CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE ACTION.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2620, 1 June 1877, Page 2

CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE ACTION.

The Home News gives the following curious particulars of- Court proceeding,' in a breach of promise action iirwhicli s>* man was plaintiff:—A case involving a charge of breach of promise""of marriage of a very unusual character has been for two days before Mr Justice Grove and Mr Justice Field, sitting as a Divisional Court."- The action was brought by M man named George Heap against Miss Mary Ann Marris, the only child of the late Mr George Marris, a gentleman of wealth and position at Caistor, in Lincolnshire. Heap, who was slated to be in'an inferior social position to Miss Marris, induced her in 1859 to enter into an engagement to marry him, which. was to be concealed from her parents, who had forbidden her to hold any communication with Heap. According to -the statements of her counsel, Miss. Marris ( for. several years paid considerable sums of money to Heap, and he constantly endeavoured to induce her to execute a bond to secure him an annuity or large sums of moneyr out ot the property she might inherit from her father, threatening tii r at if she would not do 'so he would • take up Ms residence at Caislor, and inform her parents of the engagement. She therefore, witboui, taking 'advice, in ' 1572-, iigned a memorandum of an agree* nient promising to marry the plaintiff on or beiore the Ist of January, 1875, or in default to pay to him one-third of whatefet property she might receive! ujdeis the will of her father, and further to pay the plaintiff an annuity of £20 per annum, commeoc'mg from 3875, which was to be paid ai, Cantor, and be doubled each yeaj^ untilsbe should become Ms lawful wife—sMf arrangement which, as Mr Justice Grove" observed, : tight uliviately mean the payment of m;ll-ons. Miss Mariss's fcuher died in 18. o, and Jae had inherited uuder his will a considerable" amount- of- his ' 'property; but as she refused to marry Heap or to pay him the one-third as .agreed upon, and - the- annuity for 1876, he has brought an action against her to recover £20,000 for the non-payment of those sums, or, in .the alternative, for a breach of promise of marriage. The case came before the court on an appeal from a decision o£' Mr Justice Field in chambers, ordering the defendant to strike out certain statements in her pleadings. At the close of the arguments the court set aside tnis order, but without costs.