STRANGE BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2825, 14 April 1882, Page 2

STRANGE BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

A singular action for breach of promise has just been tried at,Exeter by Lord Coleridge, the plaintiff being a large farmer of Sherborne, named Hole, ard the defendant, Minnie Harding, the daughter of another large farmer and considerable landed proprietor, of the same neighbhrhood. The parties were respectively 35 and 32 years of age. The lady, in her pleading, denied the engagement; then alleged that if there had been any contract it was broken by mutual agreement ; and that any promise obtained was due to the plaintiff fraudulently representing that ho was able to keep a wife. The plaintiff, a fairly good-looking young follow, rents between 500 and 600 acres from Lord Portman, and the defendant was at one time engaged to his brother, but broke this engagement. The relations between the families, however, were not seriously interrupted, and the plaintiff and defendant frequently met. Ho appeared to have chaffed her in April last about some person, but she denied the impeachment, and plaintiff commenced his courting by asking the defendant whether, as she could not get that person, she would accept him as a husband instead. Defendant said she would consi ler the matter, and a week afterwards she consented. After a time, however, the mother of the young lady appeared to have taken some objection to the plaintiff, from a belief that her daughter might make a more eligible match, and defendant wrote that at a tea party her mother and aunt Jane “ gave it to her right and left for talking of marrying plaintiff,” especially after what had previously taking place between her and his brother. Defendant, however, wrote that she would stick to him through thick and thin, ■end signed herself “Your fondest old Min.” Subsequently an interview took place between the plaintiff and defendant’s father, the latter then raising no objection, but afterwards Mr Harding heard that plaintiff was losing money on his farm, and in the end defendant wrote a letter, in which she said her father had told her to break off the match, and added “It is a great trial to me to break off the engagement. I shall bo always Minnie Harding—with no friends I am afraid. lam so vexed. How shall I get over it ? Yon know my feelings do you not ? They will always be the same, whereever I go. I will not write any more, but wish you good bye, and may every blessing attend you. Believe me, fondest love at parting, yours, Minnie Harding.” Plaintiff finding that the engagement could not bo resumed, took these proceedings in order to vindicate his character from unfounded aspersions. When the breaking of this engagement became known, everybody began talking about it, and, instead of commiserating with the plaintiff on his wounded affections, the talk turned on the reasons for which professedly, the engagement was broken off —viz., his circumstances were such that he could not keep a wife, and that he had entrapped the young lady by fraudulently misrepresenting his circumstances. Plaintiff in the course of his evidence, denied that there was any ground for suggesting that he had not sufficient means. His stock was worth £4000; and although his rental was £9OO per annum, he only owed £IOO. Plaintiff admitted that, after the action '

commenced, the girl said she would marry him; and if he would pay the expenses and stop the law suit, she would wait for him. He, however, declined to give any answer until the expenses were settled. Subsequently he was willing to pay the expenses and marry the defendant, but she then refused to have anything more to say to him. He was very much attached to her-, but when the costs cropped up ho referred her to his solicitor. Lord Coleridge said that the courtship seemed a business like affair, and it was difficult t'o understand a man whose feelings were at stake allowing £o worth of costs to stand in the way sf his making up the quarrel with the lady. The jury found tor the plaintiff—one farthing damages and the Judge refused to allow him costs, pointing out that if he had chosen to kiss and make it up when defendant offered to marry him, the parties would never have found their way into Court.