BREACH OF PROMISE CASE AGAINST A LINNETT.

Western Star, Issue 31, 13 June 1874, Page 6

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE AGAINST A LINNETT.

A Court was bold at Birmingham recently to assess damages in an action for breach of nromisc of marriage. The plaintiff. Annie Hickman, is aged twenty-two, and is the daughter of John Hickman, watch case manufacturer, Coventry : and the defendant, John Linnett, pin., aged twenty-three, is the son of a large draper in the city. Mr. Rosher said that (lie parties met in December, 1871, at a ball at. the house of a friend. The defendant obtained nermlssion to see the plaintiff, home, and an attachment subsequently sprang up between them. Defendant called to see the plaintiff nearly every Sunday, and stayed to dinner. The courtship continued. until defendant premised to marrv plaintiff on Christmas Day. 1872. In February of that year ho sent her a valentine, in which was written :—-

“Maiden, wherefore thus eonvnlaining? ’Tis unjust. I love not paining Thee, nor any other beatify ; To each and a 1! Ido my duty. To praise or blame I'm always ready j Fearless, faithful, honest, steadv. To tell the truth to every creature Ts part, of my transparent nature." (Loud laughter.! As the time approached for the wedding, the defendant furnished a house completely, and lie even sf-oeked the cellar with eoal. The banns were published, and everything got ready for the ceremony. At last- the defendant. asked the plaintiff what, the “ old gentleman ” was going to do about money matters. She replied she did not know, and that he had bettor ask the “ old gentleman,” (Laughter.) The defendant’s father afterwards told the plaintiff that his son was too young to marry, and the wedding was put off until March in the following year.. Defendant did not then fulfil his promise, but was seen “walking out with other ladies.” In December, 1872, the defendant wrote:—

“My dear Ann.—This letter is bathed with tears of the deepest bitterness in this time, which should have been my happiest. They (bis parents) are very pleased that you have met, or rather complied with, my wishes, hut they are not willing to give you aN. H. (note of hand.) T cannot possibly come to sec yon to-nigbt ; should have written before, but have been busy, Please excuse more from tbo most unhappy man in existence.—Yours truly,

“ JOTTX LtXXF.TT. “ P.S.—I have a very severe cold, and an aching heart.” . The plaintiff was much affected in giving evidence, and she several times fainted. The defence was that the defendant was employed by his father, at a salary of £SO per annum with board.

The jury awarded the plaintiff £230 damages.