A VICTORIAN BRBACH OF PROMISE CASE. The Mine Manager and the Widow.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 103, 23 May 1885, Page 6

A VICTORIAN BRBACH OF PROMISE CASE. The Mine Manager and the Widow.

The case of Flamstead v. Briggs, in which the plaintiff claims £1,200 damages for breach of promise of marriage, was heard in the Supreme Court, Melbourne, recently, before Mr Justice Williams and a special jury of six. Mr Walsh and Mr Goldsmith appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. T, T. Smith and Mr Isaacs for the defendant. The plaintiff was a widow named Caroline Annie Flamstead, and the defendant was George Briggs, a mining manager at Heathcote. The case for the plaintiff was that in June last she corresponded with the defendant in reference to entering into his service as housekeeper, and on the 2nd Jul> the defendant came to town and engaged her in that capacity. The plaintiff went to the defendant s house in Heathcoto shortly afterwards, and when she had been in his service for about three weeks he asked her to marry him, but the plaintiff refused, as she thought that it would offend his family, and also that the offer was premature. She accordingly told him he had better wait till they knew more of each other. It was then arranged that she should make an effort to care for him, on condition that he did not refer to the matter for some weeks, so as to give her an opportunity of studying his disposition and character. In the second week in August he wrote to Mrs Cresswell, a friend of the plaintiff's, asking her to make arrangements for the mar-" riage. He told plaintiff that the first time he saw her he was determined she should be his wife if love and kindness could win her affection. On the 16th August she promised to nmrry him, and on the following day he wrote to his youngest daughter, who was in Sandhurst, to acquaint her with the fact. Some weeks afterwards the defendant told plaintiff quietly that he had changed his mind, as the family did not approve of the marriage ; that his daughters thought there was too much cf the lady about her for him, and he thought so too ; and that now they knew he intended to be married, his daughters would be glad to go to Heathcote and keep house for him. He said he must forego his intention to marry, and the plaintiff had better write to her friends telling them to put off the arrangements. The defence was that, though the defendant had made the offer as alleged in the first place, ho had been refused, and had never renewed the offer. Several witnesses who were called on hie behalf.detailed conversations which they had with the plaintiff after her return to town, and the general enor of this evidence was to show that phe had no affection for the defendant, and would not marry him under any circumstances. She stated on several occasions that she would not marry such " an ugly old beast," who •' put his knife in his mouth and his teeth on the mantelshelf." George Briggs, the defendant, stated that he engaged the plaint ff as working housekeeper in July, 1884. complained of the loneliness of the place, and with his consent she sent for one of her daughters to come and stay with her. Some time afterwards he took her to Sandhurst on a visit to his daughters, who treated her with marked coolness, and she complained of this at the time. A few days after thoir return he drove her into Heathcote in order j to be present at the wedding of his nephew. They returned home, and in the evening each of them had four glasses ot whisky toddy After the second glass she knelt down near the fire, as it was a cold wintry night. She pulled his head down towards her and kissed him, Faying that she had felt tempted to do this the first time they met. Ho paid her a number of compliments during the evening, and finally, after the fourth glass of toddy, he asked her whether she would not like to exchange the position of housekeeper for that of mistress. She replied that she thought their tempers and dispositions were incompatible, and besides she could not accept him in consequence of the manner in which she had been treated by his family. She concluded by saying that ho had better go to bed, as it was past oleven o'clock. From that time the offer of marriage was never renewed. Some days later he received a. letter from his son, in confequonce of which he informed hor that tho best thing she could do would be to go away from Heathcoto, as his family were opposod to the connection. At first she said she would go, but after i wards expressed hor intention of waiting J till the two months had expired. One night before sho loft he went to bed without wishing her good night. She came into the kitchen, which adjoined his room, and asked if she might come in. He replied that he was in bed, but she might come in if she liked, She entered the apartment, and said she might see him some day an old tottering man with none to care for him. She then bent over and kissed him, Baying, " With all thy faults I love thee still." He positively denied her statements as to eubsequent offers of marriage, and stated that he had never proposed to present her with an engagement ring or a sewing machine. In cross-examination the defendant said he had only made tho offer of marriage on the occasion referred to, and he would not have made it then only for the whisky. The whisky did not make him drunk, but incautious. At the conclusion of tho evidence the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for £200 and costs.