The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-08-13 00:00:00

THE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER.

been anything but friends." I turned round and ran
away. He called me back and said "Come along."
I joined him again and we went home and had some
tea. He said he I;ad to go next day into the City,
and as his time was short he did not wish me to go
with him. I insisted upon going with him. The
next day I saw him off by train.
Plaintiff continued, and said that on July 19 she
met him at Paddington Station on his way from
Leamington to Tunbridge-wells. He took his lug-
gage to Charing-cross Station, but would not go with
her to her lodgings at Devonshire House. They
walked together in the National Gallery. She told
him she did not like the way in which he left her,
as he never gave her a kiss. (Laughter.) He said,
"You don't want a kiss." Only two things kept
him from going abroad—one was want of money, and
the other want of a companion. When they parted
at the train he did not kiss her. On the following
Saturday she met him again. She pressed him to go
to her house, but he said hetiad some shopping to do.
He also excused himself by saying he had his luggage
to attend to. She then said, I want your presence.
If my mother had been alive you would not have
treated me in this way." Hethen said, "Come along,"
and went home with her. When they were together
in the room she threw her arms round his neck to kiss, '
upon which he said, "You don't want to be kissed ? "
She said, "I do; "upon which he put out his lips and
just kissed her forehead. She then began to speak
about the marriage, to which he replied, " I cannot
talk about that." She asked him if money was in
the way. He said, "No." She said, "I hope there
is no one you love better than me?" He replied,
"That is not a fair question." She said, " Consider-
ing I am engaged to you, I think it is a very fair
question." He refused to answer. She then threw
her arms round his neck and kissed him, but he re-
fused to kiss her. Before the defendant left London
she asked him to let her have some of his sermons.
He said, coolly, "Any sermons will do for you."
When he returned to Leamington she wrote stating
that she had £2OO per annum under her father's will,
£5O per annum from her mother's property," £3O pin-
money. She begged him to state what was the reason
he would not marry her.
Mr. Harris read the answer of the defendant to the
plaintiff's last letter, in which he said Leamington
appeared to him to be the best place to obtain a
small living, which he hoped sooner or later to obtain.
It was, however, a place where he should not like to
be in the position of a married curate, even if the
vicar would have no objection, which he thought
would be doubtful. This threw a cloud over his
future. He also suggested that the plaintiff would
be much happier among her friends at Andover, and
added, "I am not aware of being particularly fond of
anyone in Leamington or elsewhere, to give rise to
your question."
The angry letters of the brother were then put in,
and the defendant's letter in which he said he thought
they were always happiest when apart, and referred
to the " mature" ideas of the plaintiff.

This brought the correspondence down to the month
of August, 180.
The greater part of Monday was occupied by Mr.
Harris reading letters which had passed between the
parties in the course of the engagement, and extracts
from which were quoted by Mr. Lawrence in his open-
ing on Saturday. On September I, 1880, defendant
wrote to the plaintiff stating that "he could not corn-
mandlis own feelings," and reminding her that "he
could not be driven into marrying her by threats."
It would be wrong of him to say he did not care for
her now, but it would certainly be wrong to say he
cared or longed for their marriage ' • therefore, he sug-
gested that it would be best that the engagement
should be at an end. Their friendship, however,
might go on as in former days. In this letter defen-
dant signed himself, "Yours still affectionately,
Arthur." Plaintiff, by return, wrote, "I know it is
dreadful Leamington which has made you so fickle,
but I thought I could have trusted you there or any-
where else. If you do not now change your mind and
come back you will ruin my life. I would never
marry anyone else. lam far too fond of you."
Continuing her examination in chief, plaintiff said
she h,ad been rendered very ill in consequence of the
treatment she had received from the defendant, and
was confined to bed and sofa four months, attended by
a physician. She was advised to go abroad, and did
so during last winter, She had been under medical
attendance since her return home. When defendant
gave up the lady to whom he was previously engaged
he spoke of the probability of an action for breach of
promise being brought against him, but if it was done
he should allege insanity existed in her family. De-
fendant had told her that the only allowance he had
up to last January Was what he received from his
father—kBo a year. Since then she believed he had had
more. His father was a country gentleman and the
brother of Lord Norreys.

_
Cross-examined by Mr. Mellor, plaintiff admitted
that in her first letter to defendant she sent "heaps
of lrissew, " (laughter) and subscribed herself
"Yours always affectionately, Kittie." In his
answer she believed defendant commenced with the
words "My dear Miss Lamb."
Mr. Mellor said he observed that from addressing
defendant as "Darling. old boy" in her letters, she
changed his name to "Darling Trot." (Laughter.)

Cross-examination continued: Plaintiff said until the
engagement between them was entered into in May,
18-i9, her opinion was that defendant was rather in-
different tewards her, and she reproached him for it.
(Laughter.) She once stole a kiss when he took off her
skates, but he never gave her one. (More laughter.)
She, however, afterwards contradicted herself on this
point.—Mr. Mellor: You have complained of Mr.
Fryer having been engaged before. Were you engaged
before?—Plaintiff: Never.
Mr. Mellor: What, never? (Roars of laughter.)
What is your object in bringing this action ?—Plaintiff
(emphatically) : To know Tony gr, Fryer should have
shown such cruel an i heartless conduct towards me.
Mr. Mellor: And you seek to recover damages from
him ?—Plaintiff Peeidedly.
Mr. Mellor read a letter sent by plaintiff's brother
to defendant, in which he threatened to "open the
eyes of the people of Leamington, who appeared to
be blinded as to what sort of being Mr. Fryer was."
The communication was signed, "With disgust and
contempt, yours, T. Lamb."
His lordship here interposed, and said it seemed to
him most likely that the questions for the cemsidera-
tion of the jury would be brat as to whether the conb
dittoes as to defendant obtaining a preferment of a
permanent nature before the marriage were varied or
waived by mutual cor;42Tit of the parties; and
secondly, whether, assuming that the gopdition was
not varied or waived, Mr. Fryer forced the end oi the
engagement by repudiating it absolutely before the
condition happened; or, thirdly, whether the plaintiff
herself terminated the engagement by insisting either
upon marriage or an alternative for breaking off the
engagement,
Re-examined by Mr. Lawrence, plaintiff said de,
fendant, among other terms, addressed her as "Dear
Fidget," and the following was the first verse of some
poetry he sent her during their engagement I
"Oh, Fidget, my dear,
The socks, I declare,
Are just my little foot's size;
Not too large or too small,
But taken in all,
An agreeable and kindly surprise."
(Prolonged laughter.) Defendant, when they were
skating together,always put on and took off her skates,
and kissed her on the ice. (More laughter.)
This conducted the case for the plaintiff.
No witnesseewere called for the defence; but Mr.
Mellor, Q.C., on the part of the defendant, contended
that the promise to marry was made subject to the
expressed condition that the marriage should not take
place until he had obtained some preferment in the
Church of a permpent character.
The jury gave a verdict for the' plaintiff; damages
£l,OOO. Upon the application of Mr. Graham, his
lordship stayed execution until the sixth day of
Mieha.elmaz term.