EXTRAORDINARY BREACH OF PROMISE CASE. Heavy Damages.

Te Aroha News, Volume I, Issue 33, 19 January 1884, Page 4

EXTRAORDINARY BREACH OF PROMISE CASE. Heavy Damages.

Breach of promise cases, like the poor, we English folk have "always with us," and ninety-nine out of every hundred excite no attention whatever. Now and then, however, there comes a ' ' special and particular " action, which at once rivets the public interest, is reported at prodigious length in the newspapers, and forms for the time being a leading topic of conversation in all well-conductea family circles. Such a case as this was Miller v. Joy, which has, for the I past week, been gossiped about everywhere, It came to an end lpst night after a protracted trial, so that I am able to forward you an interesting resume compiled from the summaries in this morning's papers. "Damages," remarks one writer, "can never be supposed to compensate for the misery of a broken heart, but, if any pecuniary solatium could be expected to give a general sense of comfort to a confiding and deluded female, such a magnificent sum as two thousand three hundred odd pounds ought to have that effect. A jury which assesses a violated marriage vow at the commanding figure just mentioned] must be composed of gentlemen who do not desire the action for breach of promise to be aboli&hed. Certainly the plaintiff in the remarkable trial of " Miller against Joy," just concluded, has much to be thankful for. She ought to be grateful to the jury who believed her, and to the law which allows her to revenge herself on her faithless swain by a little litigation. Mrs Miller, the plaintiff iii the case, appears to have reached the meridian of life, for she gave birth when twunty-three or twenty-tour tp a daughter, who is now sixteen years of age. Her past history was described as being " sad," and inasmuch as she had suffered through the conduct of " a man of the world," and had never been married, she perhaps had some reason to desire to find a husband who was a "good Christian man." The defendant, whatever his character may have been, wa3 of an age when he mightat least be supposed to know his own mind. He was sixty-three, and a builder and owner of extensive house property at Bournemouth ; moreover, he was a widower, with a family of ten children. Early in last year, however, Mr Joy — such was his name — seems to have met and to have been conquered by the charms of the plaintiff, Mrs Miller — "the finest woman in Bournemouth, " as one of the witnesses swore that Mr Joy described her. According to the lady's account, she went to Bournemouth a year or two ago, and, after having been manageress of an hotel there, opened an establishment in the millinery and perfumery business. She started a toilet club, but seems to have displayed a greater talent for matrimonial adventure than for the arrangement of her scents and hair-dyes, and the acquisition of customers. Mr Joy stated that the first coy beginnings of courtship were due to the initiative of the fair one ; but her version of the story was to the effect that Mr Joy was smitten with her charms and proposed to her, whereupon she caused him to be made aware of the sad circumstances of her former life. She took him up to Wimbledon to visit an old friend of hers, a gentleman with a wife and family. There is no doubt, as the defendant himself confesses it, that during this Wimbledon visit Mr Joy was introduced by Mrs Miller as her future husband ; but then the defendant's account is that he had never promised unconditionally to wed the plaintiff, but only "in case things turned out well." In fact, he took her upon trial, and " kept company " with her long enough to discover that she would not suit him. Thereupon she brought that action which is the traditional salve for the pain of blighted affections. | During the trip to Wimbledon, all, according to her testimony, went merry as the marriage bell which she believed would soon tinkle upon her bridal morn. The friend at Wimbledon was a valuable ally of Mrs Miller in the witnessbox. He stated that he had been asked to explain Mrs Miller's past unhappy history to Mr Joy ; and he did so in the course of a stroll which he took with that gentleman. It is not every man who, when he hears that the widow he is thinking of wedding has never been married at all, would take the matter in the cool and tranquil way in which, according to the gentleman from Wimbledon, was adopted by Mr Joy on that occasion. He said lie rather preferred the case as it was, as "managing widows" were apt to "beget jarring notes." Then the friend further explained to Mr Joy that the lady was "of a religious turn of mind, but rather liberal with her money." When the two returned from their walk, after the above revelations had been made to Mr Joy, there were some " tender scenes ;" but they did not apparently prevent a good deal of champagne from being consumed on the premises, and "the evening was spent happily till eleven o'clock." In fact, the {riaintiff and the defendant went on like overs of a mature age; he "watched her about," and she, on her part, " had a high bearing with him," which, considering her antecedents, was somewhat peculiar conduct. At all events, the couple "continued in happiness and love until " — a prosiac detail which will occur in courtships — " until they left by train." When the Wimbledon friend subsequently heard that the marriage was broken off, he was only not surprised, because "he was never astonished at anything" — an attitude of mind which even the result of the trial may not be sufficient to disturb. The verdict which the jury has found for the plaintiff, Mrs Miller, is probably due a good deal to the lovei-like way in which the affianced pair conducted themselves at Wimbledon. Of this fact the testimony of the gentleman whom they visited, as well as of his daughter and servant, seemed to leave no doubt. If, therefore, Mr Joy had determined after hearing the revelation as to Mrs Miller's past life to have no more to do with her, why did he continue to treat her in a pre-matrimonial manner ? He himself swore that he said when he got back from his walk that he could not think of marriage until "everything had been properly cleared up." On the other hand, neither his host nor anybody else seems to have overheard this very proper sentiment ; and there is no doubt that, even after the incident in question, Mr Joy did continue on terms of friendship with the lady whose equivocal history'

he now swears affected him with to be " off" his engagement. Even according to his own evidence, he admits having, after the Wimbledon gentleman had explained Mrs Miller's career, asked him whether "she was the sort of woman whom he would advise a man to marry." There was, as is usually the case, a good deal of conflicting evidence in the course of the trial. Mrs MiHor bore testimony that Mr Joy bought ..ot uii'-f-ps, and that she was busy inprepiepaiution for her intended nuptials ; also that he took a ring from her finger in order to obtain a suitable wedding-ring. This was denied point-blank, and the legal reformers who wish to see the action lor breach done away with have an argument in the hard swearing which always goes on upon such occasions. One point which led to the most contradictory evidence related to an incident which, if Mrs Miller's version were the correct one, certainly reflects little credit on the enterprising builder and owner of house property at the delightful seaside resort on the southern coast. But that Mrs Miller's opinion of Mr Joy rapidly changed for the worse is evident from the terms in which she addressed him, in a letter of affectionate remonstrance. "You had better get a nurse," wrote the*ill-used lady, probably in reference to Mr Joy's supposed inability to take care of himself, and to regulate his own conduct in the way he should go; adding, with impassioned pen, "Oh, Henry, lam ashamed of you !" Mr Joy may possibly have been ashamed of himself when he saw what unpleasant consequences his shilly-shallying in the matrimonial market had led him to ; but he finally determined to have no more to do with the female whom he had taken to Wimbledon as his futuie wife, and — we regret to add — he appears to have gone and "married another. '*