BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 773, 31 December 1870, Page 4

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

An action in the Queen's Bench was . . heard recently before Mr Under-Sheriff Burchell and a jury, ■" Clarkson v. Eisenburg," to assess the amount of compensation for a breach of promise of marriage. The damages were laid at LIOOO, and the defendant had allowed judgment to go by default. Mr Serieant Sleigh (with whom was Mr Gates) appeared for the plaintiff, jane Clarksou, and Mr Phillips for the defendant, Sydney Howard Eisen- *' burg. The learned Serjeant opened the case as one of a serious character from the conduct of the defendant, who, after six years' courtship, had, in May last, married a Lancashire lady with property, and after he had obtained considerable advances from the plaintiff. There were a great many letters from the defendant, and he would read some extracts. The learned Serjeant then read portions from those dated 1863, when defendant spoke of his yacht. He commenced with "My dear Miss Clarkson," and in other letters he called her his " dearest," and implored God's blessing on her, concluding with "Amen." The plaintiff was the daughter of a tobacconist and betting-house keeper in the Edgeware road. The defendant also betted, and was a chiropodist. Money (said Serjeant Sleigh) had been advanced to a large extent, and only in May last, when he could not get any more money, he married another lady, with means. The plaintiff was called. She said her father was nearly blind, and she . attended to his shop and betting speculations. In 1864 she became acquainted with the defendant, who came into the, shop. She had supplied him with money— in the . whole upwards of LIBOO. She had been obliged to pass ' through the Court of Bankruptcy. She did not know of any other engagement until his marriage in May last at Birkenhead. She kept up an acquaintance with his mother, and was to be introduced to another gentleman, but at the proposed interview he was served with a; writ in the present action. The plaintiff was subjected to a severe cross-examination. She said she knew he was a gambler, and that he had kept a woman. She had not inserted the defendant as a debtor in her bankruptcy proceedings. She had ... not been engaged 'to any other person though sho had said she had, for W a purpose which she explained to the court. * The plaintiff, on being pressed, ' Admitted that she had had betting transactions with the defendant's brother, and realised therefrom some of the advances she had made to the defendant. • Mr Serjeant Sleigh asked the jury to give substantial damages, and commented on the defendant's conduct. He had for six years led the young woman to believe she waa .to be hi 3 wife,* andr then married another woman with property because he { could get no more money from the plaintiff.. Mr Turner submitted that it wes only a case for very moderate ; damages. The question was, what loss j: the plaintiff had sustained. She had certainly lost a gambler, and one who had no property. All the parties had beenraixed up in gambling transactions. Mr Under-Sheriff Burchell told the jury the question, was the to be awarded.. All the -parties were gamblers, and it was clear . that the plaintiff knew that the defendant had a mistress The defendant had married a person, of property, but he had not attended, and there 'was no evidence. as>to the property. The jury, after a brief deliberation, assessed the damages at .L 750. , ..-..■