The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-08-11 00:00:00

A KIDDERMINSTER BREACH OF PROMISE

At Gloucester Assize 9, on Thursday, before
Justice Mathew,- the case of Wood v. Humphreys
was tried. Mr. Jelf, Q.C., and Mr. Young were for
the plaintiff; Mr. Matthews, Q.C., and Mr. Greene
for the defendant.

The action was for a breach of promise of
marriage. The plaintiff, Mies Fanny Wood, is
about thirty years of age, the defendant being much
older. She kept a Berlin-wool shop in the Bull
Ring, Kidderminster. In 1871 Miss Wood used to
assist defendant's mother in millinery work, and
thus the acqua.;ntance sprung up. The plaintiff
was often invited to stay to tea and supper, and
the old lady, being very deaf, the plaintiff'a counsel
suggested that many of the "e.oft nothings" of lovers
were unheard by her. In July, 1871, while they
were walking out together, the deferfdant asked
plaintiff iffshe would like to be his wife, and she ex.
pressed herself willing to marry him. Defendant,
according to the plaintiff's case, did not wish the
arrangements to be disclosed, as his mother was
not inclined for him to marry Unless the lady had
money. When plaintiff was living at Mrs. Bird's
shop, opposite the defendant's, he used to"hlow
kisses" to her. Defendant's mother soon saw how
matters stood, and she vowed she would not have
a penniless girl walk into her house. The
plaintiff went to Clifton in 1875, and remained
about two years, but defendant only kept up the
acquaintance by sending her newspapers(which Mr.
Matthews suggested were copies of the Matrimonial
News) On her return to Kiddermin,ter she tried
to avoid him; but he followed her, and in June,
1877, he asked her mother," Will you give her to
me ?" The mother said they were both of age, and
could choose for themselves; but she was quite
aareeable. Renewed promises were madeby defen-
dant during 1878 and 1879, but defendant's mother
still stood in the way: Defendant asked plaintiff if
she would like to spend the honeymoon at Llan—
dudno. In 1881 an old maid appeared on the scene
and she was now defendant's wife, having possessed
the monetary qualifications insisted upon by de-
fendant's mother. He made ambiguous statements
! to the plaintiff, and on her texing him with going
to marry another person, he admitted it, and siid
he would send her seine of the wedding cake. After
such heartless treatment, the plaintiff's counsel said
she was entitled to substantial damages. The
plaintiff, in her evidence, said defendant asked her
if she loved him, and she said she did, and he
begged her not to many anyone else. lie was
!in irried to another person in March, 1882, He told
hot' he was goieg to be married, and .would Send
h--r a piece of the wedding cake, and she told him
if he did she would send it back agaiii wrapped in
black crape. He brought the wedding carriages
close to her door. In cross-examination she said
defendant was an old man and grey—headed, hut
she had always had a desire to marry a person
older than herself. She declined to state how old
he was.

The defendant denied that he had ever asked the
plaintiff if she would marry him, or that he had
asked her mother if he might have her. He ad—
mitted that he had kissed her and that she had
hi-sod him.but he said he had known her from a child
and he only meant these acts innocently, and as in
no way pledging him as her affianced husl4and. He
had never written to her, nor had he ever courted
her in ally way with a view to marriage, He de-
nied having blown kisses to her; on the contrary,
he shook his fist at her because he saw her from her
bed room window partly dressed. (Laughter) He
had no recollectien of saying he would send her a
piece of his wedding cake, though he admitted he
told her he was going to be married. His age was
fifty-five, his wife's age forty-three. His mother
asied him to send newspapers to the plaintiff when
~he was in Clifton.

Mr. Matthews, for the defendant, ridiculed the
idea that the defendant had ever promi-ed the
plaintiff marriage ;in fact, no one was more sur-
prised than hims-if when legal proceedings were
commenced against him.
After a brief Lousultation the jury found a verdict
for the defendant.

BRIERLEY HILL.

ASSAULTS.—At the Police Court, on Thursday
before W, F. F. Boughey, Esq., Stipendiary Magis
trate, Chines Cooper was charged with assaulting
his sister. Mary Cooper, on the 4th inst. The de-
fendant had been convicted before of assaulting
his sister. Sentenced to three months' hard labour,
and he was ordered to find two sureties in ,X 5 each
and himself in £25 for his future behaviour, or an
extra month's imprisonment.

OBSCENE LANdIJAGE.—Maria Rogers was charged
with using obscene language at Buckpool, on the
21st ult. Mr. Waldron prosecuted. Eliza Skid-
more stated that she was with a young man in
13uckpool Road, and the defendant came up and
began using bad language. Several witnesses were
called who confirmed the last witnes's statement.
The Bench considered it a very bad case, as the de-
fendant had a family of children, and fined her 203.
and cost,, or n default 14 days.
ASSAULT.—SamueI Rogers was charged with as-
saulting Maria Rogers, his wife, on the 31st ult.
The cas- was dismissed on payment of costs.
A DRUNKEN MAN.—John Rushton was charged
with cursing and threatening Eliza Bradley on the
4th inst. Eliza Bradley state%that she was upstairs
in her house whe the defendant came in and began
cursing her and threatening t) kill her. The de-
fendant was very drunk at the time. The defend-
ant was also druak in court, and was ordered to be
imprisoned for being drunk in court,—Annie Rush
ton, his daughter was charged with using threats
towards Eliza Bradley ho stated that she was
coming home when she met the defendant,, who
came up and began to threaten her. A witness
was cali,for the defence, who stated that the plai
tiff began to threaten the defendant. Dismissed on
payment of Costs, or in default 7 days.
GAMBLING.—John Haynes and John Slyin were
charged with gambling in the public highway. P.C.
Lafford proved the case and said that he was going
to Brettell Lane when he saw the defendants playing
at cards. Ho ran up to them and found sonvi money
and a pack of cards. Fined lOs and costs; in de-
fault 14 dare.

DRUNICENNESS.—Thomas Mountford was charged
with being diunk on the 7th ult. P.C. Hicklin
pi oved the case. Fined is and costs, or in default
7 days.

ALLEGED ASsAurir.—Walter Bishop and William
Onions were charged with assaulting William Holt,
Brettell Lane. The prosecutor stated that on the
3rd inst he was gAng down Brettell Lane when
the defendants came up md began calling him names
and throwing stones. He ran away from them and
tney folio wed him to a field were they knocked him
down and assikulted him. He got up and ran into
a pigsty e for r,fuge, where his son found him. A
witness Was c Wed for the defence who stated that
he saw the complainant and he was quite drunk,
and standing by some railings when tae defendants
calm up anl he hit Bishop on the head with a whip.
The boys ran away ar.d lie followed them and fell
down twice. •The boys were dismissed with a cau-
tion,

NEGLECT OF Woux.—Joseph Taylor was chargei
with negleetipg his work. George Stephens stated
that the defendant was a galvanizer and ho did not
come to his work cu Monday, so he hal to do it
himself and neglect his own work :for which lOs
damage Nv,s claimed. The Bench ordered the de-
fendant to pay the 103 and the costs.