Breach of Promise of Marriage.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3007, 4 October 1878, Page 4

Breach of Promise of Marriage.

Seabing- v. Newton.—The plaintiff is a widow, about 40 years of age, and resides at Cheshunt with her mother, an old lady,of seventy-eight. The. defendant i^ a widower, who has resided in India, but now lives at Bishop's Stortford, holding an appointment under Government as an engineer at ordnance works, and was described as being in comfortable circumstances, keeping a horse and chaise.., .In July, 1877, the plaintiff and defendant were introduced to each other by Mrs.Barford, the sister of the plaintiff, who resided near the plaintiff's, mother. The defendant after this'date * became a frequent visitor to' the pluintiff at her, mother's houseabout once a fortnight. He promised to marry the plaintiff verbally, but said he could not fulfil tyg promise until a year after his wife's,death. The plaintiff stated that, yielding to the defendant's solicitations, there was an improper intimacy, which resulted in a miscarriage. A. long correspondence between the parties was put in, but there was no positive promise to marry. There were several' letters from the plaintiff to .the defendant reproaching him with his cruel desertion, to which the defendant made no reply. It was alleged that the plaintiff's daughter was told by the defendant to call him «• Dad " and also to call his'sister ". Aunt." After numerous letters from the plaintiff had been unanswered, she wrote appealing to the defendant to carry out his promise to marry which he had made her. Defendant answered this, but made no direct reply to her appeal. He said he was unwell with a cold, but hoped to see her the following week. He did not, however, deny her statements or repudiate her allegation of a promise to marry. Subsequent interviews occurred, when the plaintiff pressed the defendant to marry her, which he declined to do, and said that he never intended to do so. On bejng cross-examined, the plaintiff admitted that she went for a drive with the defendant the day after she was first introduced to him, and accompanied him to the Broxbourne Tea Gardens, staying" •until ten o'clock.. On the following Wednesday she went with the defendant to the Lovers' Walk "at £lbury Grove, a retired spot. On the Thursday before Christmas she went to the defendant's house' at Bishop's Stortford and stayed there all. night at hi 3 invitation. She went in October, again on a visit to the defendant ■with her daughter, but denied that she Trent into the defendant's bedroom; she admitted, however, staying at his house in April, 1878, and would not swear they did not occupy the same room. She denied any intimacy with a person named furrows in 1877, but admitted having corresponded . with him, but only on business matters. A letter was put in from the plaintiff to Burrows/in j which- she addressed him as " Dearest "William" and "Darling," and she admitted that she knew. Mrs Burrow* had left her husband in consequence of the discovery of her correspondence with him. - Some remarks had been made about her

riding out with Burrows, and she told the ;., defendant of it before he proposed to her. She. asserted that the defendant said that he thought all the better of her for telling him. *' Burrows was a foolish man," she said.; " and I used to write anything to him.*' A letter was put in from the plaintiff to Burrows, in which she wrote:—" If *I hare giren way to you as I hare done, I never shall to anyone else. I only wish I could recall what is past, as the thought of it makes me wretched." Being pressed as to the meaning of this phrase, her explanation was that it was written in a kindly way because Burrows had been ill-treated by his wife. In reply to the learned judge the plaintiff said she might hare written the letter in an unguarded moment; she could not explain it. At this stage Mr Harrison interposed and said it was agreed that a juror should be withdrawn. Thus the case termi- , nated.j,j.•■■..-.' v\ '■ • . '■'■■ ■•• "