The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-04-01 00:00:00

BREACH of PROMISE—XI,OOO DAMAGES.

At the I.ords Ass,z.is, the cause of "Calvert v. Thomaa "
lms been tried, aud was an action for breach of promise of
marrla.m.

Mr. Seymour said in this case the defendant's con-
duct had been cruel and heartless to the plaintiff,
whom he had promised to marry, hut had taken very
recently another lady to wife. The plaintiff was a
young lady whose education had been good, whose
position in life wax respectable, and who was poeseesed
of considerable ersonal attractions. Her father was
formerly the manager of a large establishment in the
Weed Biding, but he died in 1853, and his widow
insrried Mr. Call, of the Junction Hotel, Shipley, near
Bradford, in 1860. Having no family of his own,
he loved the plaintiff as his own child, and she returned
that affection. She was aged 25 and the defendant 20,
the latter having once been in the cloth trade, but he
had retired from it, and was in good circumstance,.
lie had become acquainted with the plaintiff's sister,
and accompanied tier to chapel 'sometimes, so that
he got an introduction to the honse of the plaintiffs
father, and began to show the plaintiff attentions at
the hotel—attentions which there was no mistaking.
In February, 1867, the defendant spoke to Mrs. Call
about paying his addressee to the plaintiff, but that
lady objected that they had not known each other lone
enough. After that, however, the young lady and
gentleman visited Morecambe Bay, and had their
portraits photographed there. One of the cartes was
produced by the learned counsel, who remarked that
the sun hail taken a great deal of the rose out of the
plaintiff's face, and much of the vitality from the de.
fondant's. In fact, both looked as pale as if they were
just going to the altar. (Laughter.) No great number
of letters had been written by the defendant, because
both the parties resided at Shipley; but once, on going
to London, he wrote to inform her of his safe arrival.
On the 29. h of January, 1864 he went to Wales,
and wrote to Mies Calvert thence, addressing her as
"My dear Polly," and concluding by saying, "Love to
all, and double to yourself." Mr. Seymour said there
was some of the genuine ring about that letter, and on the
12th August, in another letter, he sent his" dearest love
to Polly," and en the 19. h November, he signed himself,
"Yours for ever, Ben." In a subsequent letter he said,
"I promise to make you and all belonging to you more
happy than I have done for 53137.3 time," and he styled
himself at the end, "your most affectionate lover." The
defendant continued his addresses, and purchased her,
among other things, a seal-skin jacket, besides articles
for the house in which he propelled they should live
together. This state of things continued until last
year, but in February this year the defendant took to
wire a lady of considerable expectations—in fact, a
lady who both hail money and money to come. The
plaintiff wrote to him demanding an interview, but the
defendant took no notice of that communication. The
learned cosine) submitted that the plaintiff was en.
titled to fair damages, and they would not be fair
unless they were %mpls.
Mies Mary Hannah Calvert, a rather preposseasinx
young lady, gave evidence in her own behalf, and she
said that the defendant had made her a present of a
diamond ring, and he spoke to her of a house which
would be his on his father's death.

-
Mrs. CIII said when the defendant applied to her
for leave to visit her daughter, she told him she hal
not known him long enough, and her daughter had no
fortune. He replied that he had money, and after that
he drove her out in his own trap. He said he had won
a silver cup wfth one of his own horses. His father
lived at Carr Villa, Shipley, and it is all in a park.
Ile took the plaintiff to balls and theatres as his
affianced bride. She always appeared to be devoted to
him. He was married last February to a Miss
Grimehaw.

fr.-13nlieger, manufacturer, Shipley, was cared to
speak to the means of the defendant's father, and he
Skil it hail always been reported that the old gentle-
man was wealthy. The defendant was not in business,
but lived in gentlemanly style. The defendant was
the eldest son. There were two daughters. The house
stood in a park of six or seven acres. There wai also
a rather large farm.
. _ .

At the close of the plaintiff); case, Mr. Price. Q.C.,
contended that Mr. Thomas, the defendant, was not the
rich man the plaintiff would have the jury believe. It
was not a case surrounded with such a halo of romance
and imagination as the plaintiff); counsel would have
the jury belies e. Talk about wounded feelings and
falling health and agony of mind, the lady did not
seem to have suffered much, for she still possessed some
personal attractions, and had missed a husband who
was not sincere, and who, moreover, was likely to be
"cut off with a shilling " because his father consider.d
he bad behaved very ill in the matter. What the
jury had to do was to estimate what the plaintiff had
lost commercially. No doubt at the time in question
the defendant was a vapouring young man who wanted
to make an impression in Shipley. No doubt he had
been fond of talking big, and had been lavish in pre-
senting her with diamond rings and lockets and seal-
skins, but she had them still in her possession, and
there were no traces of "the worm feeding on her
damask cheek."
_

The Judy, in summing up, said, no doubt the
plaintiff had been greatly disappointed, and her
vanity had received s great blow. Was it fair to say
that when a man had behaved ill to a woman, because
her cheeks were not blanched, she bad no claim to
pecaniar3 consideration? At all events, in this case
the defendant lusi not troubled himself to irquire how
the plaintiff felt after he bad cast her off, and he had
refused to write to her. A breach of this kind was as
cruel, selfish, and practically cowardly thing as a man
could be guilty of. If his feelings towards a woman
changed he was bound to control them. He had no
right to destroy her happiness, and he had no right to
change his feelings. But his lordship did not rn-an
that very large damages should be given in this case,
while, at the same time, it was not right to say this
was a mere dry commercial question.
After an hour's consultation, the jury found for the
plaintiff, damages £l.OOO.