The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-08-17 00:00:00

BREACH OF PROMISE.

At the Chester Assizes, the cause of " 'Wilkinson v.
Kelval" has been tried, ard was an action for breach of
promise of marriage.

The plaintiff, Annie Wilkinson, was formerly bar-
maid at the "White Horse" Inn, Wein, Shropshire,
the inn being kept by her father; and the defendant,
George Helsel], farmed :120 acres of land at Marton, in
the same county. The plaintiff was twenty five years
,f age, while the defendant was forty-two: a widower,
with several childri n, his eldest daughter, being sightero,
but skit, as c unscl rematkr4l, "a hale, hearty
man, such as any young woman would like for a
husband." The families of each were on intimate
terms and exchanged frequent visits. Last June the
plaintiff was stai lag at Marton, and one day the
ilifendant adi:ed her to go and see a mowing machine.
She, nothing loth, consented, and as they were walk-
ing in the hells he asked her if she would like to
be his wife, arid the reply was, "I should like it very
moth." He said he would do everything in his power
to make her happy; but she expressed a fear that
she should not snake as good a dairy-maid as a
barmaid, to which he replied that he thought of
reducing his dairy, and should not want her to
have anything to do with the formwork. The pre-
parations for the wedding went on, the dresses being
made and Miss Helsel' choosing hers. At that time
the plaintiff received a letter from defendant saying
that Ann (his daughter) seemed "to be turning round,
and that per)! le could not tell what her "lather was
thinking about to marry one who knew nothing about
a farmhouse." The letter accused the plaintiff of
"talking about it," and "advising more with other
people than me," concluding with "it will be beet to
remain as we are," and "I must pay all expenses you
; have gone to." That was followed by another letter,
in which the defendant said,

1 am sorry to tell you, but I really think the engagement
will have 0 be broken off, and I think Ina great measure the
fault is your own If you had taken my advice and said less
to other people things might have been very different. lam
sorry to say you have treated me almost with contempt,
and Ann (his daughter) seems to lie of the same opinion as
myself, for there is no stirring without hearing what is going
Won at em. I know nothing about the dresses, and although
It was strange you ordered them as you did, if you will fiend
the bill I will send the money. Hoping we shall still be
friends, I am, yours truly, GEuRGE KEI,ALL
On the 2nd of January, however, he went over to
Went, and asked to be forgiven, and the plaintiff
promised to forgive him and to forget all. He got her
an engagement ring and s wedding ring, and met her
by appointment at Shrewsbury to change them, as
they were too small. On February 27 the defendant
wrote saying :

Dear Miss Wiikinson,—Yeu any that you think we shall be
obliged to keep a dairy.maid. I am quite of the same
opinion, as I think Ann will never be able to manage the
cheese. You seem to think that will not interfere with our
marrying, but lam afraid it will dc so. I think as long as
I cannot do without • dairy-maid I must try to do without •
wife. lam really afraid to any much, as you transfer my
letters to other people.—Yours, affectionately,
GEORGE KELSALL.
In March he went over to Wem, and asked the plaintiff
to give up his correspondence, and elle declined. Mica
Wilkinson's father then interfered. He went to Mar-
ton, and asked the defendant if he intended to
marry her, and the reply was, if she waited till he
fetched her to Marton she would never come. Thin
was followed by a lawyer's letter to the defendant, in
which it wan said that he appeared to have broken his
engagement "on the most flimsy pretext," had "in-
flicted irreparable loss" upon the plaintiff, and caused
her the most "cruel pain," and concluded by asking
him to fulfil his engagement "like an honourable
man." The effect of this was to send the defendant
over to Wem in a most incensed state, and after a
vain effort to converse with the plaintiff, and being
referred to her father, he told them to do their worst.

The defence was that as to the promise to marry on a
particular day, the contract was rescinded by mutual
onsei,t, and the defendant was sal ready to marry.
Mr. Giffard having made the offer, "Wilt thou have
this man ?" the plaintiff said, " I could not think of it
now." The case went on, and the defendant said that
at his father's death the plaintiff agreed to wait six
months longer, and this was corroborated by Miss
Kelsall, his daughter, who appeared to have no decided
NAL ion one way: or the other about her lather getting
married, and said, in answer to the judge, she was sure
the bridesmaid's dress did not influence her.
The result of the case was that after the jury had
been absent fully three-quarters of an hour, they re-
turned with 1 verdict for just so much as would carry
costs.
Ili, Lordehip : You must say what tt.at is.

The Forerna-u : Well, 40s.