"BREACH OF PROMISE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2121, 21 October 1875, Page 3

"BREACH OF PROMISE.

LOVING. EPISTLES AND INSULTIN<3i "MESSAGES-A SYMPATHISING JURY GIVES DAMAGES.

-Tii f the Midland Circuit, at JLeed^, England, on August 14th, before Mr Justice Field, was heard the following story :— Miss Mary Jane' Hay dock, manager of a hosiery establishment in Sheffield, was the plaintiff,, in.an. action for breach of promise of marriage against John Lawton, traveller for John Rolze, boot and shoe manufacturer, Manchester. Mr Waddy, Q.C., and Mr Buzzard appeared for, the plaintiff; Mr Seymour, Q.C;, for the defendant. Mr Waddy said at the time of his engagement to Miss Haydock the defendant was about to become a partner in the firm for which he had been a commercial traveller, and really the only question in the ease,was damages. There had been an enormous mass of correspondence in which there were many letters quite as foolish as the general run of such productions. He did not mean to read more than one or two, which were absolutely necessary, because he bad no sympathy with the exposure of young ladies' confessions that they had been constrained to write some stupid things. (Laughter.) The- defendant was introduced to the plaintiff by a fellow-traveller named Pringle, who described him as a " remarkably jolly fellow," and Mr Pringle got him an invitation to a picnic, which was to take place at Chats worth Park. A t the picnic the defendant was struck with the young lady; he paid great attention to her, and he asked a friend if h.e did not think it would .make a good match. He was told that it would, and not only was he strqngly of that opinion himself, but the young lady happened to be of a similar opinion. (Laughter.) He asked the mother if he might correspond with, the daughter, and at Christmas, 1871, the parties were engaged indefinitely. Then followed a long series of letters of a very earnest and gushing character, in which they were mutually interchanging vows of affection. On the 31st of January, 1871, lie wrote to his "Dearest Polly," saying it was quite a month since lie had heard from her, and though, it was said that "absence makes the heart grow fonder," he could not bear to hear so seldom from one loved so dear. (Laughter.) "Can you say the same?" he asked. Mr Seymour here said he admitted the engagement, but there had been a rescinding of it. Mr "Waddy said the defendant went on writing, and on the 3rd of June there came from him a long letter: " My Dearest Pollyj—'Xou will, my Polly, be very angry at my seeming negligence ; but, my Polly, although I have been a bad boy, and am willing to ask forgiveness, yet I think I can make a satisfactory apology." In the first place I have been very unwell. I have been almost off my head with one thing or another, but in fact I want you to distinctly understand that you must not think my love is growing one jot the less for you. No, no, no! Do not for one moment entertain the idea. I love you more than ever, Polly, and long to see you." (Loud Laughter.) And then followed, said Mr Waddy, a long repetition of " loves" and "clears," On the Bth of June he wrote again, giving his address at Laistet's Hotel, Hull, and signing himself— "Dear Polly, ever your affectionate John." But he never wrote to her, nor came near her, after that, and the poor girl did not understand it. She wrote to him on Juno 11, 1872 ; " My dear John, I cannot understand this long silence, John. Have I done anything wrong, or said anything that does not please you ? If so, I ask v pardon. Did you get the letter * I sent you at Hull, or the short note I addressed to you at Shud-hill, Manchester ? You must have them. The last letter you sent to me.was from Doncaster. I ! should have come to Manchester, but not having a reply what was I to think ? I cannot possibly imagine why you have nqt answered mine. I have been almost off my head, John. No news is worse . than bad news, John. lam in great suspense. -All I want is a letter, if only a ! line. I sent you a telegram, to, the Lord knows where h,ut to, spine outlandish place (Laughter). In h,aste, your ever affectionate one Polly." He never answered it or paid the slightest attention to it. A-dead silence lentil the 21st of April, 187/3.,' and then this is the cool way in" which he tb.ou.ghfc proper to w?ifce : •?Miss M. J. Haydock j This is the end fif't^e lqng silpnee; I enplose you your lexers,, and hope you. will return mine,' 4 That was all that came from him after waiting for months, and he was married at Christmas, 1873. The plaintiff haviug been examined by Mr Buzzard, (and hers was the only

... evidence.) Mr Seymour addressed--the jury for the defendant, saying that this had been one of those sudden engage meats which the seductions of a picnic and the charms of Chatsworth Parjc were so likely to bring about; but how could it be seriously said that the plaintiff had lost anything by missing this unhappy traveller in the shoe trade, who once had £3 a week, but whoso income now did not exceed thirty shillings weekly, besides expenses. Surely the lady might have looked out for a wealthier man. He (Mr Seymour) might be excused for saying of his client, (the defendant,) who was then sitting near him, that she might very easily have found a handsomer. (Loud laughter.) Certainly the lady did not seem now to be very sorrowful. She had smiled upon him, (the learned. counsel,) she had smiled upon the jury, and she had smiled all round from her eminence in the witness-box. Long might she go on smiliug, and rejoicing, too, that she had escaped.so unromantic a match ;no fever had brought the hectic to her cheek; no sorrow had blighted her happiness, or crushfd out her gaiety ; no heart-break-ing had taken away her appetite ; but that day she stood before the Coxirfc in the bloom of health, and presenting a living example that women, after all, do not feed upon the air. (Laughter.) Her last letter^ to the defendant was in 1872, and now, in 1875, she was seeking damages in this court. Could it be that during that long interval of silence she had felt any desire-to force the defendant to marry her ? Would a woman with any respect for herself after such a letter as that of the 21st April, 1873, ever have sought to compel such a thing ? In this case there were none of those elements which required that she should seek to rectify her honour. The learned counsel contended that this was not such a case j as should be encouraged; there was no serious loss incurred ; there was nothing distressing about it from beginning to i end.; and because of the plaintiff's long silence, the defendant had.a fair right to infer that she had exonerated him, from j the engagement. The Judge said this was the only remedy which a young woman had under these circumstances, and described the I plaintiff as a modest, well-educated young woman, with fair personal attractions, against whose reputation not a syllable had been breathed. Her position in life was not a very great one, but she had lost a husband, and a share of £150 a year; but there the defendant sat in court instructing his counsel to vilify him and to despise him, for the purpose of reducing the damages. He (the Judge) saw no reason why promises of this kind should be broken with impunity, still less did he see that a man should be allowed to hold himself up. to contempt for the miserable purpose of getting off with slight damages. As to the defendant's letter of the 23rd April, 1873, his Lordsnip said it contained not one word of regret, not a single soothing exprestion, nor the avowal of a desire to break off the engagement. On the other hand, if ever there was an insulting letter written to a woman, that was the letter. The jury returned a verdict for the j plaintiff, damages £108.