The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-07-27 00:00:00

Will you tell your age?'Ll think— you don't want to
know.
__ _

Iferschell : But you have • daughter; what age
is she ?—lnquire for yourself. (Laughter.)
Well, I won't press you any further.
The defendant's case was an admission that he had
been engaged to the plaintiff laid autumn; but that
soon after his engagement with the plaintiff the eons
had made such disturbances with him, threatening his
life, to shoot him, poison him, rip him up, and " do "
for him, that he had been obliged to compel one to find
sureties to keep the peace towards him before the
Justices. For a family to object to a marriage was
one thing, but to threaten to " do " for you if you en-
tered it was another, and when the plaintiff sent for the
defendant at Christmas last to protect her from being
beaten by her eldest son because she was going to marry
him, he had come to the conclusion that it was better
to terminate an engagement which had only domestic
strife and misery in prospect. lie told the plaintiff so,
and she agreed with him that it was better they should

remain as they were, and acted on that agreeno id, I
telling her neighbours that her engagement was broken
off, eroding for her blankets to the defendant's bowie,
and settling with him the money accounts between
them. The defendant proved this, and further that
plaintiff had told him she was 61 ; his own age we.
44; and the age of Mrs. Smith, whom he had
subsequently married, was 44. It was further
suggested that if the defendant had remained single
the action would never have been heard of; but
that, on hearing of the defendant's marriage with Mrs.
Smith, the plaintiff, in a fit of furious jealousy, had
brought the present action. It was proved that she
bad said to various people that she had broken off her
engagement with the defendant, and that one man, a
travelling draper, "had taken ttccasion to compliment
her on the decisive step she had taken, as the engage-
ment all along had occasioned nothing but envy and
strife, anti it was better for all concerned that it was
broken off.

His Lordehip in tounming up, said the defendant had
no right to break id the marriage because the ems of
the woman objected. He should have considered all
that before. He asked them whether it was proboble
that the plaintiff, at an age when lovers don't come
every day, would give up a husband when she had
little prospect of another. As to her conversations
with neighbours about her having broken off the en-
gagement, he advised them to discard them, but they
could please themselves; she was not likely to publish
the fact of her having been jiltod. If they came to the
•onclugon that the plaintiff was entitled toe verdict,
they must give her reasonable damages.
The jury retired, and on their return found a verdict
for the plaintiff, with £l5O damages.

On the application of Mr. Herschel'. execution was
stayed to give the defendant an opportunity of moving
for a new trial.

Subsequently the plaintiff agreed to accept £lOO
damages, the order for a stay of eiecution nut to be
pressed.
His Lordship approved the arrangement, as he
thought the damages excessive.