THE ENGLISH MAIL.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 146, 28 June 1870, Page 2

THE ENGLISH MAIL.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, Mary Frost, twenty-five years of age ! daughter of a gamekeeper, sued Mr. Josiah Kuight, jun., son of a large farmer near Stone for breach of promise of marriage. The case for the plaintiff was that seven years ago she went to live with Mr. Knight, sen. to assist Mrs. Knight in the housekeeping. She was always treated as one of the family, and never as a menial. After she had been there about eighteen months young Josiah told her that jf she would wait; until his father's death he would marry her. After some delay she consented, but it was agreed that the engagement should be kept a secret from Mr. and Mrs. Knights In 1865 Mrs, Knight died, and plaintiff remained in charge of the establishment. In that same year, too Mr. Knight, sen., was thrown from his horse . and defendant anticipating, bis death, renewed the promise he had formerly given. The-e relations existed between the parties until the summer of last year, when the defendant went to Rhyl. In-order to a clear under- , standing on the subject, the plaintiff aßked Mr. Knight oneSuuduy eveningin August last -whether he intended to keep his promise or not, and he tc_d her he did not. The next day she consulted a solicitor, and the action was the consequence. The plaintiff was submitted to a searching cross-examination by Mr. Powell, Q.O. She resented indignantly the suggestion that she was originally engaged by Mrs. Knight as a housemaid. She knew Joseph Fairbanks and Joseph Turner, and Richard Fairbanks, and Thomas Acton, and John Mair, and Edward Fisher, and a man named Morton^ and another named Hall, and another named Allport; and she would not swear that she had _"t kissed several of them. She had not. walked home with them, excepting from church. She wai never engaged to be married to Mair. They had corresponded, aad he had made her presents. He had never given her a ring. Fisher was a clerk in a county court offi *c, and she had consulted him about taking proceedings against Mair for breach of promise, but it was only in fun. The correspondence betwen her and Mair had been destroyed. Fisher's brother destroyed the correspondence about Mair's breach of promise after the subpoena had been served on Fisher to produce the letters. On one occasion she attended a fete in Stone Park, and some of her friends introduced her to a young man with whom she walkei home, and it afterwards turned out that he was a married man and that her friends had made a fool of her. The defendant knew that she corresponded with Mair. The corroborative evidence consisted mainly of the statements of two servants wlio had seen the defendant kiss the plaintiff and put his arms around her waist. One young woman said she once heard the defendant promise to marry the plaintiff, and by peepinj; through a little window which commanded a view of the parlour, she once saw her sitting on his knee and "he was smiling." Mr. Powell, Q.C., in addressing the jury on behalf of the defendant, said the new Act of Parliament, which provided that in cases of this kind the plaintiff and the defendant might give evidence, was one of the rost dangerous measures ever passed. In this case the plaintiff entered Mr. Knight's service as housemaid at the moderate wages of £9 a year. It is not to be denied that she was a pretty girl, nor that young Knight was smitten with her, but she never cared about him nor did she ever formally accept his offer. On the contrary, while he was paying her attentions she actually engaged herself to be married to another man. He did not impute anything immoral to the plaintiff, but in point of fact she had been for many years an incorrgibie and notorious flirt, and if the jury supposed she was entitled to a verdict, a farthing damages would be an ample compensation. , The defendant, on being examined, displayed great bashfulness, and his counsel could scarcely get him to say anything. At length, after a good deal of coaxing, he said that when the plaintiff had been at his father's house a year or so, he used to kiss her occasionally, and he asked her whether she would be married to him when his father died. She said she would. He never heard of her taking notice of other men until after the action had been brought. He knew that she was corresponding with Mr. Msir, but he did not know what it.was about.

At this point the defendant blushed and stammered i o such an extent that Mr. Powell said he could make nothing of him. Indeed after his aamission that he knew nothing of .1. correspondence with Mair and other persons, he thought it was useless to attempt to carry that part of the case any further. Mr. Baron Martin concurred, and added that he thought it was very much to the credit of the defendant that he bad been unwilling to deny the engagement or to throw discredit upon the plaintiff. Mr. John Mair, on being called, stated that in 18fi8he and plaintiff promised to be true t each other, but they did not absolutely enter into a matrimonial engagement They corresponded, nnd he made her several presents, including a ring. In Bumming up, Baron Martin said the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, but he intimated that her conduct did not entitle her to heavy damages. He also expressed the opinion that actions of this kind ought not to be allowed, arid he thought the new Act would .cad to their abortion. "v

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff— damages, £200. \ . Mr. Powell applied to his lordship t£V „y execution that he might raise the qu-,\e*m whether, as Mr. Knight, sen., was still ,p ~ the time specific i for the fulfilment c.''•**_> contract had yet arrived. Mr. Baron Martin said he would consider the subject. - .