CURIOUS BREACH OE PROMISE CASE.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2606, 24 June 1871, Page 2

CURIOUS BREACH OE PROMISE CASE.

An action of an unusual character—Wiltshire v. Occleston and wife —in which the plaintiff, a compositor, who had been jilted by bis sweetheart, claimed damages from his fiancee and her husband, was tried in the M elbourne Supreme Court last week. Wiltshire is an American, and about thirty years of age, who came to this colony about the year 1865, and obtained temporary employment in the Government priutint office, at wages of L 3 15s per week. He met Mrs Occleston, then Miss Hart, a young girl of twenty, and «mployed at a sewing machine sh p. With her he struck up an acquaintance, and unknown to her father, although apparently with the knowledge of the mother, he paid his aldresses to her. they met only once at Mr Hart’s house, their other meetings being apparently when she was going home from work, or in the Fitzroy Gardens, or in a neighbor’s house ; and at last about the time she came of age, she engaged herself to him. Miss Hart apparently hid some dread of her father, for she would not allow the matter to be mentioned to him, and Wiltshire foolishly consented to keep all information from him. Miss Hart could not muster up e. ough courage to be married in Victoria, and it was agreed that Wiltshire should return to dan Francisco, obtain employment, secure a home for his intended wife, and when he had done so she would follow him. She did not, however, care to run away without her father’s consent, and she told Mr Hart of the engagement, when he immediately forbade her going to California on a fool’s errand, but after some months consented to the marriage, and after a few more mouths imposed the condition that Wiltshire should return to this colony and have the ceremony performed here. Miss H art, during her lover’s absence, kept up an impassioned correspondence with him till a mouth before she brake off the engagement. In her letters she called him her dear old man, her husband, described herself ashis dear old girl, and his wif , but in his last letter cooled down to “ My dear Mr Wiltshire.” He could not understand this last letter, and came over for an explanation, when he found she had been married previously. He then demanded compensation for his outlay, but this was refused him, although his presents were returned. Mr Justice Barry, who tried the case, directed a verdict for plaintiff, but plainly intimated that the lowest possible damages would suffice.. The jury were disinclined to give the plaintiff even a farthing, and returned a verdict for defendant.