A STRANGE BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1281, 17 September 1886, Page 3

A STRANGE BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Before Mr Justice Grantham, at the Liverpool Assizes, Mary Jane Wilkinson, of Bedford Leigh, sued a butcher named Harnpson, of the same place, 1 >r breach ot promise of marriage. The parties became acquainted at the end oi 1882, when the defendant was 30 and the plaintiff was 26. In February, 1883, the plaintiff’s mother asked the defendant what his intentions were, and he said that he intended to act honourably and marry her daughter the first opportunity. The plaintiff subsequently accompanied him to Manchester to see a pantomine, and in June, 18S+, went with him to Southport. In April, 1885, she had a child at Uttoxeter, defendairt paying all expenses. She then visited Southport, and whil- there again met thedeieudant, who promised to marry her iu three weeks. He did mot keep his nromi.-e, and ultimately told her he preferred to remain single. The plaintiff, in rep’y to Mr A ddison, said that the defendant told her he was worth L6OO a year; never told her he received 30s a week as assistant to his father. Ini further cross* examination, (he plaintiff admitted that a Mr and Mrs Radford, of Pytchley, near Rochdale, had adopted the child for L4O, which sum was paid by defendant, and by an agreement which was drawn up and signed by both plaintiff and defendanttthe child was to he sent to school, properly clothed, and taken care of, and to be brought up a member of the Established Church, and to attend church twice on a Sunday. Also a photograph of the child should be sent once a year to the plaintiff and the defendent. The plaintiff said the terms of the agreement were not read over to her, but she knew the agreement was to take the child away. The document was signed by her three months before the child was born. She signed the agreement, although she did not want to part with the child.—Mr Addison, addressing the jury, said that he never remembered a case in whi hj there was •more shocking cruelty shown to a re* spectable family than the defendant had been guilty of.—His Lordship, in summing up to the jury, observed that he certainly could not understand how anyone in the position of the defendant, a respectable man so far as his position , was concerned —honest and respectable to all appeai’ances—should have i allowed his solicitor and counsel to be | under a false illusion when there was not tho slightest defence.—The jury found for the plaintiff, and assessed i the damages at L6oo.—His Lordship, i in giving judgment for tho amount of

the claim, 'vetriarkod that yuch an agreement as that wliich had been put in during the hearing of the ease, by which tree and uninterrupted possession of the child wits given to the Radfords, could not be tolerated fur a moment It was perfectly intolerable that such an agreement should be made or should be considered binding.