The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-07-09 00:00:00

BREACH OF MIME OF MARRIAGE.

In the Court of Common Pleas, in Loud ft, the cause
of " Hazlewood v. Becker" has been heard. Toe
plaintiff in this case, Mrs. E Liz abeih Alm ie
Hazlewood, a young woman, was a widow, and she
sued to recover damages for a breach of promise of
marriage.

Mr. Kemp WWI counsel for the plaintiff, and the de-
fendant appeared in person.,

The platiatiff was examined, and she stated that she was
the widow o, a farmer, who had lived at Daventry , that
after his death she continued to carry on the farm for a short
time, but afterwards gave it up, Ann Went to live with her
sister in Loudon, who lodged with Mrs Stumbol in Down-
ham.road, Islington. She first met the defendant at a party
there in April iSkiS, and he paid her great attention, and
within six weeks promised her marriage. Ile said, however,
be should not he able to marry for two years, by which time
he hoped to he in business for hbnself Ile did go into busi-
ness as a wholesale stationer, and the intimacy continued
down to the end of 1563, when it was broken off, and the
defendant married another lady.
The defendant (who Is a Russian), cross-examined the
plaintiff and handed her several letters which she &shuffle'
were in her handwriting. In one, dated ist April, MSS, elm
appointed to come up to town front Brighton and meet him,
and there was this phrase, "I thought we might go ism's-
where until Monday " She indignantly denied that that
meant that they should sleep together. Another said, "Your
must try and meet me for ace night, as we may not be present
together for some time." In June, 15137, she wrote a very
sharp letter to the defendant, in which she said, "Six weeks
have now elapsed since I wrote to you last. lam snrprised
at your recent behaviour towards rne. Why did you hot my
forgiveness and promise me to deatrve better for the intim,
arid I should never nave realon to o.'llo tin. I have it in
your own handwriting, which I still retain. I wish to be no
longer the dupe of your affections, or ever to meet again. I
have never placed too much confidence in your fidelity, and
therefore hate none to lore. Ills only a proof of the truth
of the words that there is no truth lathe faith of mm. I
wish you success with all me heart with the one that has
Usurped me to your Miceli.' I."
Mr Justice Brett If the defendant calls that • very sharp
letter he must have been used to very soft ones (a laugh).
Witness. continued: It was defendant who broke off the en-
gagement; it was about November, 1068. She never said that
she was in the family way. She did not on that occasion, or
any other, ask the defendant to marry her. She did not call
upon him at his place of business In London.

Defendant lam a clerk there.
Wttners hhe asked him to return her portrait : they had
exchtuvred yorlralts.
Mr. Kemp: Well, the defendant evidently got the best of
that transaction laughter)
. .

'i,i-j7;;;p-re.prlety had at any time taken place
between her and the defendant.

_
Miss Eliza Hineks, the sister of the plaintiff, said that the
defendant paid the plaintiff great attention, and talk.d on
many ccemions about marryii.g her. He said that when they
were married witnegs should have a home with them. He
went to their father's at Daventry as the plaintiff's intended
Inishind, and stayed in the house for three or four days. Ile
went down a second time. Her father was a machinist, and
also kept an hotel there. .

-6;4-eta-Mined The defendant was the only visitor to
her sheer. Ilor email, William called once, hen he came
nO to the cattle show. Ile did not stay all night in the house.
Mr. Won'tf never went there but once, and then the defen-
dant took him

Mrs Stumnol said that the plaintiff and her sister lodged in
her house. The defendant behaved ID every way as agouti°.
man engagtd to the plaintiff. Witness spoke to inni as to
his marrying her. and he said his intentiot a were honour-
able hot he could not marry her until some future time
Ito said that it did not concern witness ; bet she said that
they were respectable ladies, and she should not allow his
visits unless she knew his intentions. Ile visited regnlarly
&her that.
_

Mr. Kemp said that there were a r no.ber of letters from
the defendant to the plaintiff 'the first n drimenced, "My
dear Mrs. Ilarlewood ;" hut subsequently they commenced
"if p dear girl," "My dearest Bessie," aid se on. In
October, 1865, one concluded "Sleep well, dream sweetly,
and then remember me. Receives thousand and more kiw.es
from yours ever affectionately, imnest." In January 1866,
he said that he had brought from the continent a German
pipe for U t.isin William In July, Pod, he said, "Now, my
ir,o,d Bessie, I Call tell you I love you dearly. I wish I could
have your company this afternoon ; it is miserable to he
alone;" and in another ,eVer, "I ran assure you, my dear
Bessie, I feel veu sorry now for having annoyed you, and I
can only entreat you to pardon my faults. How I wish that
I could be with 3 011 again. I would be quite different from
what I have hen," Oh do pray forgive me. Dear Bessie,
and you will make me happy and contented." Again, " I
cantint express thyo n in words how great my attachment to
you 14." •. I am very anxious to hear from yon, iearest
Bessie, and, therefore, do drop me a li e by return mid may
you forgive 111 W—free yours most sffectionately and most
truly." The learned counsel added that he had looked
through all the letters and 00 01.01)1 not find the slightest
trace of inc propriety on the part of the plaintiff.
The defendant said that he wished 0 ask the plaintiff
whether they had not slept together at Spencer's Hotel,
Mr. Justice Brett I shall not let you ash it.
The defendant then requested to he 11W0In, and, in
spite of a warning from the learned Judge, got into
the witness-box, and read a long and detailed account,
in which he accused the plaintiff of the most gnas in-
decency and habitual impropriety with him and others
and he denied positively ever having promised to marry
her.

Mr. Kemp made a powerful and indignant reply, in
the course of which applause was often suppressed.
Mr. Justice Brett, in summing up, said it would be
for the jury to form their own opinion upon the ques-
tion whether the defendant had premised to marry the
plaintiff, anal if he had so promised, then it would be
impossible adequately to express one's disgust at the
defence that he had set up. If, having promised to
marry, they had afterwards slept together, that might
be a pad blot upon the plaintiff with reg ant to other
men, but it gave a stronger tie upon the defendat t that
he should marry her. If there was the promise to
marry, no doubt the jury would pretty much agree
with Mr. Kemp, that the defendant had behaved like
a villain and a scoundrel, and hail come into court to
perjure himself in order to escape dtmag,es. If, bows
ever, they should find for the plaintiff, he would
remind them that it would be useless for them to give
a larger amount of damages than they thought the
defendant could pay.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages, £5O and
added "that being the utmos; they consider can be
obtained from the defendant, but they be; to express
their unanimous disgust at the defence set up by the
defendant, which they consider to be, from first to
last, a tissue of falsehoods,"