BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1193, 19 June 1884, Page 3

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

A broch of promise case was tried at Dunadin on Thnradty before Judge William* and a Jury—France* Fynmore ▼. John Alton, claim £750, for allaged braach of promise of marriage. Mr J. A. D. Adama appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr F. R. Chapman for defendant. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was a i- widow residing in Dunedin, and that the v defendant was a civil engineer also reaiding in Dunedin ; that ih the month of : June, 1882, the plaintiff and defendant agreed to marry, and aince then .the defendant bad frequently repaated his promise of marriage ; that a reaaonable time for such marriage bad elapsed, and f : although,-the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to marry the defendant he had refused to marry liar. The following evidence was taken : France* Fynmore stated : I am a widow, and the plaintiff »n thi* action. I first became acquainted with the defendant in April, 1882. I was then residing in Timaru. He visited my bou*e every evening, and remained several hours. Hi* visit* continued until I left in September, 1882. During these visits he made proposal* to me which I at first refund. He said I had nothing to fear, and that it Would be all light. I asksd ‘ Do you mean marriage T and ho replied that he did. I then consented to his proposals. He said that 1 already had sufficient trouble, and rathtr than add to it he would lighten my troubles. Thi* was about the end of June. He knew that I had eight children, and bad great difficulty in supporting them. Early in August he said that he knew the eldest boys objected to bim, and suggested that I should get rid of them, He said that If this were done ho would marry me. Before I came to Dunedin ho said that thirgs would be all right so soon aa he got his appointment under the Otago Harbor Board. After be came to Dunedin in February, 1883, the defendant contiattad visiting mo till March, 1884. Two dftjrt baton A Cb* ;birth of tha child I

told him the injury he had dona mo, and threatened to do away with myself. He repeated his promise to marry mo. In November and D-cernbor, 1883, I again wrote to him respecting our marriage. He continued visiting me at this time, and his manner was affectionate. The defendant took me to places of amusement in Timaru, and for & walk every Sunday afternoon. In March, 1884, in a conversation we had, defendant said that if I attempted to injure him he would injure me, and that if he fell I would fall also. This was the last time I saw him.

To Mr Chapman : While in Timaru I taught music and was a morning governess. My daughter Edith knew the defendant. He gave her two tioketa for a concert, and asked her if I would accompany her. I consented and Edith introduced us. The defendant said he was anxious for an. introduction with a view to a matrimonial engagement with me. I say in all aeriousness that his object in seeking an introduction war mi'riinony. Ha knew I waa a widow wuh eight children. It ia only since I instituted proceedings against defendant that I have been informed by a third person that he is a married man. I swear solemnly that h# never mentioned to me that he ever had a wife. The reason why he suggested I should get rid of the elder boys was that they did eot care for him, and took every opportunity of showing they disapproved of his visits. In his letters he addressed me as “ Dear Mrs Fynmore.” 1 don’t think ho ever called mo by any other name when speaking to me. Peter Medallion, Edith Fynmore, Arthur Fynmore, Helen Stone, and Anna Maria Guy, were also called on behalf o the plaintiff. Mr Chapman having opened the case for the defence, called the defendant, who denied that he had made improper proposals to the plaintiff, or had ever apoken to her respecting marriage. Ho said he had been in the colony six years and was manager of Bruce’s Flour Mill at Timaru, in 1882. He had advised her to get rid of her eldest boys because they were wild and beyond bor control. He had told the plaintiff he was a married man. He had nothing whatever to do with the plaintiff leaving Timaru. She did not leave by his advice. The plaintiff was always anxious to know his name, but he would not tell it, signing his letters to her “ Johnnie.” The only reason why he visited the plaintiff’s house was because he found her daughter Edith a very engaging child. He never contributed towards the support of the plaintiff’s infant. The £5 he gave plaintiff to bury her child was to help her out of her difficulties, and not as a recognition of its paternity. The first suggestion as to his being the father of her child was in February last. He visited her about a dozen times in Timaru, He visited her Jess frequently in Dunedin. His wife resided in Scotland. To Mr Adams : The sole reason that took him to plaintiff’s house was the interest he took in the little girl. The woman forced himself upen him. Ho never wished to correspond with her, but when he went to Auckland the tenor of herb f.M-r; Dd to a reply. When he wrote enjoining her to ‘ strict silence,’ and ‘mums the word, he was referring to her husband having committed suicide, which was not a good recommendation for a woman to go down to Dunedin with.

The jury retired at ten minutes past seven o’clock to consider their verdict. They could not agree, and a verdict of three-fourths was accepted. Damages were given to the amount of £250.