AMUSING BREACH OF PROMISE CASE AT ELGIN.

Clutha Leader, Volume I, Issue 1, 9 July 1874, Page 3

AMUSING BREACH OF PROMISE CASE AT ELGIN.

A case of rather an unusual kind nortb of the Grampians was tried before Sheriff Smith, Elgin, jome time ago. Unlike . the generality of these cases, the pursuer belonged to the bearded sex, and sought solatium for his wounded feelings in a court of justice against the once object of hi 9 affections. The pursuer in tbia case, which has caused so much fun on Speyside, is a son of St. Crispin, residing at Orion.; snd the defender, who.resides not far from the pursuer's place of business, is the daughter of a farmer in the district. From the evidence adduced at the tiial, it would seem that the parties have been acquainted for a -considerable period, and tbat the pleaBaht work of courting began while the defender was a servant at Delfur Lodg«, near Orton, in 1866. They had been engaged to be- married in that year, but for pome reason unexplained, the <h fender all at once ceased sending endearing communications, and in short jilted her lover. Up to the end of 1872 there was no n=o*e -correspondence between tbe parties, bu f in Octoher of tbat y ear *t he defender, having changed her mind in tbe long interval, renewed epistolary intercourse. She wrote to the son of St. Crispin from near Edinburgh, where she was a -servant. He answered the letter, and subsequently wrote a smart note to the fair correspondent, , intimating the ttrms on which he would 'carry on correspondence. The defender evidently was once more favorably disposed towards him, for she agreed to his terms. The result of farther -correspondence was, that pursuer took a house and , went south to Edinburgh, and a second time arranged for their marriage, which was fixed to take place in the summer. Everything- went *' merry a*- a marriage bell" until about the beginning of March, 1878, whtn pursuer wrote several letters without obtaining * reply. He wrote again, and said unless she vouchsafed an answer he would cease correspondence. No reply came, but the defender came home about the term ol Wtitsunday, 1873, lor tbe purpose of getting married to ah. other. Two days before the marriage the pursuer wrote her a letter, io answer to which the defender said she never promised to marry him at all. In pursuer's letter fie says he does not* regret the parting, because she Was so cbangable, and the SheriffSubstitute holds that in consequence of this expresbien in pursuer's last letter to defender, he excludes himself from claiming damages. This decision, however, is to be appealed to the Sheriff- Principal.