The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-12-05 00:00:00

damage,

was not denied that the match waa known to the
father and mother of the defendant. A letter was re-
ferred to, written by Mr. Grant, sea., in which he
spoke of the unaltered affection of his son for the
plaintiff, and excused him for not having written to her
on the ground that he had a morbid dictate for letter
writing. In the spring of 1867 defendant returned to
this country ou sick leave, and he frequently saw the
plaintiff, who visited at his father's house. She also
received two letters from him, each of which com-
menced "My own darling Dora," and one ended
"Your fond and devoted lover." The plaintiff left
her situation at defendant's request immediately after
the engagement, and again in 1865 she was prevented
by his remonstrances from again taking the position of
a governess. The only defence was inability to marry
owing to protracted and serious illness.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., admitted the engagement, but
contended that, as it would have been suicidal for the
defendant to have married, he was released de !ado
from his promise.
Mrs. Otte deposed that she and her husband called
on the defendant at his father's house at Kensington-
gardens, and asked him why he had not replied to
plaintiff's letters. He said he had been too ill—that
he was still weak, but would have to return to India in
January. He added that he was unable to marry on
account of hid illness, but had shrunk from telling
Dora so. Mr. Otte requested him to write a kind
letter to the plaintiff, and he said his leve towards her
was still the same, but that he should never be able to
marry. Witness then suggested that a letter should
be written to plaintiff stating the facts, and offering
her £l,OOO as compensation—a sum which would not
repay her loss. Defendant seemed astonished, and
said he was not in a position to give so much, that he
loved her still, and that, as the (lectors said he could
not marry, he would give her such a sum as he could
afford, lie plaintiff had suffered very much from the
breaking off of the engagement.
Cross-examined : Mr. Grant, sea., called a few days
after that interview, and said they were mistaken in
thinking defendant wished to break off the match. She
did not say she might have misunderstood what was
said, as they did not understand English perfectly.
Took no steps to ascertain defendant's state of health
but knew he was fre.luently at Simpson's, in the Strand,
playing chess.
Sir Bartle Frvre and Mr. F. S. Chapman, formerly
secretary to the Bombay Government, were called as
witnesses to prove the illness of the defendant.
Dr. Harker deposed that he was consulted by de-
fendant on his return from India in 1867, and attended
him up to his departure - which was against witness's
wish—for India. He was in a broken-down Indian
condition, suffering from shattered nerves and specific
disease of the lungs -not congestion, but consolidation.
Witness did not know of the engagement, but was
asked by the defendant, "Am I tit to marry? "--a
question often put to m!llir,,al men by Indian men.
(Laughter.) He replied, Not for twelve or eighteen
months." Marriage then would have been suicidal.
Defendant's condition gradually improved ; but he
was not in a condition to marry in January last, when
he left for India. The position to which he was re-
duced was altogether the result of the climate of

The case occupied moat .4 the day, and eventually
the jury, who could not agree, were diacharged without
giving a verdict.