UNUSUAL ENDING OF A BREACH UP PROMISE CASE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1218, 3 July 1885, Page 3

UNUSUAL ENDING OF A BREACH UP PROMISE CASE.

la the case of Coatigan v. Douglas, heard at Tima.ru the other day before Judge John • ston, Mr Huneisley, in his opening, said that on or about December 21, 1881, the plaintiff and defendant agreed to marry one another. In October, 1881, plaintiff entered the service of the defendant, a runholler at the Waihao, as his housekeeper. One night, after she had gone to bed, he went to her bedroom and woke her up saying that he expec ed some visitors to arrive and she would have to get up and prepare for their arrival. This she at first refused to do, but after some pursuaaion she consented, and dressed herself. On her going out of her room the defendant marie dishonorable proposals to her. Plaintiff refused to listen to them, but on his promising to marry her she consented. She then lived in the defendant’s house for three years, daring which she cohabited with him. At the end of that time, defendant refused to have anything more to do with her, aud said that he had never promised to marry her ; he only meant to provide for her. For snob breach of promise she claimed L 750 damages. When defendant discharged her ho had her forcibly put into a trap and taken to the railway station and put into ■he train against her will, she all tho time saying that defen lant ought to fulfil his promise. She thou instructed a solicitor to bring the present action. Defendant plea led on his part merely a general denial of the statement of plaintiff. Mr Joynt asked whether his learned friend was prepared with corroborative evidence. He was instructed that this action ha I been brought for the sole purpose of blackening the defendants character.

His Honor asked Mr Mamersley what reply he hail to make to th s. Mr Mamersley said ha had indeed very slender evidence of a corroborative character.

Ilia Honor Rai l he should certainly rot allow the plaintiff to enter on a course of blackening defendant's character when there was no evidence in support of the statement beyon 1 that of the plaintiff, Mr rlaraersley accepted a nonsuit. His Honor animadverted severely upon the irregularity which had characterised the proceeding on the part of plaintiff’s legal advisers.

And now ensued a highly sensational, albeit amusing scone. The nonsuit having been accepted, plaintiff, who (clad in deep mourning) had occupied a seat beside her counsel, rose, and, advancing to the witness box, burst into tears, and begged His Honor to hear her

His Honor (sternly): I shall do nothing of the kind. 1 shall hear nothing you have to say. Plaintiff continued to sob, and, holding up her arm, which was in a sling, said piteously “ Look !my arm is in a sling, your Honor. This is the way he has treated me. Look at me ! Look at me ! ”

His Honor ignored the plaintiff’s utterances, and this seeming to suddenly infuriate her, she flew across the small space between herself aul defendant, and raising her parasol, dealt him a series (of vigorous blows on the head and shoulders. Two constables in a few seconds interfered, however, and forcibly restrained her just as the major portion of the parasol flow into the air and the lower part of the handle dropped on the Press table.

Defendant, rising hurriedly, exoiaimed : “Sir 1 this is the fourth time she has attempted life 1" His Honor directed the constables to remove her, and, as soon as convenient, to charge her by his order before the Resident Magistrate with assault.

At a later hour Mr Baswick, 11.M., sat to hear the case of assault. Jane Cosiigaii was charged by the police, at the order of Judge Johnston, with assaulting John Douglas in the Supreme, Court that day. Defendant, whose agitation, real or affected, was very great, pleaded guilty, but with hysterical laughter and much cryin •, urged that when she was nonsuited the remembrance of her wrongs burned within her so much that she was driven to desperation, and attacked him- The Court rebuked her very sharply, reminding her that sho had become liable to four months imprisonment. As, however, she might have been laboring under a sense of wroug, they would not inflict the full penalty. The assault had been committed without provocation, aud in a Court of Justice. She would go to gaol for seven days, and be bound over in heavy recognisances to keep the peace towards all Her Majesty’s subjects. Afterwards defendant frantically endeavored to address the Bench, aud crying out “ Oh shoot me, shoot me, shoot me ! ” waa with difficulty removed from the Court.