BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Grey River Argus, Volume VIII, Issue 589, 26 October 1869, Page 4

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

An inquiry was held at Guildhall, London, one Wednesday, in July, before Mr Secondary Potter and a special jury, to assess the amount of damages in an action brought in one of the superior courts for a breach of promise of marriage, the defendant having allowed judgment to pass by default. The plaintiff, Miss Louisa Woodley, was the eldest daughter of an English merchant and vice consul at Patras, in Greece, and the defendant, Mr Pickburn., was a surgeon, and had recently held the appointment of assistant physician at Fisherton Asylum, in Wiltshire. The plaintiff was a young lady of great personal attractions. In the summer of 1865 the defendant paid a visit to Patras for the benefit of his health, and the steamer Venetia, in which he had come from England, being consigned to Mr Woodley, plaintiff's father, the captain of the vessel introduced him to the plaintiff's family. The young lady was then iv her seventeenth year, and the defendant was between nineteen and twenty. It seemed that he was much charmed with the society of the plaintiff, and eventually he made an offer of marriage to her. After his return to England he corresponded with her in the most affectionate terms, and he wrote to her father, saying that he loved his daughter Louisa, and asked to be allowed to pay his addresses to her, and that he would uoaie day give her to him for a wife. He added that he was then a medical student at one of the hospitals in London, and in a iittle more than a year he hoped to be both a physician and a surgeon, and that in three years he should be in a position to keep her. After much consideration, Mr Woodley gave the required permission and the correspondence was continued— the defendant's letters expressing the greatest love for the young lady. In the course of twelve months he ' went out again to Patras, and was received as the future husband of the plaintiff. They walked and drove out together, and he showed her the greatest attention. After a stay of a month he returned to England. He wrote to her from Gibraltar and forwarded her the diary which he had kept on board the vessel, and on reaching England he sent her a telegram announcing his arrival. The defendant, in the entries in the diary, spoke of the plaintiff in the most endearing terms. He continued to write to her frequently. In January, 1867, he informed her that he had passed his examination and was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and in another letter ho stated that he had had an offer of LIOOO to go to Bombay, which he had refused, and in a later epistle he intimated that he was the assistant house surgeon at St. Bartholomew's Hospital. It was stated that his communications became somewhat more cool, and towards the close of March he spoke of his prospects of settling down being very far off, and added, "I cannot help thinking sometimes that it was a very selfish thing for me to bind you to an engagement with me, for there are so many disadvantages," and spoke of an income of L 390 which did not keep him out of debt. At length, on the 29th of September, he wrote her a letter, breaking off the engagement, first, because he should not be in a position to keep a wife for some years, and secondly, that he had known long that his feeling towards her were only those of friendship and respect. Mr Woodley, the father of the plaintiff, was examined in support of these facts. He was born in England, and he stated what steps he had taken to see the defendant. His daughter hart suffered much in health. The counsel for the defendant having addressed t 1 c jury in mitigation of damages, called Mr Pickburn, the father of the defendant, and he gave some evidence as to the prospects of his son. His income at Fisherton House was LSO a-year, but he had resigned that appointment, and had left England on the previous day ijn the ship Abergele, for Sydney. \ The learned Secondary having summed up, the jury assessed the damages at LOSO. _____