The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-03-28 00:00:00

A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.

At the York Assizes the cause of "Smith v. Clap-
ham" has been tried, and was an action for breach of
promise of marriage. The plaintiff is the daughter
of a small farmer, and the defendant is a farmer
at present having but a small annuity, but who it was
admitted would come into property of considerable
value at the death of his mother. The families of
the plaintiff and defendant occupied adjoining farms at
Purton Pidsea about tele year I.SQ, wino an intimacy
sprang up between the plaintiff and the defendant,
which ended in the birth of an illegitimate child in
16113, after which the plaintiff's family removed to
their present farm, and all intimacy between the
plaintiff and defendant appears to have ceased until
the time of the alleged promise, on Nov. D.), 1866,
when, accordingto the plaintiff's account, the defendant
drove over to Woodmansee and engaged himself
formally to the plaintiff. The following curious
document was put in evidence
_ . •

111,morandurn..—Chatt-house.—T. W. S. Clapham, was en-
aged to Polite Smith November DJ, 1566. Cod bless you,
joy darlaieg. . .

The plaintiff then, at the defendant's request, wrote
a copy, signed it, and gave it to the defendant.
The defendant's case was that at the time of the
writing the agreement he was under the influence of
liquor and was incapable of transacting business, and
that the plaintiff's mother took advantage of his
incapable state and got him to sign it, and he called a
witness who had been with him during the previous
day and night, and who stated that on the Monday
night they had been at a Martinmas dance, and had
not been to bed at all ; that on the Tuesday morning,
the 29th, they had started to drive from the defendant's
house to the plaintiff's, a distance of sixteen miles, and
that they had been into every public-house on the way,
where the defendant had gin and sherry and beer, and
that at the time of his arrival at Woodmansee he was
" very tight." It was also proved that at Woodmansee
he had more gin, and after that he went into a room
with the plaintiff and her mother, and soon after the
mother came out for pen, ink, and paper, and that at
the time of leaving Woodmansee he was drunk. It
was further proved that at the date in question the
defendant was actually engaged to another young lady,
to whom he had since been married, and the plaintiff's
mother, on cross-examination, admitted that she knew
of it at the time the defendant wrote the promise.
The learned Judge, in the course of his summing up,
remarked 011 the peculiarity of the case, and pointed
out to the jury that the contract of marriage was a
most important one, and that it was necessary that the
parties should be capable of contracting and of an
agreeing mind.
The jury retired, and, after an absence of ar hour,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1:190,

ANOTHER BREACH OF PROMISE.

In the Edinburgh Court of Session, last week, a
Miss Mitchell sued Mr. Leslie, shipowner, Arbroath,
for breach of promise of marriage. The defendant,
after courting the plaintiff and writing her many very
endearing and pious letters, and, as she alleged, pro.
'rasing to marry her, suddenly wrote on the 14th
August, 1867, that "after prayerful and due con.
sideration and hard wrestlitigs within," .he had come
to the conclusion that he could not justify himself in
"going into marriage; or, in other words, I am not
to marrie at the present time for reasons justifiable ; "
and added—" I am far from being well, and we must
banish all thought for the present, till God in His
providence open up for me a clearer path. I must
stand still till God show me His will. Then, and not
till then, am I justified in moving; so let us patiently
wait, and no doubt all things shall work for our good
for time and eternity." A few months afterwards he
married Miss Peters, a lady of considerable means.
Defences were lodged to the action denying any ex-
press promise of marriage ; but admitting that the de-
fendant had gone further than he should have done if
he did not intend to marry the plaintiff ' • apologising
for his conduct, and tendering £52 10s. of damages and
expenses. 'that tender was declined ; and the defend-
ant now tendered £157 10s. damages, besides the ex-
pemes of the prooess, and renewed the apology, and
this tender the plaintiff's counsel accepted.