The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-05-01 00:00:00

AN INFANT'S BREACH OF PROMISE.

In the Bail Court, in London, the cause of "Hale r.
Iluthven" has been tried, and was an action for breach
of promise of marriage. The defendant pleasled that
he had not promised; that the plaintiff was not wiliing
to marry; that they had agreed that the contract
should be rescinded, and then be pleaded infancy. The
plaintiff wan the daughter of a respectable tradesman
living near Pimlico. The defendant was a cook. It
seemed that the parties had met at church, and the
young lady having some personal attractions the defen.
dant was captivated, and the families of the parties
considered it would be an advantageous matter for both
parties. The defendant had written to the pLaintiff
letters which contained a promise of marriage. One
was dated in ISCA's .

- - -
"My darling Minnie,—l received your letter, dearest, this
morning, and have inquired about the trains, but on Sundays
they will not answer But there are omnibuses on Sunday,
and you wilt have a very Mee walk. Take a Victoria omni-
bus, which will only cost you 4d., to the Angel at Islington,
awl you can get to the place early, and I can accompany you
at 5, dearest. I have been preparing a dinner for 200 people.
You shall have a nice tea in the garden. I love you more
and more, darling, not will not have any one else, dearest.
" Yours, affeetionatey, "ALFRED"
There was another letter, in which he stated,—
"t wrote directly, dearest, as I feel so miserable I don't
know what to do. Ido wish you were with me, my pet, but
it will not be long before we shall be one."
There was another letterof July 20, 1866 :

.
" My dearest Carry,- -I can assure you that this is the
happiest moment I have spent. lam here just on the hanks
of the Thames, but without you I cannot be happy, if I had
all the world. I was on horseback this morning, and I did
pat him along. I let him know who was on him. Give my
love to all at home.
" Yours affectionately for ever, "ALFRED."
In the year 1867 there WA a change in the conduct
of the defendant, and he then endeavoured to obtain
his letters, and had taken another young lady. As to
the plea of infancy, it was submitted that an infant
could enter into a contract which was for his own ad-
vantage or for necessaries.
Mr. Justice Mellor said a wife scarcely came within
the terms of necessaries, particularly for an infant.
Mr. Ribton thought that must depend upon the cir-
cumstances of the case. It had never been expressly
argued. In the time of George 11. the question wa.s
raiaed whether an infant could sue for a breach of pro-
mise of marriage. The case was then argued for the
first time, and the Court called in the civilians. It
did not appear that the Court derived much benefit
from them, as they decided, in direct opposition to
their advice, that an infant could sue for a breach of
promise of marriage.
The Judge said he had always considered the point
well settled. .

Mr. Powell said the question was whether one in-
fant could sue another infant in such a case.
The Judge said he should streak to the other Judges
of the Court in the course of the day, and if they
thought it was an arguable point he would reserve it,
but in the meantime he should nonsuit the plaintiff.
(The parties had agreed that the damages should be
E2l)
At a subsequent nart of the day his Lordship said
he had spoken to the other Judges, and they all agreed
with him that there was no arguable point, therefore
there would be no leave reserved.