A LOVER'S DILEMMA.

Western Star, Issue 2215, 21 June 1898, Page 3

A LOVER'S DILEMMA.

An extraordinary breach of promise

case was concluded before Mr Justice ■V Stephen and a jury in Sydney on the 18tb inst. Sarah Reeves sued, through her next friend, to recover £IOOO damages from Alexander Gill for alleged breach of promise of marriage. The parties met in Sydney in 1890, the plaintiff being then 12 and the defendant 17 years old. After six months’ acquaintance Gill returned to his home on the Manning River, and after some correspondence the parties became engaged in 1894. The marriage, however, never took place, and the plaintiff claimed damages, though she and defendant had never met since 1890. One of the letters written by - the defendant to the plaintiff referred to bis acquaintance with another young lady, and said : **■ “I used to see this young lady every week, and at last I got fairly in love with her, and T became in a fix to know what girl to stick to. I felt very sorry for her, and once more broke ray promise with you by embracing her in my arms, and pouring out my Jove on her. But still my thoughts were yonder on my dear, hidden girl, whom I knew was proving true to me, but thought, doubtless, that you did not love me so well as my other friend did. This young lady has asked me over and over again if I was still writing to you, and my reply was * Yes.’ Poor girl, she was in as big a fix as I was myself. She knew that I loved her, but still she thought that I loved you better, which, doubtless, 1 do in more than one respect, and I shall never be happy until I make either of you my darling wife. I do, as I said before, prefer you before the other one as my partner; so, now, dear Sarah, if you are willing to forgive my second offence, I shall give you the first chance.” The judge, in summing up, stated that the case was most peculiar, A boy and girl had fallen in love with one another. The youag man had gone away for four years, and lie, in his correspondence, said that be was as much in love with the girl he had met as with the plaintiff. The question, then, was what sura would constitute reparation for the plaintiff’s wounded feelings. The jury awarded the plaintiff £SO.