BREACH OF PROMISE

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4109, 9 May 1892, Page 2

BREACH OF PROMISE

A' Business Transaction,

In the Queen's Bench Division on March 8, before Mr Justice Matthew and a common jury, the case of Oliver v Warren was tried. It was an action of breach of promise of marriage. The defendant denied the promise.

Mr Dioliens, Q,C, and Mr Arthur Gill appeared for the plaintiff, and Cyril Dodd, Q.O, and Mr 0, F. Holloway for the defendant. In opening the case, Mr Dickens said that happily there were no letters, and tio particular romance to engage or interest the jury, but still it was a' case which deserved compensation. The plaintiff, Priacilla Oliver, was an unmarried woman, forty-nine years of age, with some means of her own, and let apartments; and the defendant, Oharles Warren, was sixty years old, and an upholsterer, carrying on business in Church-street, Lisson Grove, it the time of the promise the defendant was a widower with a family, but since this affair he had married again, . Miss Oliver, a rather stout lady of

fair complexion, said she lived in Wellington Road, St John's Wood, and had private means and a house of her own. Tho defendant called upon her and said that though he was very comfortable at home it was not like having a partner, He said he had a nice home, and asked her to share it with him. He invited her to bis house, and introduced her to his son and daughter, When shesaidshe would like to go to America he said, " You shall go, but you will be Mrs -Warren before then, and that will be our honeymoon time," She went to the Adelphi with him to " The English Eose," When she spoke of his cool" ness he said," Nonsense'; it is only fancy." Did he ever kiss you ? He sealed the promise with a kiss,

Examination oontinued: She went to see defendant's present wife before they were married to tell her how she had been treated, .thinking he might treat her in the same way or worse, Cross-examined by Mr Dodd.; I never received any lettors from defendant; but I wrote to him once when I was in the country. He did not reply. ■. v . ■ When he made the promise he did

not go down on his knees ? No. Perhaps they drop, that kind of thing nowadays 1 He was very affectionate, (laughter.) ' He had been having some brandy and water 1 He is a teetotaller. He had nothing but coffee, Then what happened after the coffee) He said he was going to America in the spring, and I said I should like to no, He said, " You will be Mrs Warren before then aud it will be our honeymoon, dear." What did you say ? I said I was perfectly willing. To goto America} No, certainly not, (Laughter.) You were willing to go for the soke of the gentleman 1 No; for the sake of being married. (Laughter), . ' When marriage was talked of in the ptesence of others it was all in chaff? Some of-it was, The bedding the defendant gavo'to you was a very substantial presentwas there anything beyond that 1 He

had ray watch repaired, (Laughter.) He never gave mo any money or trinkets, He-examined: When he said he was very comfortable at home was' that before or after his second marriage? Oh, before, (Langhler), Mr Wright said the defendant observed to him," Miss Oliver is a jolly woman," '■ He added, " I am very comfortable with my children at home, but I want a partner." He replied, "The best thing you could do is to take a partner, and. I think Miss Oliver would make a very good wife,"

Gross-examined j Didhe say 'Html?' Qh, yeß; ,v or something of that kind. I (Laughter). ' , '" I' |lr. IjoacJ, on the part of the de T fendflul't submitted that thp plainliij had 6ufferpd np eprion.3 Ipse. Tjip defendant was sixty year?'of (ige, and ill'?, lad; about forty-nine and had means of her own, and waß a good businesswoman, and it seemed Irom her evidence that what she longed for was not the trip to America or the upholsterer, but marriage, (Laughter,) The defendant had behaved rather well—he furnished a top bedroom^!^-! 101166 ' ®b WWMiA jn fhe bill; (Laughter,) She had only Jos/a pp who djd not know his own mind, and she' might now' get as good pi' a'bettgr husband, , * ' The learned judge.'in pirmroing up, remarked that no feelings" were involved in the case, which rather assumed the aspeot of. a business .matter, but as the promise had been proved and not disproved, the jury would do the best they could to assess the damages to which they thought the plaintiff was entitled, The'jury, after a brief deliberation in the'box, fpiind a verdict fojf the plaintiff for £75.' Judgment entered accordingly,