AN EXPENSIVE BREACH OF PROMISE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1262, 7 May 1886, Page 3

AN EXPENSIVE BREACH OF PROMISE.

Mr Justice Dry and a special jury were occupied at the Manchester Assizes on February 5 in hearing the action of Maria Haworth against Albert Taylor, in which the plaintiff sought damages for a breach of promise to marry. Mr Addison, for the plaintiff, said the real question the jury had to determine was as to the amount of compensation his client was entitled to recover. The defendant’s conduct had been cruel and shabby. The plaintiff was a young woman of twenty-live or twenty-six years of age, the daughter of a person who for a long time carried on business as a butcher in Blackburn. She lost both her father and mother about 1875, and went to keep the house of her brother, who continued the butcher’s business of her father. Plaintiff ha f an uncle who was a clergyman of the Church of England, and she was a well-bred and well-educated young person. [ll ISSO the defendant came to her brother’s house an I began to court her. He was at that time a member of the firm of cotton spinners and manufacturers known as B. and W, Taylor, and so for his pecuniary position was concerned theie could be no doubt that he might have been a very fair match, but the brother objected to him because he was undoubtedly a man of loose life, and wns what they might call “fast.” Defendant, however, continued to pay his addresses to her from January until October In that month she went as schoolmistress to Clayton-le-Moors, but the day before she went there the defendant seduced her. Hu had then promised to marry her. She stayed at Clayton-le-M ors until January, 1881. In the memtime the partnership of the defendant’s firm was dissolved in November, 1880, and the defendant got LlO.OilO to buy him out. He therefore left the business with an income of LSDO ayear. Thereupon the plaintiff and he went off together, and visited a number of water-ing-places and other towns in bngland, everywhere living as wan and wife—somefirms as Mr and Mrs Haworth, sometimes as Mr an I Mrs Taylor. Plaintiff often fret e 1 because she was not defendant’s wife, and urged upon him to fulfil his promise to marry her, hut, he kept putting her off. Ah >nt July, 1831, a son was born while they were staying at Bridlington Quay and he was registered as the son of Arthur and Mary Haworth ; and in -September, 1883, a daughter was born in another town and registered as th > daughter of A. and M. Taylor, Formerly Haworth. They coon tinned to live to.eth r until the end of 1881 and all the time the plaintiff gave ample evidence th it she was very land of the defendant, though he treated her very badly. There could he no doubt that he was a man who drank a great deal, and who was often drunk. W hen sober, however, he appeared to be very kind to her and the children. In 1884- defendant deserted her, and he never came near her again until the "ml of last year, when an action was brought for breach of promise of marriage. Then defendant met her in Liverpool and marie a further promise to marry her, and the action was withdrawn. Plaintiff had no desire to get money out of him ; her only desire was that he should marry her and legitimise her children. Tn January, 1885, however he deserted her again, and would not fulfil his promise Trie plaintiff was then called and bore out in her evidence the opening statement of the learned counsel. The only witness called on her behalf was her aunt, Mrs Lawrenson. The jury awarded the plaintiff Ll,C0l) as damages.