BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 741, 18 October 1870, Page 4

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

At the Northampton Assizes early in August an action for breach of promise of marriage w. s concluded before a special jury. In it Sophia Dainty was plaintiff, and J. M. Brown defendant. Plaintiff is the daughter of the manager of a farm at Lacklington, in Norfolk, and defendant is a wealthy farmer at Rothwell, about two miles from Laddington. Defendant is a bachelor of sixty, aud in 186S had a niece living with him as his housekeeper — a Mi3s Bates. Miss Bates had been acquainted with Miss Dainty from her childhood, and on her recovery from a severe illness sent for her friend to take charge of her uncle's household during her own temporary absence for change of air. Plaintiff, a rather attractive girl of twenty-eight, performed her duties so well that the defendant thought he could not do better than make her an offer of marriage. At first she declined, putting before "her suitor the disparity of their I ages, aud probability that it might be pistasteful to his family, on the possibility that there might be a family. Defendant, however, overruled these objections, and she at length consented to become his wife. This was in January, 18G9. . In April of that year plaintiff addressed to defendant a letter of considerable length, in which she asked to be released from her engagement, on the ground that defendant was not a religious man, and that she felt it would be a sin to become his wife. With the religions argument, however, was mixed up a good deal of human affection, and the letter, upon the whole, was more of an endeavour to win the defendant to her religious views than to press the dissolution of her engagement. Defendant, however, refused to release her from her promise, and the engagement continued. At Christinas he gave an entertainment, at which he seemed to have slighted the plaintiff, though she was still received as his affianced wife. Time, however, went on, and defendant did not perform his promise, and the plaintiff began to entertain doubts of his intention to perform it at all. She had an uncle living in London (Mr Adams) who was very iond. oi her, and, observing that she was ill and depressed, he wrote to defendant to inquire his intentions. Defendant did not reply, and Mr Adams wrote again and again, at last intimating his intention to refer the matter to hi 3 solicitor. Defendant in the meantime spoke to plaintiff, expressing his displeasure at the uncle's interference, aud asking for fourteen days to consider his final determination The fourtesn days' respite was granted, but before it expired defendant commnnicated withhissolicitor, who telegraphed to Mr Adams his desire for an interview. Upon this an action was commenced against him. After it was commenced he met plaintiff, and in the course of a conversation with her said he would rather give her LIOOO than have the case brought into court. There was no imputation upon the character of the plaintiff, some of whose letters were sensible, clear-headed, and clever. Nor was the promise disputed, and the question was solely the amount of damages. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and on returning into court, after, about a quarter of an hour's deliberation, found for the plaintiff— damages, L2OOO.