The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-12-23 00:00:00

age,
- for
tilt I on
_

;lap ,zati
BREACH OF PROMISE.

In the Sheriffs' Court, London (before Mr. Under-Sheriff
Burchell and a Jury), the case of Watkins v Williams has
been heard, and was an action in the Q aeon's Bench Division
of the High Court of Justice by Elizsbeth Watkins avainst
John Edward Williams for breach of promise of marriage,
in which the damages were laid at £2,000 The defendant,
who was called "Colonel Williams," had not pleaded, and
was not represented before the jury.—The case is thus re-
ported by The Times:—
Mr. H. D, Greene was counsel for the plaintiff, and
presented the case to the jury as one of an exceptional
character in several respects, both as to the social
position and the wealth of the defendant, Colonel
Williams, who represented the Spanish Government,
and who stated in IE6B, when he was engaged to Miss
Watkins, that he had an income of between £3,000
and £4,00 a year; he proposed to settle 22,000 on her
and to purchase a house at Putney to that amount.
From 1869 to 1874 the parties had corresponded,
and the defendant had written and sent to her
some 150 letters and telegrams. They were not of
the gushing nature that often happened, but showed
that they proceeded from a man of education and posi-
tion, and he should show that by the loss the plantiff
had sustained her health had become much impaired,
and that it was a case for considerable damages. The
learned counsel read several of the defendant's letters,
In which he called the plaintiff his "dear Lizzie,"
"his darling Lizzie," and "his pet." The marriage
was fixed, and put off on account, as the defendant
said, of his father's illness. The plaintif had made
preparatians for the wedding, and expended some £5O.
The defendant's visits became few and far between,
and in 1875 it was discovered that he was married, with
ehildren, and had been married while he was paying
his addresses to Miss Watkins. The defendant was a
member of two clubs; and after six years of a woman's
life, when her affections were deeply seated, it was not
surprieing that she was now suffering in health from
the breach of an engagement by a man who, both from
his position and wealth, would have made the young
lady an eligible home.
Mr. T. C. Watkins, the plaintiff's brother, residing
in York-place, St. James's, said he was in 1868 pro-
prietor of the " Quadrant " Hotel in Air-street, Regent-
s:.reet. In that year he made the acquaintance of the
defendant, Colonel Williams, by dining with his friends
at the hotel. In consequence of a communication made
some time after to him by his sister, he spoke to Colonel
Williams, and he told him he would rattle £2,000 on
her before their marriage. The defendant invited him
and other members of his family to go down to Putney
and look at a house he intended to take when married.
They had a carriage and pair, and went down, and
he offered £2,000 for it, which was not accepted.
The defendant told him he had an engagement with
the Spanish Government to supply ammunition to
several thousands of pounds, and represented that he
was worth £4,000 a year. The marriage was sanctioned
and the defendant introduced to members of the family,
and his friends were visited. His sister provided her
trousseau, and a day Was appointed for the wedding.
The defendant put it off on account of the illness, he
said, of his father. Subsequently his visits were less
frequent, and on seeing him he asked whether he meant
to carry out his promise, and he said he did, and named
three months. Some 12 months afterwards be met the
defendant in the Haymarket, when he offered to shake
hands, which he (witness) refused, saying, "No, not
with such a man as you are." In answer to the jury,
the witness said the defendant was not a Colonel in
the Briiish Army, but in the Spanish Army.
Mr. Undea Sheriff Burchell remarked that it was an
important statement. He had thought the defendant
wee a Colonel in the British Army.
Miss Eliza Watkins, sister of the plaintiff, proved
that she went with her and the defendant to a ball in
Burton-crescent given by his solicitor.
The plaintiff was the next witness called. She stated
that when she becarae engaged to the defendant she
made preparations for the wedding to about £5O. The
defendant told her he was wealthy and would settle
£2,000 on her; and she knew he offered £2,000 for a
house where they were to reside when married, but the
age wanted £2OO more, and it, was not purchased. He
ad, her from the Royal Yacht Club and other
and resided at the 'Westininster Palace and
O' hotels. In 1875 she chanced to call at a private
kept by Miss Hanson, in Norfolk-street, Strand,
ans. )e saw the defendant in the ball. She said to
him, "I've found you out at last." He said,- "Pray
don't speak to me here," and went out. She had not
seen him since.
Miss Hanson said she kept a private hotel in Nor-
folk-street, In March, 1875, a lady, Mrs. Colonel
Williams, came to her how e with two children and a
nurse, one was four years old and the other one month,
Colonel Williams stayed a month and Mrs. Williams
two months. The plaintiff came and identified Colonel
Williams, the defendant.
He paid her £3O in cash,

nt
ircesed
;her
tote'
1 'el

don'