The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-03-14 00:00:00

£l,OOO DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF
PROMISE.

-
At Nottingham assizes, the cause of "Reynolds v. I
Topham " has been heard, and was an action of breach 1
of promise of marriage. The plaintiff is the daughter
of a farmer and butcher at \Varsop, Nottingham, 1
and the defendant lives with his grandmother and ,
manages a farm for her at the same place. It ap-
peared that towards the end of 18135 the defendant got
introduced to the plaintiff, who was then only fifteen
years of age and was at school at Warsiip, and
persuaded her to walk out with him. In February,
1866, the plaintiff's father became aware of what was
going on, and spoke to the defendant about it at
Mansfield market. The defendant said that his
intentions were lionourahle, and thereupon he was
permitted to visit her, walked out with her, and was
I received upon the footing of a suitor. In July, 1866,
I the plaintiff had scarlet fever, and during her illness
1 the defendant expressed great solicitude, and when
I she was recovering pressed very much, and at last
succeeded in being allowed to see her. After this she
left her home in October to visit her grandmother,
for the more perfect recovery of her health, and
remained with her at Lowther until the returned home
on the 20th of December, 18613. On that occasion the
defendant asked the permission of the parents to
escort her home. This was granted, and the mother,
ex she gave him a shawl for Ipv daughter's use, said
with tears in her eyes, "I have lost my boy and very
nearly lost my daughter. I put her in your charge.
Will you take care of her?" The defendant replied,
'You may depend on me, Mrs. Reynolds." In accord-
ance with this permission the defendant went to meet the
plaintiff at Nottingham and brought her in the train
to Mansfield, and thence to Warsop in his own carriage.
After he returned home his attentions continued till
July, 1867, when her parents discovered she was in the
family way. The defendant was thereupon sent for ,
and expressed his morrow for what had taken place. '
lie was pressed to fulfil the prinuities of marriage he
had made to the plaintiff, but made exoniee and
ultimately it became necessary to bring this actior.
The child was born on the 20th of last September.
For the defence a great number of pleas were put
upon the record, and among them a plea that the
, plaintiff was an unchaste and immodest woman. Two
, witnesses were called in support of this last plea, but
after hearing them, the learned counsel for the de-
. fendant abandoned this line of evidence, withdrew all
1 imputations on the plaintiff, and admitted that the
only question was one of damages. Upon tlds head
, it was shown that the defendant's grandfather was a
man of very considerable property, and had left him

property of the value of £4,000 or £5,000. This will,
It was said, he had no power to make, as the disposi-
tion of the property lay with the grandmother; but it
was shown that she was worth some £lO,OOO, tha Ithe
defendant lived with her, managed the farm, and
drove his carriage.
In summing up, his Lordship observed that the jury
had heard from the plaintiff's father and mother a
very simple, plain, and touching story. It was not
disputed that the promise wasmade, and the incidents
of the courtship were those ordinarily preceding mar-
riage in persons of that class of life. His Lordship
commented with great severity upon the plea of
nnchastity which *le defendant was FM utterly unable
to substantiate, and told the jury to give the plaintiff
reasonable and substantial damages for the loss she
had sustained by the breach of the defendant's
promise.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £l,OOO.