SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4025, 20 January 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Teubsdat, Jancabt 13. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a special jury.) BREACH OF PROMISE CASE. Hughes v. Shand was an action for L3.0C0 for Web of promise of marriage. Mr Smith, with hj m Mr Sinclair, for the plaintiff, Caroline Masoi Hughes; Mr G. K Barton, with him Mr otout, for the defendant, James Shand. ! nt e case being called or, Mr Smith applied for an adjournment till to-morrow morning. His Honor had granted an order for tha examination of a witness Mrs Wilson -- and the Registrar had attended at her house this morning, with the parties on both sides, with their respective *■o icitors; From the report made by the Registrar (Mr Ward), it appeared that the lady was too much indisposed to get up to be examined, and the Registrar had taken upon himself—improperly, as he (Mr Smith) contended—to grant an adjournment of tbeexamlna'ion till this evening. He submitted the order was spent by reason of the examination not having been taken, and the Registrar had no power whatever to grant the adjournment. However, he should not object to that informality provided the plaintiff was not forced on to trial to-day. Under the oircum* stances he thought he had a right to ask for an adjournment till to morrow. His Honor: When is it proposed to take the examination ?

Mr Smi'h: At seven this evening. ■ His Honor: It is only a matter of supposi tion, 1 suppose, than the lady will be in a fit s'a e to bs examined hen. Mr Smith; It is a mere matter of conjecture so far as 1 ~m concerned, Mr Bario-i objected to an adjournment, everybody (witnesses, jurymen, &c.) being in attendance. Of course, Mr Smith’s sole objeefc must io to have Mrs Wilson’s examination and know wh.it she had sw rn before he opeued hi« case. For that reason alone he (Mr barton) objected to the adjournment. He had the right to ask the examination of the w truss—she being one of the deend an is witnesses—should be taken after plaintiff’s case had closed. The examination of Mrs Wilson Was to have taken place on Saturday j but Mr Smith was strongly c°nt i mti ry to it not having been done then, Mr Smith : Which I utterly deny. •>i . r i? ttrt:oa 5 Unfortunately the lady was too ill to be examined. The Registrar reports she c&n. be examined this evening at seven, . Uis Honor: What power was there to adjourn ? Will you argue that? Mr Barton: if the Registrar has no puwer, Mr Smith can obj ct to the admission of the evidence when it is rendered, and 1 am willing to take the risk of that.

After further discussion, his Honor decided kb®*® was n ° Rro md for adjournment. o n- were Bwora of the jury ur/i l r2 an ".N ( foremau ). Daniel Haynes, Wm. Gilchrist, Francis Battson, James Hoge! George blyth, M. G. Hceles, J. B. Thomson, Joseph Samuel. Wm T. Grimste .d, James .Martin, and John 'i'Niil. The Issues were in substance: -(1) Did the parties on \ov. mber 13, 1874. agree to many : (2) has a reasonable time el apse-i for such marriage ; (3) has the plaimiff alwavs boi-n ready and wiUing to marry the defendant; (4) has the defendant refused to marry the plaintiff; aud (5) what damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?

