A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1283, 18 June 1884, Page 2

A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

At Dunelin yesterday before Judge Williams and a jury the breach of promise case Frances Fynmore v John Aiton, a claim for L 750, was heard. Mr J. A. D. Adams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr F. R. Chapman for the defendant. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was a widow residing in Dunedin, and that the defendant was a civil engineer, also residing in Dunedin. That in the month of June, 1382, the plaintiff and defendant agreed to marry, and since than the defendant had frequently repeated this'promise of marriage. That a reasonable time for such marriage had elapsed, and that although the plaintiff had always bean ready and willing to marry the defendant he had refused to marry her. The following evidence was taken : Frances Fynmore stated—lam a widow and the plaintiff in this action. I first became acquainted with the defendant in April, 1882. I was then residing in Timaru. Ho visited my house every evening and remained several hours. His visits continued till I left in September, 1882. During these visits he made proposals to me, which I refused. He said 1 had nothing to fear, and that it would be all right. I asked, “Do you mean marriage 1" and he replied that he did. On his assurance that he intended marriage I became intimate with him. He said that I had already had sufficient trouble, and, rather than add to it, he would lighten my trouble. This was about the end of June. He knew that I had eight children, and had great difficulty in supporting them. Early in August he said that he knew the eldest boys objected to him, and suggested that I should get rid of them. He said that if this were done ho would marry me. Before ho came to Dunedin he said that the thing should be all right so soon as he got his appointment under the Otago Harbor Board. After he came to Dunedin in February, 1883, the defendant continued visiting me till March, 1881, two days before the birth of the child. I told him the injury he had done me, and threatened to do away with myseif He repeated his promise to marry as soon as I was well. In November and December, 1883, I again wrote to him respecting our marriage. He continued visiting me at this lime, and his manner was affectionate. The defendant took me to places of amusement in Timaru, and for a walk every Sunday afternoon. In March, 1881, in a conversation we had, defendant said that if I attempted to injure him ha would injure me. This was the last time I saw him.

To Mr Chapman : While in Timaru I taught music, and was a morning governess. My daughter Edith knew the defendant. He gave her two tickets for a concert, and asked her it I would accompany her. I consented, and Edith introduced us. Defendant said that he was anxious for an introduction with a view Ito a matrimonial engagement with me. I I say in all seriousness that his object in I seeking an introduction was matrira my. I He knew I was a widow with eight chilI dren. It is only since 1 have instituted I proceedings against the defendant that I I have been informed by a third person I that he is a married man. I swear that I solemnly. He never mentioned to me I that he had a wife. The reason why be sugI gested 1 shouldget rid of the eldest boys was I that they did not care for him, and took I every opportunity of showing they diaapI uroved of his visits. In his letters he adI dressed me as “ Dear Mrs Fynmore.” I I don’t think he ever called me by any I iame when speaking to me. ' I Patrick McOallion, Kdith Fynmore, I Arthur Fynmore, Helen Stone, and Anna I Maria Guy, were also called on behalf of I the plaintiff. I Mr Chapman having opened the case I for the defence, callel the defendant, who I denied trial he had made improper proI posals to the plaintiff, or had ever spoken Ito her respecting marriage. He said he I had been in the colony six years, and was I manager of Bruce’s fl mr mills at T.maru lin 1882. He had advised her to get rid of I her eldest boys, because they were wild I and beyond her control. He had told the I plaintiff that he was a married man. He I had nothing whatever to do with the I plaintiff leaving Timaru, She did not I leave by his advice. The plaintiff was I always anxious to know his name, but he j would not tell it, signing his letters to her I “Johnnie.” The only reason why he I visited the plaintiff s house was became he I found her d inghte ■ Edith a very engagI ing child. He had never contributed toI wards the support of plaintiff’s infant. I The L 5 he gave plaintiff to bury her child I was to help her out of her difficulties, and I not as a recognition of its paternity. The I first suggestion as to his being the father lof her child was in February last He I visited her about a dozen times inTimaru. He visited her lens frequently in Dunedin. His wife res ded in Scotland. To Mr Adams ; The sole reason that took him to plaintiff’s house was the interest he took in the little girl. The woman forced herself upon him, Ha never wished to correspond with her, but when he went to Auckland the tenor of her ! letters led to a reply, when he wrote enjoining her to “strict silence” and “ mum’s the word. ” He was referring to her husband having committed suicide, which was not a good recommendation for a woman to go down to Dunedin with. The Jury, by a mijority of threefourths, awarded the plaintiff L 250 damages.