The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-02-19 00:00:00

ACTION FOR BREACH OF PROMISE.-

DAMAGES .£5OO.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, In London, last Friday. the
cause of •• Dudley (by nest friend) e. Griesselich," was tried,
and was an action for a breach of promise to marry.
The Solicitor-General and Mr J. Mathew were counsel
for the plaintiff Mr. I). Seymour, QC., and Mr. Joyce for
the defendant.
- -

---
The plaintiff, a young lady who is now eighteen
years old, is the illegitimate daughter of Lieutenant-
Colonel Lothian ShOtield Dickson. In September,
at Brighton, she made the acquaintance of the
defendant, who is a German merchant in the city.
Many letters premed between them without the know-
ledge of her fnenils. In the following month he called
upon Colonel Dickson, and soon became a frequent
visitor at his house. On Christmas-day the defendant
dined with Colonel Dickson at Brighton, and then
made a formal offer of marriage; at the same time the
relationship between the plaintiff and Colonel
was fully explained to him. The marriage was after-
wards arranged for the Spring, the wedding-dress was
made for the lady. and other preparations were cool.
menced for the ceremony. On the 24th of February,
however, the defendant wrote a long letter to Colonel
Dickson, in which he said that "grave and never an-
ticipated circumstanced compelled him to undo ties of
the mold tender and affectionate kind, ties which he
confessed he thought could never be severed any more."
He referred, he said, "to your good and innocent child
Marie, to whom I considered myself engaged but two
short months." He spike also of his illness and
wretcheilnees, and thanked Colonel Dickson for his
hospitality and confidence.
On the 2fith of February Colonel Dickson's solicitors
wrote to the defendant, informing him that they were
instructed to take proceedings, and on the 4th of March
the defendant wrote a letter to Midi Dudley confirm-
ing his previous determination, and making many
abusive remarks concerning Colonel Dickson. It ap-
peared that since the cotutuencement of the action
Miss Dudley had received another offer of marriage,
but it had come to nothing.
. .

The defendant wee called as a witness. and he stated that
his income. instssul Of being £4,000 a year, as had been re-
presented, was less than .C2OO a year, the whole of which he
made as a commission agent.
I n

the defendant was urged u to his
reasons for breaking id his engagement. Ile said he did so
became he was impreue.l with the idea that Colonel Dickson
awl his daughter were laying a trap for him behoving Min to
be • man of wealth. Ile eisid he did not know of the plain-
tiff's Megitimacy until 110010 time after he was engaged, hut
that was not the only reason for his desiring to conclude the
connexhm. Ile further said that he covsidered the -hole
aft Or was an extortion of money, but he dot not wish to
iodic any Imputation upon the character of the lady. Ile
wrote In the tern,, which he used to Colonel Dickson to
smooth matters over, but he fully believed at that time that
he was the victim of a trap.

In reply.. Mr. Keevy, a friend of both the defendant and
Colonel Hickson, Moe called as a witness for the plaintiff. Ile
said won alter the engagement the defendant expressed most
heartfelt thanks for his congratulation., and also for the
accidental part which the witness had taken In Introducing
him to Colonel Minion. He then said that the colonel had
believed In • most gentlemanly manner, Uhl had given him
bill Information concerning his relationship with Miss
Dudley. Afterwards there was another Interview between
defendant and the witness, and the defendant told him his
reasons for breaking cif the engagement. Ile said he would
not bring disgrace on his name by 11.111ing a woman of
illegitimate birth. and also that the plaintiff was • Hirt, and
No been patty of light behaviour, no.l, as he said, he could
do what he liked with her without marrying her. He also
told the witness that he had been the victim of deceit, that
he had been entrapped Into the engegemeni, that Marie did
not lore him, and her object and her father's was oiely to get
money out of him
- - -

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, told the
jury that there was in this case no doubt a contract
.1 marriage, and no doubt also a breach of the con-
tract by the defendant, and the only question left was
the meaaure .1 damages. Now, upon that question
many consideration' should exercise an influence. One
element was the state of circumstances under which
the engagement was broken off; and if, upon mature
consideration, a man finds there is no prospect what-
ever of obtaining that happiness in the society of a
woman which he had hoped for when he proposed to
her, and he honestly believes that it will be better for
her, as well as himself, that they should separate, and
if he honourably and straightforwardly places the cir-
cumstances and his wishes before her relations, and
attempts to make such compensation for his mistake
as he bag in his power, such conduct should certainly
tend to materially diminish the amount of damages.
And, on the other hand, if in concluding the engages
'tient, a man attributes to the lady and her relations
base conduct and motives without establishing any
ground 'or such imputation, the jury would have good
reason f materially z ensation
tl,sy 1101. as: _ow. 11, ~•••• the de-
- tw.. for r, ;action of
.lanasiges. J rst, he says--althon..ti was con-
••sdissed i.e the ator aide that not made
scoosintcl ib th, circumstances of V. plaintiff a
bir th
td• s

v. aft.rr carrying ,iu clandea.
witb dimght-r f veral
. .

V hre—fv.her, h charges
'rhhr

Lie 10thel .. 4 • tin for him,
and says !oat ;0. ,; • all.,Lou was simulated
no-rely for the purpose ot prevailing upon him to enter
into a contract for the breach of which they might ob-
tain from him a large sum of money. Although every
one would concur with the Solicitor-General in con-
gratulating the father and daughter upon the escape
of the latter from marriage with such a man as the
defendant, that was no reaaon why he should not pay
a considerable sum for the pain and humiliation which
ho must neeesearily have caused the plaintiff, al-
th;ugh, am it was admitted, no such injury had been
sustained by her as to interfere with the proepect of
her obtaining another offer f marriage. If the jury
were satisfied that Colonel Dickeon had behaved
thrum:bout the matter SS • man of honour and a
gentleman, and it seemed to his Lordship that there
wan no ground for doubting it, there was nothing,
perhaps, which they could Conceive more contemptible
than the conduct which the defendant had adopted
towards him and his daughter; and much conduct wag
clearly an aggravation of the claim for compensation
which the plaintiff made upon the breach of the pro.
mjs.b to marry. The ilaminiem should be commensurate
with the relative positions of the parties.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, ZOO.