she opened a letter addressed to defendant containing the draft of the marriage settlement. His business was not worth more than £150 a year, and he had only about £400 savings, Id crosp-exainination witness said he had promised his ancle to stay witb^ his aunt, and he meant to keep that promise. Mr Addison.—Why not keep your promise to this girl ? .Witness.—l jwill keep the prior one first. The reason you behaved in this cruel way to this girl was that you might not break your promise to your uncle to live with your aunt?— That was one of the reasons,. • You have a most tender regard for the promise you have made ?—I am going to keep that promise. Have you any one elfeAn your eye ?—Ho, cine is enough, daughter,) You would be prepared to break off any engagement if yourauntcbanged her mind? I should take care to get her consent, and my aunt in this case never gave a willing consent.

Mr Gobell, defendant's solicitor, gave evidence to the effect that outside his regular appointments defendant was doing very little as an accountant. This closed the plaintiff's case, and Mr Duke .submitted that whatever promise was made was brokeu by mutual consent.

! Mr Addison having replied, and his lordship having summed up, the jury, after an absence of about half an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £700.

His lordship accordingly gave judgment for the amount,.with costs.