Mr Smith, addressing the jury, said he had no intention of extending his remarks to great length, as he should have opportunity at a later penod of the trial to sift and analyse the evidence that would be produced. He would therefore content himself with giving a plain narrative of the circumstances th»t have led to the present action. The jury would observe that the pleadings were exceedingly simple. The declaration sim -ly stated that the defendant and plaintiff mutually pro,marry one another; that the pla.ntiff had always been willing to marry the defendant, and he had broken his promise, and therefore she sought the only redress that remained f r her, as |the defendant had recently taken somebrdy else to wife. The circumstances of the case, he thought tf-e jury would nud, would disclose conduct on the part of the defendant which, to say the least, was heart* less and u .manly in the extreme. He had trined with the plaintiff’s affections, and—he was going to say had consigned her to a life of misery but at all events he had forsaken her and married another person. The intimacy between the plaintiff and defendant commenced about ten years ago. Mias Hughes was living at that time at West Taieri, wii.h the family of a gentleman named Bennie, It was there where he hrat made her acquaintance. He made her «n offer of marriage, and was accepted. He (Mr bunth would trace the history of the affair very briefily. Not longaflerwardsthe defendant told the plaintiff that his friends objected to the marriage and that was assigned by him as excuse why his visits were rather few and far between. The plaintiff was satisfied with the excuse ut that time. Months elapsed—‘he (Mr Smith) believed a year or two during which that state of things prevailed. In the meantime Miss Hughes had left Mr Rennie and uved in the family of Mr Peter Grant in the Taiert rather close to Mr Shand—and while there he continued his visits in the capacity of an accepted lover. But after a time the intervals between his visits became very long, aod at last ceased altogether. Miss Hughes went on a visit to so me friends at Sydney, and on her return again entered Mr Grant’s family, and again the defendant renewed his attentions and so things remained until the year 1868. By that time Air bband appealed to have mopped the acquaintanceship. Miss Hughes wai too sensitive, or as Mr hand afterwarus said! too rvoud to ask for au explanation of his conduct. As he stayed away, she allowed him to stay away, and going about that time on a visit to Timatu, and thinking all was at an end with Mr bhaud, she accepted an offer made her by a gentleman there. When she returned to her friends at the iaieri, Mr Shand called upon her and asked her if it was true she had accepted die offer alluded to, and on saying she had, Mr hand said, “You will never be happy with bun—you are mine.’ He c.aimod special propert}* in Miss Hugties and was so importunate that she coasemed to change her mind—a privilege that is usually accorded to ladies on such occasions. He (Mr Smith) was well aw.-re of the use that would be made of tins statement by his learned friends It might be said that, as Miss Hughes had changed her mind, the present claim comer with a bad grace on her pn t. Put he meant to hide nothing from t e jury, and th leforo ho stated the fact at once • and the other side c-.uld make what use they liked of it. It was true she accepted an offer of a gendemen, who, he believed, was since maincd. On that occasion, therefore, Mr Shand renewed the promise of marriage. 1 Lings went oa that footing until Mr Shand again made a real or unfounded excuse—he (Mr Smith) did not say which—that his (Mr bhaud s) friends wore opposed to the proposed union. His visits became again few and far between, and at last he absented himself altogeth r. This conduct affected the plaintiff’s health, arid, as he should show, made her ill. and in consequence she determined to go I!?™* , e accordingly went in Oc ober, 1809, and .Mr and Mrs Grant took the oppor-i-i of t sending with her an infant child. Miss Hughes returned in 1872. Be oie that time Mr Grant had become a widow, and the lady who became his second wife had taken Miss Hughes’s position as governess in the faaiily, and was on the eve of marriage at her return. Miss Hughes was invited to stay at Mr Grant’s house, and she did so, and shortly afterwards Mr Shand again appeared and renewed his former atten--ions. He (Mr Smith) said so, because uo proposal was mode until the offer of marriage set forth in the declaration which was made in 1874. He continued his visits at broken intervals at Mr Grant's house, and was always on friendly terms with Miss Hu.hes. He at all events asked her once or twice to foiget the past, which she appeared quite wil.ing to do. 'lheir friendliness inci e?s u d more and more until Mr bhand, at a special visit on the 13 rh Nov mber, told her he felt perfectly miserable, and was desirous of (eimiiiaUn tint wretched state of existence that ho hfd a house and grounds, and he would be glad if she would make up her mind

to let bye-gonea be bye-gonea and begin afresh. 4 s that was an interesting conversation he would not trust his memory but would sive it in the lanornate that would nearly be given by the plaintiff herself.

He told her that he was l iving a miserable life, and asked her if she still cared for him. He said he sometimee thought she did. Ho then asked her to be his wife. Plaintiff replied by telling him that he had in times past treated her very unkindly. Ho said it was her fault; that she was too proud and never sought an explanation of his conduct. Plaintiff said, *• How could 1 ask for au explanation after such treatment ?” Defendant said, “ Well, if it was my fault, will you let byegoues he byegones, and I will,do everything in my power to make you happy, I have a house and everything ready, and as soon as I can make arrangements we will be married.” He said he knew he had listened to friends and other people in former days, but if plaintiff would only say she would trust him once more, she would not have cause to regret it. They would begin a new life and be very happy.

