MONEY LENT ON LOVE.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 523, 29 June 1869, Page 2

MONEY LENT ON LOVE.

The West Coast Times of June the ISth says : —A number of cases under the Extended Jurisdiction was heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday. One of them—M'Cormick v Ryan—created no little amusement. The plaintiff's case was that she was "keeping company " with the defendant, and that he had promised to marry her. Believing that "he loved her dearly," she trusted him not onlv i with her affections, but with her savings, and in fact she lent him £7G the principal part of which she had earned iu Westport. The course of (rue love <?id not run smooth, the defeudaut following out the popular song, "went and got married, but not to her." Pilled with disappointment and sorrow, she thought not of revenge, but she thought it would be as well.to be able " to carry her. nest eggs to another market," and tried to get back seventy-six of them, suing the "gay deceiver" for the mpney lent. She did not ask for damages for breach of promise of marriage ; she dropped the romantic and went in to get her money back. The defence to her claim was that the whole case of the plaintiff was a delusion, and that instead of being injured in her affections, she was insaue. The defendant had never broken his truth, because he had never plighted it. He had never taken plaintiff on his knees, but she had thrown herself on them occasionally against his will. Ho never had borrowed the money at all, and so should not he expected to repay it. To support the plea of delusion, Dr Dermott was called' and from him it was gleaned that on the defendant's wedding night the plaintiff had labored " under strong excitement," had spoken "of suicide," and had partaken of a cup which might have contained poison. But this pretty little romauce fell to the ground, for it was clearly proved that the plaintiff was not mad, or that, if she were, it was wine or something stronger, and not despair, that had taken away' her wits. She was tipsy, and the cup was found to contain not strychnine, but brandy, with sugar in it. The Magistrate held that the plaintiff's case had not been " proved beyond doubt," and she did not get judgment.