The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-06-05 00:00:00

STRANGE BREACH OF PROMISE
CASE.

Before Mr. Justice Grantham, at the Liverpool
Assizes, on Tuesday, Mary Jane Wilkinson, of Bed-
ford Leigh, sued a butcher named Hampson, of the
same place, for breach of promife of marriage. The
parties became acquainted at the end of 1882, when
the defendant was thirty and the plaintiff twenty-six.
In February, 1883, the plaintiff's mother asked the
defendant what his intentions were, and he said that
he intended to act-honourably and marry her daughter
on the first cpportunity. The plaintiff subsequently
accompanied him to Manchester to see a pantomime,
and in June, 1884, went with him to Southport. In
April, 1885, she had a child at Uttoseter, the de-
fendant paying all the expenses. She then visited
Southport, and while there again met the defendant,
who promised to marry her in three weeks. He did
not keep his promise, and ultimately told her he pre-
ferred to remain single.
The plaintiff, in reply to Mr. Addison, said that the
defendant told her he was worth X(100 a year.

In cross-examination by Mr. Shea, ilia plaintiff
stated that the defendant was the father of a child
before he became acquainted with her. He never
told her that he received 30s. a week as an assistant
to his father. The defendant had a married sister,
and his father wa3 aware that he was keeping com-
pany with the plaintiff.
In further cross-examination, the plaintiff ad-
mitted that a Mr. and Mrs. Radford, of Pytchley,
near Rochdale, had adopted the child for £4O, which
sum was paid by the defendant, and by an agreement
which was drawn up and sigued by both plaintiff and
defendant the child was to be sent to school, properly
clothed, and taken care of, and to be brought up as a
member of the Established Church, and to attend
church twice on a Sunday. Also that a photograph
of the child should be sent once a year to the plaintiff
and the defendant. The plaintiff said the terms of
the agreement were not read over to her, but she
knew the agreement was to take the child away.
The document was signed by her three months before
the .child was born. She signed the agreement,
although she did not want to part with the child.
His Lordship: Then why did you part with it?—
Because the defendant told me I could have the child
back at any time.
His Lordship (to Mr. Shee) : There is no doubt that
that agreement would not hold water for a moment
if she wanted the child.
Mr. Shee: Oh, no; of course not.
Mr. Shee (to plaintiff) : Why did you not force
him to redeem his promise after you had had a child?
—Because I did not wish to force him.
Re-examined by Mr. Addison: The defendant had
told her that when they were married they could have
the child back.
Mrs. Wilkinson, the mother of the plaintiff, said
that when the defendant first came to her house, and
told her that he was keeping company with her
daughter, she told him that she did not approve of
him. He was not a respectable man, for he had sown
a deal of wild oats in his time, and she did not want
him to sow any at her door. When she told him he
was not a respectable man he replied, "You need not
fear me, mother." She said, Don't mother me ;"
and he replied, "I intend to marry Mary Jane." He
afterwards said he would marry the plaintiff no
matter what happened. The defendant had proved
a rascal to her daughter from beginning to end.
At this point Mr. Shee said he could not dispute
that a promise bad been made and broken; the only
question he had to address himself to was one of
damages. He asked the jury to consider the question
whether the promise of the defendant was that
sacred and honourable promise to marry such as to
enable the plaintiff to come into court and claim
heavy damages.
Mr. Addison, addressing the jury, said that he never
remembered a case in which there was more shocking
cruelty shown to a respectable family than the defen-
dant had been guilty of.
His Lordship, in summing up to the jury, observed
that he certainly could not understand how any one
in the position of the defendant, a respectable man so
far as his position was concerned—honest and respect-
able to all appearances—should have allowed his soli-
citor and counsel to be under a false illusion when
there was not the slightest defence.
The jury found for the plaintiff, and assessed the
damages at £6OO.
His Lordship, in giving judgment for the amount
of the claim, remarked that such an agreement as
that which had been put in during the hearing of the
case, by which free and uninterrupted possession of
the child was given to the Radfords, could not be
tolerated for a moment: It was perfectly intolerable
that such an agreement should be made or should be
considered binding.

A member of the House of Lords who always pro-
nounces Derby, Darby, Berkshire, Barkshire, etc.,
was interruped in his speech on a recent occasion by
the barking of a dog that had somehow got into the
gallery, whereupon "the noble lord" exclaimed:
"To what new species of opposition am I now to be
subjected !" "It is only a member from Barkskire!
responded a witty duke.