The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-06-09 00:00:00

A FARMER'S COURTSHIP.

In the Queen's Bench Division, before Mr. Justice
Matthew and a common jury, Miss Sarah Benson, the
daughter of a farmer, near Edenbridge, in Kent, sued
Mr. Liberty Durrant, a farmer in the same locality,
for damages for breach of promise of marriage. The
defendant denied the promise. Mr. Morton Daniel
was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wood Hill was
for the defendant. Mr. Daniel, in opening the case
for the plaintiff, said the parties became acquainted
in 1883; that after the promise of marriage they visited
and were recognised among their friends as engaged
lovers, but that ultimately the defendant broke off
the engagement and married another woman.
He denied to the plaintiff's parents that he
ever made the promise, but he did not
deny it. to herself, and offered to settle her claim by
giving her £5O, which she refused. The plaintiff was
called, and stated that the defendant, after breaking
off the engagement, told her, in reference to legal
proceedings against him, that she could do nothing to
him unless he married another, and that if he wished to
marry another he would risk it. She said the defendant
latterly, on one occasion, attempted to dishonour her.
Cross-examined: The defendant never gave her any ring,
nor made her any present in token of the engagement.
She did not know whether it was usual in Kent to
give a marriage ring or something in token of a
promise of marriage. The plaintiff's father, in
giving evidence in support of her case, said the
defendant denied to him that he promised to make
the plaintiff his wife, but admitted he promised
to marry her, and that he (the witness) asked—
where, then was the difference? (Laughter.) Cross-
e.iamined ; He did not see what difference there
was between young people keeping company and
being engaged lovers. Mr. Wood Hill, in opening the
case tor the defendant, said the defence was that this
was merely a case of keeping company, and not a 1
c tse of engaged lovers. There was all the difference!
between the two that there was between an actual
contract and relations which might lead to a contract.
Whatever the relations 'might be called, it was broken
off for two or three years before the action was
brought, which was not until the defendant, on the
death of his parents, came into possession of some
property. The defendant was examined, and denied
that his relations with the plaintiff were ever any-
thing more than those of friendsand neighbours. He also
denied that he ever attempted to wrong her. Cross-
examined by Mr. Wood-Hill: He did not give a ring to.
the lady he did marry until the marriage was going to
take place. Did you ever call plaintiff your darling Sally ?
We!!, I might have done so once. (Laughter.) Did
you ever add in one of your letters to the plaintiff a
p istscript with a number of dots after it? Ido not
klow. I forget that. (Laughter.) If you did what
d:d the dots mean? No answer. Is that what you
call keeping company? No answer. What, in your
view, is the difference between keeping company with
and being engaged to a young lady? We merely met
as friends and neighbours. Mr. Justice Mathew, in
summing up the case to the jury, said that prob.
ably they would not attach too much importance to
the fine distinction—the scientific frontier—which
had been drawn between people keeping company and
being engaged lovers. The jury, after a short de-
liberation, gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £2.00, I
and his lordship gave judgment for that amount of
clikinages, with costs.