He (Mr Smith) might say that that was the only occasion when Mr Shand’s conduct was anything like that of a lover. Miss Hughes agreed to trust him again. Mr Shand then proposed that they should be married—to use hia own expression—“ right off.” Miss Hughes was in no such hurry to get married, but proposed that a reasonable time should elapse, and it was settled she should be married in about two months from that date. She requested from Mr Shand to be allowed to announce the engagement to her friends, and the date of her proposed marriage. No doubt this was on account of the painful position in which she bad been bo frequently placed by him—having been so often made a laughing-stock of. That was the promise on which the plaintiff relied as having been solemnly made by Mr Shand and as solemnly assented to by Miss Hughes, and which he had deliberately broken. Mr Shand having acted like a lover on that, occasion, continued to do so in hia own peculiar fashion. Until the first week in Feb ruary be continued to visit Miss Hughes. Mr and Mrs Grant, under whose care and protection Meb Hughes remained, would tell the jury that the two engaged people behaved as ) ersons similarly circumstanced usually do. Mr - hand did nor. play the ardent lover; in fact, he acted with great caution, and he (Mr Smith) was afraid that those who attended the Court on that occasion would miss the excitement usually attendant on reading letters commencing ' My dear so-and-so.” All that was wanting on this occasion, and they must be content with a much more matter-of-fvet sot of circumstances. His conduct was so palpably unaccountable that Miss Hughes lor the first time took upon herself to write a 1 tter of remonstrance. The Jury would see that her conduct had been most forbearing up to that lime. It was high time that she took some step to vindicate her position in the eyes of the world. He would read the letter she wrote to Mr Shand : Gowrio, West Taieri, March 17, 1875. Dear Mr Shand,— The two months having more than terminated in which you promised to make me your wife, I now ask whether that promise is to be fulfilled. Certainly I think your behaviour very strange, and surely in your heart, if there is any feeling, you cannot possibly think your treatment either kind or honorable. Of course this is a busy time, and nothing very unreasonable was expected, bnt after coming anti asking me to become your wife and all the promises which you have made. Not only this, telling me to get my things ready for the marriage to come off in a lew weeks. You now appear to stay away altogether oud take no further notice. By the memory of byegone days I scarcely thought you would act thus again. However, this is no trifling matter, and I wish to know what is to bo done. Please send on answer, and see me os soon as convenient,—l remain, yours faith, fully, Caboline Hughes. Mr Shand bring a laggard in love, having so much business in the way of crops, &c., to look to, could not attend to love-making, and the lady gave due weight to those reasons in her letter. The jury would admit that that letter was very temperate and pre-eminently called for under the circumstances. By that letter Mr Shand was called upon to meet his promise of marriage, to answer for his conduct, and to say what bis real intentions then were. It would have been expected that Mr Shand would, os a matter of courtesy, have answered that letter. No, here his caution came out again. (Laughter.) He remembered the old maxim—writing remains, and would not put his pen to paper; he said nothing, and kept away. That was his policy. (Laughter.) He (Mr Smith) did not know what the defence was going to be; of that he had not the slightest idea; but if Mr Shand was going to urgeany kiodcf excuse astowhy he didnot keep hispromise, that was the time to have urged it, if it was a valid one, if there was any truth in it, or If it had not been merely trumped up since. However, he contented himself with perfect silence, thmgs remained until about the 4th of April, when Mr Shand paid a visit to Mr Grant’s house in company with Mr and Mrs Wilson, two witnesses who were to be called by the opposite side. When they were about to go Mrs Grant asked Mr Shand to stay behind for a few minutes, as Mias Hughes wanted to speak to him. Then the following interview took place, and ps he wished to be particular and not to mi quote the conversation on either side he would again quote from his brief the substance of the conversation that took place between Miss Hughes and Mr Shand Plaintiff asked why he had stayed away so long and n ;+• answered her letter. He said, “ I’m not to be dictated to by you.”

