NOVEL BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 298, 12 September 1888, Page 4

NOVEL BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

London, <luly 19. The most extraordinary " action to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage " ever heard in the London Law Courts came before the Lord Chief Justice of England and a special jury on Wednesday. It \va3 brought by an elderly lady, not against her recreant lover, but against the executor of that worthy, who had, it seems, after sixteen years' courtship, died without redeeming his promise. Lord Coleridge having sat for many years is accustomed jO strange suits, but thi^ claim did make him open hi& c) es. " Can the executor fulfil the contract?" he asked, astounded. Counsel for the lady replied dryly that he was not asked to. "The facts of the case," remarks the " Telegraph," " were curious enoueh. The plaintiff, Miss Davies, was in 1871 chief clerk in a post-office at Neath, in Wales, at a salary of seventy-two pounds a year, with water, gas, and coal supplied gratuitously, and the right to occupy, with her mother, a house rent-free. A gentleman named Martin Scale proposed to her and, according to her accounts, induced her, in prospect of marriage, to giv 7 up her comfortable situation. But he did not perform his promise, although the lady— then young, now elderly -gave him plenty of time : for sixteen years elapsed between the original promise and the la<-t refusal, which occurred in Februaiy, 1887. Over these sixteen years hangs a thick mist, wlrch was not lifted by counsel on either hide, and the delay in bringing the action was not explained. On the death of her faithless lover, however, thelady sued his executor for compensation for the damages caused to her beventeen years befoie by the loss of her post. For the defence, the executor entered several of those contradictory pleas which, to the scandal of all honest men. are still allowed to disgrace our Courts of law. He denied the promise He did not admit that the lady had such a good situation. He denied that Mai tin Scale had e\er requested her to give it up. He did not admit that she was always willing to many him. He would not admit that Scale " neglected to marry her." It was also alleged, on his behalf, that the promise — which, according to his first plea, was not made at all — was rescinded by mutual consent. Then, 'to make assurance doubly sure,' he set up the Statute of Limitations, and denitd his responsibility ■is executor. After all this series of pleas — some of which must be false, for they flatly contradict each other — he caved in before the case was called on, and the matter was settled out of court, the money coming out of the estate, ' which is not a small one.' 'All's well that ends well ' and it is doubtless right that a young lady who lost a clerkship should get some monetary compensation, even though seven-, teen years have elapsed. Still in the interest of future litigants,' it seems a pity that the case was not fought out. It would be of considerable inteiest to discover how far an executor is answerable for thi3 kind of contract. lOf course the law is clear a& to other bargains. If a man agrees to take a house his executor must fulfil the bargain or pay damages. The same applies to all contracts for sale or purchase, for the building of houses or the delivery of goods. Now a promise of marriage may be regarded from two points of view. In the one case the man pledges himself to many the woman, and it is implied that he thus engages tosatisfy her young affections, to make her a happy bride, to place her at the head of his house, and to cherish her until death. All this part of the contract the executor cannot fulfil. Even if he were unmarried himself he is. perhaps, elderly or plain, and not a sufficient substitute for tho man lost. A lady, however, who loses a chance of marriage loses more than the fulfilment ot her love. She misses a position that may be worth in hard cash hundreds or thousands a year. Is a man who has during life delayed his fulfilment of a promise not to 'be answerable after his death, through his executor and estate, for the non-fulfilment? If he were a builder and caused a tenant loss by the non-comple-tion of some works, he would have to pay for it through his representatives. Why then should not the solid advantages incident to marriage be considered in the same way when Lovelace dies leaving a sobbing Clarissa to lament his unreadiness to marry her during life ? The recent case apparently decided that when special damage was caused through the lose' of a situation compensation' was due ; but is not' the missing of a comfortable home a damage entitled to corresponding-'consideratjion ?' ? >