AN EXPENSIVE BREACH OF PROMISE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2146, 10 April 1886, Page 2 (Supplement)

AN EXPENSIVE BREACH OF PROMISE.

Mb Justice Day and a special jury litre occupied at the Manchester aHtize* recently in hearing the action of Maria Hawnirth' against Albert Taylor, in which the plaintiff sought damages for a breach of protniac to marry. —Mr Addhon, for the plaintiff, «.»id the. real question the jury had to doterniine was as to the amount of compensation his client was entitled to recover. The defendant'rf conduct had been cruel m 4« Hhabby. Tlio plaintiff was a young worn mi : of 25 or 26 years of ag<>, the daughter «i a person who for a long time carried on bu nine** as a butcher in Blackburn. She lo«t both her father and mother about 1875, atad ' went to keep the house of her brother, who continued the butcher's business of her | | father. Plaintiff hadjan uncle who was a ; clergyman of the Church of England, and she was a well-bred and well-educatnd , young person. In 1880 the defendant came to her brother's house and began to coitrt j her. He was at that time a member of the firm of cotton spinners and manufacturer! j known us 13. and W. Taylor, and so far m j his pecuniary position was concerned there could be no doubt that he might have been a. very fair match. But the brother oW jected .to .him because he win undoubtedly a man of loose life, and was^what thdymight callj " fast." Defendant, however^'! continued to pay»his addresses to her^froa^ January^until October. In that month'hie. wentjasjta'schoolmistress to Clayton-le-J Moon, but the day before she went therrf' the defendant seduced her. He had then promwed to marry her. She stayed at C)ayton-le-Moor» until January, 1881. In 1 the meantime the partnership of defendant's, firm r/as dis*olv*d in November, 1880, and! the defendant got £10,000 to buy him out , He therefore left the busineis with an income of £500 a year. Thereupon the. plaintiff and he went off together, and*., visited a number of watering places and other towns in England, everywhere living" as man and wife — sometimes as Mr and Mr» Haworth, sometimes as Mr and Ml* Taylor. Plaintiff often fretted because ■he was not defendant's wife and urged niton him to fulfil bin promise to marry her, but he kept putting her off. About July, 1881, a son was born white they were staying at Bridlington quay, and he was registered as the son of Arthur and Mary Haworth. and in September, 1885, » daughter was born in another town and. registered as the daughter of A. and M. Taylor, formerly 'Haworth. They con- a tinued to life together until the end of" 1884, and all the time plaintiff gave ample •vidince that she was very fond of the defendant, though he treaUd her very badly. There could be no doubt that he wa» a man i who drank a great deal, and who was often drunk. Whan sober, however, he appeared , to be very kind to her and the children. In 1884 defendant deserted her, and he never name near her again until the end of thai year, when an action was brought for ' breach of promise of marriage. ThendeI fendant met her in Liverpool and made a j i further promise to marry her, and the ! action wan withdrawn. Plaintiff bad no I desire to get money out of him ; her only j desire was that he should marry her and legitimise her children. In January, 1885, I however, he deserted her again, and would j not fulfil his promise. The plaintiff was ; ; then called, and bore out in her evidence the opening statement of the learned ! counsel. — The only witness called on her ! behalf wai her aunt Mrs Lawrenson, who •poke to the distinct promise of marriage < tnade by the defendant to the plaintiff in her hearing.— The jury awarded the plaintiff £1,600 as damages.