CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 829, 24 June 1871, Page 3

CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

An action of an unusual character.— Wiltshire v. Occleston and wife, in which the plaintiff, a compositor, who had been jilted by his sweetheart, claimed damages from his fiancee and her husband, was tried in the Melbourne Supreme Court, last week. Wiltshire is an American, and about 33 years of age, who came to this colony about the year 1865, and obtained temporary employment in the Government Printing office, at wages of £3 15s per week. He met Mrs Occleston, then Miss Hart, a young girl of 20, and employed at a sewing-machine shop. With her he struck up an acquaintance, and unknown to her father, although apparently with the knowledge of the mother, he paid his addresses to her. They met only once at Mr Hart's house, their other meetings being apparently when she was going home from work, or in the Fitzroy-gardens, or in a neighbour's house ; and at last, about the time she caiiie of age, she engaged herself to him. I' ss Hart apparently had some dread of h«.i .lather, for she would not allow the

matter to be mentioned to him, and Wiltshire foolishly consented to keep all information from him. Miss Hart could not muster up enough courage to be married in Victoria, and it was agreed that Wiltshire should return to San Francisco, obtain employment, secure a home for his intended wife, and when he had done so she would follow him. She did not, however, care to run away without her father's consent, and she told Mr Hart of the engagement, when he immediately forbad her going to California on a fool's errand but after some months consented to the marriage, and after a few more months imposed the condition that Wiltshire should return to this colony and have the ceremony performed here. Miss Hart during her lover's absence kept up an mpassioned correspondence with him till a month before she broke off the ingagement. In her letters she called him eer dear old man, her husband, described herself as his dear old girl, and his wife, but in his last letter cooled down to "my dear Mr Wiltshire." He could not understand this last letter, and came over for an explanation, when he found she had been married previously. He then demanded compensation for his outlay, but this was refused him, although his presents were returned. Mr Justice Barry, who tried the case, directed a verdict for plaintiff, but plainly intimated that the lowest possible damages would suffice. The jury were disinclined to give the plaintiff, even a farthing, and returned a verdict for defendant. Mrs Occleston was not examined, as she had lately been confined, and was now very ill.