A JILTED LOVER.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 359, 8 March 1902, Page 2

A JILTED LOVER.

EXTRAORDINARY BREACH OF PROMISE CASE. A LADY SUED FOR £SOOO. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyrigh SYDNEY. March 7.—A breach of promise case, wl erein two well-known residents and large land owners of Molong district figured as principals, was before the Court to-day. Richard Young Cousins sued Mary Louisa McNevin, now Mrs Barr, and who is at present in England, for the sum of £SOOO damages for breach of promise of marriage. 'i’he plaintiff’s case was that he hei came formally engaged to the defendant in March of 1891. An arrangement was made between the parties that they were to be married in Sydney, prior to which a document was executed, to he signed immediately alter the marriage, settling a quarter Oi the defendant’s estate, which was valued at £50,000, on the plaintiff. Dciendant, it was stated, came to Sydney shortly before the date fixed for ilie marriage, and the plaintiff followed. The bridal dresses and presents were purchased, and everything was got ready for the wedding. A priest came from Molong to perform the ceremony. Steamer tickets were also secured for the honeymoon Trip to England. The night prior to the date fixed for the wedding the defendant came to him and put her arms round his neck, and said, “ The wedding is not to come off.” She gave no reason for her conduct excepting that she wanted to go away for a month. She further stated that if she did not marry then she would give him a start with land and sheep. Subsequently she left for Queensland, from where she wrote stating that after due consideration she had decided they had better part, her feeling towards him not being such as it ought to be, seeing that they would have to pass Ffe together. She expressed her sorrow that things had gone so far. On July 26th she had married Barr. Documentary and other evidence was produced to prove the engagement. Plaintiff said that he spent two hundred pounds preparing for the wedding. Defendant, through her counsel, denied that there was any agreement, and added that before the alleged breach of contract plaintiff had exonerated her from performance of the agreement. The jury awarded plaintiff £l5O damages.