EXTRAORDINARY BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2793, 7 June 1890, Page 6 (Supplement)

EXTRAORDINARY BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

At the Birmingham Assizes on Monday, March 24th, Florence Jennie Day, of Camp-hill, Birmingham, sued Morris Roberts, of tho Sherborne Hotel, Birminghm, to recover £3,500 damages for breach of promise of marriage, assault, and slander. Mr J. Darling, Q.C., Mr J. S. Pritchett, and Mr J. Morrison appeared for plaintiff; aud Mr A. Young and M, Stubbins for the defendant, iii opening the case, Mr Darling said it was one of the most intricate and scandaloue affairs which had ever come before a court of assize. Miss Day was the daughter of a Post-ollice inspector, and had received a liberal education, havinc gained several scholarships at the Royal Academy of Music. In 1878 she made the acquaintance of the defendant, who was landlord of the Sherborne Hotel, and on March 16, ISBO, he, as alleged, induced her to go through a form of marriage at the hotel, before a person who was eaid to be a registrar entitled to perform marriages. From that time Miss Day lived with Roberts as his wife until 1887. She retained possession of the certificate of marriage given to her by the sham registrar. In 1881 plaintiff heard that Roberts had a wife living, and on speaking to defendant about it, he said he could not deny it. but would marry plaiutiff whenever he bad news of the death of bin

wife. Subsequently ho heard that hii wife was dead, and on May 23, 1882, they were married at the Lambeth Registry Office, whereupon Roberts obtained from his wifo, Miss Day, the certificate of the sham marriage he had gone through wilh her, and destroyed it. The life of the couple was most unhappy, frequent quarrels taking place, when defendant violently assaulted and turned her out of the house. Divorce proceedeeedings were commenced, and Robert's lawful wife appeared and went into the witness-box, and defendant submitted to a decree for nullity of marriage. The plaintiff, Florence Jennie Day, having given evidence bearing out the openingstatement., the further hearing: of tho case was adjourned, On Tuesday modioal_ evidence was given of tho suffering plaintiff has endured from the alleged brutal conduct of defendant, and it was also proved that, in consequence of his repudiation of the liability to maintain her, she had been obliged to j seek parochial relief. Mr Stubj bins then addressed the jury for the defence, and called the defendant, who stated that on May sth, 1579, he was released from Warwick prison, and that shortly afterwards they were on terms of unlawful intimacy. He denied that any bogus marriage ceremony took place between him and the plaintiff. He admitted that he had agreed to marry plaintiff when his first wife died, and he was married to her at Brixton. flis first \ wife was, however, still alive. Defendant admitted sending insulting valentines to plaintiff, but denied assaulting her. The case was again adjourned. Witnesses tor the defence were examined on Wednesday, with a view to impugn the character of the plaintiff, aud to show that defendant, who was a married tnnu living apart from his wife, had made no promise calculated to deceive the plaintiff. Baron Hnddleston summed up in favour of plaintiff, and the jury, after twenty minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages £2,i500.