The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-03-08 00:00:00

A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE-12,000

DAMAGES.

At the Assizes held at Newcastle, the cause of "Tyndall V.
:.hort " has been tried, and was an action fore breach of
promise of marriage.
The defendant pleaded first that he did not promise, ,
and secondly that the promise was made subject to
certain conditions' agreed on,between the plaintiff and
the defendant, that the defendant should be able to
obtain the consent of his family—to wit, three of his
eldest daughters, setting Joel' their names, and of four
of the brothers and sisters of his deceased wife, setting
forth their names, and of the defendant's aunt, setting
forth her name, to his marriage with the plaintiff, and
that he was unable to obtain such consent. He further
pleaded that a reasonabe time had not elapsed, and
further that before the breach of the said promise the
plaintiff had exonerated and discharged the defendant
from his promise.
Mr. Aspinall, Q.C., and Mr. Crompton appeared
for the plaintiff, Mr. Littler, Q.C., and Mr. Ridley,
for the defendant.
it appeared from the opening speech of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff, and the evidence of the plain-
tiff herself (a good looking, buxom ',clung woman), and
her brothers and friends' that the plaintiff was 26
years of age and lived atCliatham Broom, a farm of
the Duke of Northumberland, and that five or six
years ago she had gone to take charge of her brother's
house and family. The farm on which she was born
and brought up Inid been in her family for centuries,
and she and her family were persons living in a islesition
of great respectability, and the plaintiff was, in sta.
tion, position, age, and acquirements, in every way fitted
to be the wife of the defendant. The defendant occupied
a position of considerable wealth and comfort as • large
farmer, paying a rent of £B4lO a year. He had alsoiarge
flour mills, mills at Berwick for the manufacture of
artificial manure, and a manufactory at Tweedmuutli,
and he resided at Wearing Mills, an ordinary country
gentleman's residence, which was described as a beau-
tiful place. He was a widower with eight children.
I seven of them girls, the eldest of whom was 19 years of
age. The defendant lost his wife in 1869, and cast
about for a wife fit to take charge of his house and
family, and having come the conclusion that the plain-
tiff was just the woman, through the intervention of a
neutral friend named Thompson it was arranged that
he should get an introduction to her. Accordingly Mr.
Thompson gave a tea party, to which the plaintiff
and defendant were invited, and the plaintiff then
made himself extremely agreeable to the plaintiff.
and made it manifest that he was paying her
attention. In a few days he arranged with Mr. Thomp-
son that he should have another interview with the
plaintiff, and he then proposed to her. She hesitated,
and pointed out to him by letter that such an engage-
ment should not be entered into without the consent
of his family. He gave her the strongest assurances
that his family were extremely pleased at hearing of
his proposal to igaarry her. It was then resolved that
they sheuld wait till 1873, till a year after the death
of his late wife, and a correspondence was entered
into isetween them of a very business-like and prosaic
character-22 letters being put in in evidence. As
the learned counsel for the plaintiff observed, there
was no nom, floe whatever in the correspondence; nor
was it to be expected under the circumstances; one
was a gentleman of 42, desiring a wife to manage his
house, the other was a lady of 26 years of age accepting
an offer which was extremely advantageous to her,
and which promised to be lo to both parties. The en-
, gagement having gone on for some time, the de-
fendant, by letter, suddenly broke it off. The jury had
heard the pleas opened, and, saidAhe learned counsel,
they had probably never before heard such a plea as
that put forward by the defendant in the whole course
of their lives. He had pleaded that his promise was a
conditional one, subject to his obtaining the consent of
his three eldest children, his deceased wife's brothers
and sisters, and his own maiden aunt. (Laughter.)
The maiden aunt was suggestive of their being some
money there. Some of the lettere were put in, the
defendent's letter speaking of business matters and
eniling'svith "kindest love and kisses to you," and the
plaintiff's answers equally business like, ending " with
best love and kisses from me." Such was the corre-
spondence up to the 4th of March, 1870, when, on that
day, four days after the last of the affectionate letters
read, the defendant wrote:—

"My Dear Limp,—l duly received your letter. Since
Thursday I have been very much annoyed by hearing that your
family were all, as well as your mother, opposed to our en-
gagement, except one party, whom I suppose is Mr. Watson.
I can only say the same feeling exists with the Black family
(his deceased wife's family), as well as my two eldest
dam:liters. Now, to proceed,further in the matter with this
decided opposition would lend us both to misery. It will be
better and wiser to withdraw. What has Mr. Young, the
clergyman, to do with your family Ile has been speaking
against it too. lam sorry it waa so hastily gone about, and
I must blame Mr. lhompsou very much for it. Let me hear
from you. With kind love,
" liars affectionately, 11. P. SHORT.'
The plaintiff wrote a temperate and sensible letter
expressing her great surrrise at defendant's letter, and
stating that she should consult her friends as to its con-
tents. There was no truth in any rumours about her
fancily being opposed to her marriage with the &fen-
dant. The defendant ultimately entirely broke off the
engagement, and the plaintiff felt it was due to herself
that the matter should lie publicly sifted, besides which
she had lost a most advantageous marriage.
The plaintiff was then called, and proved the facts
opened, and her brother proved the assent of himself
and family to the match, and that the defendant told
him he had insured his life for about £lO,OOO, and he
propowd to settle on his sister between £2,000 and
£3,000, and to make a proper provision for her in his
will. This was the plaintiff's case.
The learned counsel for the defendsuat then addressed
the jury. He designated the letters as most business-
like productions. It was absurd to *ay that the
plaintiff was at all injured in her feelings. He said
uot a word against her, and she would leave the court
with her merits advertised by the aounsel on both
aides. The action was snore like one for damages for
the wrongful dismissal of a housekeeper than one for
breach of promise of marriage. What had she loot?
The defendant was old enough almost to be plaintiff's
father; and what prospect of happiness was; there
when lice defendant's family were all opposed to the
match? Could she have had a happy home? These
considerations ought greatly to reduce the amount
of damages to which She could be entitled.
The learned Judge, in annulling up, told the jury
that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, as no evi-
dence had been given in support of the plea that the
promise was a conditional one. The only question for
the jury was the amount of compensation to be given,
and the plaintiff was entitled, in a pecuniary point of
view, to what she had lost, as well as compensation for
any injury to her feelings.
The jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict
; for the praintiff Damages 12,000.
The learned counsel for the defendant applied for a
, stay of execution to give him an opportunity to move
; the Court above, on the ground that the damages were
. excessive.