That was the high and mighty way in which Mr -'band thought proper to address Miss Hughes. Plaintiff said: “Yon are treating me very cruelly. You can find time to go about with others, leaving me to be laughed at.’’ He said: “You sent me that letter—a perfect lawyer’s letter.” Plaintiff said she saw nothing wrong in the letter after hia past treatment, He said, “You have changed; you have come oat in quite a new character." Plaintiff said she had neither changed nor come out iu a new character, only she said, “ I’m not to be trifled with as you have done in ye us gone by.” He said, “ I’m not going to marry yon nor anyone else, unless it suits me. It was pretty ’cute of yon to write me that letter.” Plaintiff said, “Is there anything in that letter which i.i not true ?" Defendant said, “If you had taken a more ladylike course and written kivdly to me, I would have come to see you.” Plaintiff said, “ Had you kept your promise, or even come and seen me, you should not have get tiiat letter.” Again he said, “If it does not suit me, I’ll not marry.’ Plaintiff said, “ Yon have a right to tell me if it does not suit you to marry.” He said, “ I shall do as I please about that." Plaintiff said, “You are making me very unhappy. I regre' the day I ever met you. You have blighted my life. After the years you have known me, is it honorable or manly to act thus ? ” Defendant did nothing but mock her. Plaintiff said, “ Did I ever seek you and put myself in your way ? You came of your own free will to ask me to be your wife, and now why do you act thus ? ” His only answer was that ho would do as ho pleased. Plaintiff said, “ I suppose because I have no friends here yon can treat me as you like?" “Oh,” ho said, “you havo champions in Mr and Mrs Grant." Plaintiff said, “ I am living at Mr Grant’s, and he has a right to interfere." > He said, “ I daresay ho has, but I’m not to bo dictated to. I’ll do as I like. I suppose you can get nobody better off, and you’ll take me for the sake of a home, and my place, and my money.” Plaintiff said, “Is this what you say after all those years ? You know you were the cause of keeping me from marrying another years ago; and now you are going to serve me the same as of old; but if you are going to make me the talk of the country, you must share it with me.”

That was spoken like a woman ef spirit. Mr Shand said so many erne], bitter—he (Mr Smith) had almost said brutal things on that occasion, that Miss Hughes asked him to leave her. It appeared that he at last became aware that he had been acting in a most unmanly way towards the plaintiff, for he said—>

“ I know I'm very passionate and hasty, and say things I don’t mean; but forgive mo, and I’ll think no more of that letter. I’ll bum it, and ill make it up, and all will be right. You will be my wife, and we’ll be,happy yet.” Ho said: “I’llbe down next week, and will make arrangements for the marriage.” It appeared that, rough as Mr Shand can speak, ho has some way about him which in engaging to the other sex—(loud laughter)—and although not much used to melting moods he can melt th.i hearts of females when he sets

himself resolutely about that task.- (Men laughter.) Accordingly she relented and agreed to make it up She thought it was a lovei’i quarrel—a stiff o ie it was ttue—that the cloud which had had such a threateni % appiarante had at last presented its silver lining ; and that all was peace and sunshine again. M r Shand re'ir-d leaving Miss Hughes under tin impression that the marriage would t-ko placi within a short period. But veiy much to hei surprise Mr Shand was again net forthcoming,

and although a near neighbor he still kept away and ceased to pay her any farther visits. Then Mi«s Hughes determined to make one more attempt to ascertain what Mr Shand’s real determination was, and accordingly sent him this short note: — Miss Hughes would like to see Mr Shand some evening when ho is disengaged. Not keeping y >ur former promise to come down, I have something that I wish to communicate to you'personally. Gowrio, West Taieri, May 17.1875.

Thuio was a curious trait of Mr Shand’s character, to which he called attention. Cf course he must have known perfectly well that the letter, if not in Miss Hughes’s writing, professed to he; but singularly enough he pretended to have treated it as it it came from Mr Grant. Again, his cautious policy came into play; he addressed not a line to Miss Hughes, for fear it should be bi ought in evicfence against him; but on the same day he wrote to ivir Grant. West Taieri, May 17,1875. Dear Mr Grant, —I duly received your note last evening, and intended to come down and see Mr Grant, out my brother John arrived from the South and made me unable to get away. I exnect to he home on Friday night. If I can get away, and hope then to see you.—l remain, yours truly, Jas. Shand. That was Mr Shand’a reply to Miss Hughrs’a very civil note. Miss Hughes, not satisfied with that, wrote this further letter—the last communication she has had direct with Mr Shand:— Dear Mr Shand, — Why did you write to Mr Grant ? Even supposing yon could not understand the wording of my note, I should have thought you knew my writing too well to make such a mistake. However, be that as it may, again I repeat my request. Will you please come down as soon as convenient ? „ . Cafolxne Hughes. Gowrie, West Taieri, May 27,1875.

Still Mr Shand did not choose to pay any attention to Miss Hugh a’s request, and it becoming evident that he intended to back out of his promise, for rumors were afloat that he had engaged himself to another lady whom he has since married, she determined upon bringing this action, in which she seeks the only redress the law can give—a very poor one at the best—for this most cruel outrage upon her feelings. Miss Hughes was under examination the who e of the afternoon, but pressure upon our ipace compels us to hold over her evidence.