The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-04-27 00:00:00

"ISSOTT v. SMITH."

In the Court f Common Pleas, before Thril Chief Justice
Eoviil and Justices Byies, Keating, and Brett, the cause of
" Issott 0. Smith" hss been reard.

Mr. Waddy said that this was an action for breach
of promise of marriage, and at the trial at Leeds before
Mr. Justice Keating the verdict was for the plaintiff
for £440. Now, unfortunately, the amount of the
damages and costs amounted to more than all the pro-
perty the defendant_had in the world.
Mr. Justice Brett: You say unfortunately.

Mr. Waildy : Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice : Does it not often happen
that a mauls ruined by a lawsuit? The question was
not altogether the amount of property of the defend-
ant, but the loss sustained by the plaintiff.
Mr. Waddy : The question was, what loss the lady
had sustained by the breach of promise.
The Lord Chief Justice: Then there La the injury to
her feelings and position. What she had autually lost
might be of no value.
- . " •

„ -
Mr. Justice Brett: I beg your pardon. I did not
understand your word ” unfortunate," but I see you
now meant a man without fortune. (A laugh.)
Mr. Waddy It was not a case where there was
much injury to the feelings.
Mr. Justice Keating : Oh, I think the defendant be-
haved very badly indeed. Ho tried to break it off upon
the ground of poverty, but the lady checkmated him
by saying that she would with him share wealth us well
nis poverty. (A laugh ) Then he said he would go
abroad, upon which she said she would go round the
world with him. (Laughter.) I think at last he wrote
a letter saying that he would have nothing more to do
with her.
_ . . . . .

Mr. Wiuldy : And if he had been wise he would
have written that a great deal earlier. (A laugh.)
He bad been led along by a lady who was much
cleverer than he was. He was a farmer, and she was
manager at Peter ItobinsoMs silk warehouse in London.
The farmer was no "match" for her, and (said the
learned counsel) neither was I. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice : Were they young persons?
Mr. Waddy : No, the plaintiff was 39, and the de-
fendant 42. She went into the country once a year for
a fortnight, and on one occasion she Paid the defendant
asked her suddenly whether she would be his wife, and
her evidence was, "It may look strange, but I said
Yes." (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Heating: She also said that she had
known him some time. The defendant likewise said
that he was worth £2,000.

Mr. Waddy : It seems that she had seen him four
years before and had not seen him since.
Mr. Justice Keating : But she had heard that he was
trustworthy and rich.

Mr. Warhly : 1 hat WAS the source of all the minchief.
(Laughter.) He, however, hag an c.fliti ;it as to the
defetelaut's amount of property,

The Lord Chief Justice said that the Court could
cot hear such an affidavit. The evidence at the trial
was that the defendant had said that he was worth
£2,000, and he was not called to contradict it, and he
could not now be let in to make an affidavit upon the
subject lb e (the Lord (Thief Justice) could not say,
neither or uld Mr. Ju.tiee Keating, the jury were wrong
upon the evkleuee before them in useirqing the damages
at £-100. The Court, therefore, could not grant any'
rule to reduce the amount.
Itule refused.

THE TWO CASES.
Says John Lemoinne, "The English Counter-ease
Has strength writ on Its plain, straightforward Uwe."
"That 's uat'ral (says Sam, with some impatience)—
" Strin g counter cases snit shop keeping nations.
lint how alemt nta ease? Guess that will tusk 'era ?'—
Not while John Bullcan weigh I.,muce and smell bunkum.
—Punch.