The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-08-08 00:00:00

A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

At the York assizes the canoe of "Smith r.
Clapham" has been head, and was a very singular
cage of breach of promise of marriage, to which the
defendant pleaded, among other pleas, infancy, and
that he was intoxicated at the time of making the
agreement.
The case was tried at the last Spring Assizes, when a
verdict was given for the plaintiff. A rule for a new
trial was obtained on the gr lof the verdict being
against the weight of evidence
The plaintiff is the daughterof a fawner and small fanner,
living as tenant to the defendant's mother, at a rent of Linn
year. The defendant's father wan a Fort of small squire in
the place, owning am acres. By his will he left the estate to
his wife, and then to the defendant, charged with £5OO a
year and the payment of £5,000. The defen.lant came ,d nee
ht May, 1015. The plaintiff and defendant had known one
another ever since they were little children, and a close
intimacy had grown up between them. On the occasion ,d
the Prince td Wales's marriage there was some merry making
ill the village, and the defendant and the plaintiff with her
permits were there. The plaintiff and defendant disappeared
from the party, anti when the defendant's parents returned
home they found the door baled, there was a ectiMing in
the house, anti they heard footsteps of a man going t'lit of
the back door as they came in at the front. There was a hat
left nut a table, and the defendant came next day to claim
It. The plaintiff was delivered of a chili in the course of
that year, anti in September, 1064, obtained a hastanly order
against the defendant. The plaintiff never informed the
defendant's fantily in any way of what had happened
Letters passed from the defendant to the plaintiff all this
time. but they had all been destroyed except one
On the .21411 of November, 1564, after the defendant had
come of age, the defendant and a friend lirowt into Mr.
Smith's yard in a dog.cart. Defendant said he had come to
ask her mother's consent to marry Polly. An elder sister
was in the house: he walked up to her, put his arms round
her waist, and Mill, Don't you know me?" and kissed her.
lie was quite sober. In about mi bar plaintiff and her
mother came back [tom !lull. The defendant and Stamford
wire in the kitchen. Defendant was lolling with his head
against, the wall; Standorol had his head ower the back of a
chair, and was mantling and snoring with his mouth wide
open Defendant went Into the sitting-room with plaintiff
awl her mother. Defendant told plaintiff he wished to be
married. Plaintiff said she wa: determined to Inc married.
The mother said to her, " Well, you know he ham deceived
you so many times." Ile said he wished to be married in
January. lie asked for pen, ink, and paper, and the plain-
Oft's mother fetched thein. lie then wrote the following
document -

"1, W. S. elophom was ',waged to Polly Smith on the
29th of November, ISM. God l,leoa 'Joe, my &Wring."
It appeared that the defendant, ev()ry time he was sent to
school, used to run away, which accounted for his mode of
spelling. After writing the almve, he said, Now Polly,
give me the sonic; only change the name." The plaintiff
did no, and he placed the paper in his waistcoat pocket. It
was not produced. When the defendant left he Mid he
would come the following Sunday to make arrangements for
the marriage. He never came again. In April the plaintiff's
mother saw the defendant in hull. She saki, "Ton have
never coine, although you have received letters. I suppose
you are going to marry Miss Thompson." Ile replied,
you think I would marry an old Methodist's daughter?
lie married Miss Thompson a month or two afterwards.
The only letter front the defendant to the plaintiff which
was forthcoming Wag one dated apparently October, 1000,
but the linal 6 had the appearance of having begat at first a
3, and it was smeared over with ink. The letter was merely
an offer front the defendant to meet the plaintiff. The
father, mother, and sister of the plaintiff all swore that the
defendant ens quite sober, lie had some gin at the house,
hut not until after he had written the promise. Two other
witnesses spoke to his being sober in the early part of the

For the defendant Stamford was called. He mid that on
the night of the 20th of November be and defendant were
dancing and drinking, and did not go to bed all night. Ile
himself did not drink spirits They went in a dog-cart to
Hull in the morning. On the way defendant drank gin at
every publichouse they came to. Ile drank above sixteen
glasses of gin before they got to the plaintiff's. and also half
a bottle of wine. When they got to the plaintiff's house the
defendant was quite drunk. Tbe plaintiff's mother gave he
defendant some gin. Ile bad two glasses before he went
into the parlor and wrote the paper. Ile said on the way
home that he "trail signed to marry her, and he was to come
on some Sunday." It as generally known that lie was at
that time engaged to be married to Miss Thompson. It
was Mr. Thompson's pony he was driving at the time.
, The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
xr.o. The damages on the fanner trial were £lOO.