The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-25 00:00:00

MEYER V, GOTTINGER.

This was an action brought in the Court of Common
Pleas to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. H. James appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. J.
Brown for the defendant.

Mr, Huddleston said the plaintiff, Miss Frances Meyer,
was a young lady 28 years of age, the daughter of a gentle-
man
who carries on business as an importer of foreign goods
in Hounsditch. The defendant was of more mature age—he
was CO years old ; and having carried on a lucrative busi-
ness as a merchant, he had retired to live in Noel-street,
Islington, He had been for some time a widower, and in
July last year he became acquainted with some members of
plaintiff's family-, whom he had met at the Synagogue, both
parties to the suit being of the Hebrew persuasion. Mr.
Meye r had ten children, of whom plaintiff was the eldest.
The defendant having seen the plaintiff requested permis-
sion to be introduced to her, and he became intimate with
the plaintiff's family in the course of August and Septem-
ber. In October his attentions to Miss Meyer became very
marked, and they continued through the remaining months
of 1862. In May, 1863, defendant spoke to the mother of
Miss Meyer on the subject of marrying the young lady,
and mentioned to the mother his position in society. He
said that he was a widower, that ho was possessed of £6OO
or £BOO a-year derived from property. He also said that he
would be prepared to settle upon plaintiff £5,000 to be at her
own disposal. Mrs. Meyer said that she could scarcely
make any arrangement without first having the consent of
the young lady and of her father. It was therefore desired
that the defendant should see the young lady, make his
proposal, and ascertain whether he would be accepted or
not. He had an interview with the plaintiff, she accepted
him, and he came out of the room in a state of great exul-
tation, saying that he had been accepted, and from that
moment the parties were treated as being affianced to eaeh
other. The defendant was very eager that the marriage
should take place almost immediately, indeed ho wanted to
be married within a month after the proposal was made,
but the father suggested that this would be too soon, and
the sth of August was fixed for the wedding day. After the
proposal had been made the defendant took a house in Noel.
street, Islington, and began to furnish it. He visited the
plaintiff continually, presented her with a gold watch and
ear-rings, and said that he had been looking out for a dia-
mond necklace, but could not find one that was sufficiently
expensive. He was also taken to Ramsgate and intro-
duced to the plaintiff's relations in that town, and every-
thing was done upon the faith that the marriage was
was to take place upon the sth of August. The defendsn
became ill, and during that illness he asked most ten-
derly after his intended bride, and said that if anything
should happen to him he had taken precautions that she
should not suffer. Having recovered the parties went for a
drive in Victoria-park, and on that occasion the defendant
asked her to accompany him to Scarborough, and aho said
she thought that this would not be quite right until after
they were married. Whether from this cause or not the
defendant soon afterwards toiet the plaiiatiff's brother that
he had changed his mind, and he refused to marry the plain-
tiff. The plaintiff's mother went to the defendant to ask
him what he meant by this, and the only answer she got
was " I do not intend to marry her, and you can do what
you like." In conclusion the learned counsel said that he
did not put this case before the jury as one in which any
great affection or romantic sentiment was involved, but still
the fact remained that a lady of mature age had lost the
chance of being settled in life, and there was no doubt she
was entitled to substantial damages.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—Will your lordships allow me
to make uneobservation. My client is here in court, ready at
any moment to marry the lady, and indeed is most anxious
to do so. I may add that he very deeply deplores that there
should have been any breach of the engagement.
Mr. Huddleston —I wish he had said so before the matter
got into the hands of counsel, but it is clear that the offer is
now but an excuse for evading damages.
Mr. Sergeant B allantine—l repeat that defendant will
marry the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Justice—There may be something in that
if you will pay £5,000 into court, upon the condition that it
is to be paid to plaintiff if she is not married in a month.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—l will.

Mr. Huddleston—Will you settle £5,000 upon her?

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—Oh, that is another thing. The
condition of the defendant has been somewhat exaggeratt3d,
but I will take care that a sum of money which is amply
sufficient to bind the defendant to perform his contract is
paid into court. My client is ready to enter into a covenant
to make such a sealemcnt upon the lady as his means will
allow.

The Lord Chief Justice—To make such a settlement as
some prudent person will say ie reasonable.
Mr. Huddlestou—How can I enter into this arrangement,
after the way in which the defendant has treated this young
lady ? My friend has never mentioned this proposal to me,
and it is now only made for a purpose.
The evidence was then given :

Mr. Meyer—l am the plaintiff's father. I am a Birm!ng-
ham and Sheffield warehouseman and an importer of foreign
goods. In July, 1862, I saw the defendant at our place of
worship, and he spoke to me and said he was an independent
gentleman, was very lonely, and had been living for eight
years retired. I asked him to call at my house, in conse-
quence of his situation. I had known him two or three
months before I asked him to call, In September or October
he first called at my house, and continued to call from that
time until May, 1863. In May my wife communicated with
me as to a conversation she had had with the defendant, and
when he called on the following day I told him that my wife
had:spoken to me respecting his proposition. I said of course it
wit., my duty as a parent to see to the interests of my daughter
and I remarked that there was a disparity of age. He said
with emphasis that he was aware of that, but that previ-
ously to saying what he would do for the plaintiff he wished
to see her privately. I said, " My daughter is in the draw-
ing-room, and you can go in there." He did so, and when
he came out again he was perfectly satisfied and happy, He
said, " the proposal I make is to settle £5,000 upon her, to
be at her disposal, and if she survives me, she will have the
whole of my property if we have no children." He said he
made this reserve, because he was strong and hearty, and
expected to have a family. As to his income he referred me
to Messrs. Samuel and Montague, who receives his divi-
dends. I caused inquiries to me made, and was perfectly
satisfied. The defendant said " I am the happiest man in
the world." He wanted to be married within a fortnight
or three weeks, but we objected to that, and the sth of
August was fixed for the wedding. This date was distant
five or six weeks. We proposed the sth of August, and he
reluctantly accepted it. He wanted to be married much
earlier. I went with the defendant to Dr. Adler, the chief
rabbi, and procured from him this Hebrew document, It
contains the names of the parties, and fixed the day for the
marriage, The defendant spoke to Dr. Adler, and said
"Am I not right, doctor, in getting married ?" and the
doctor said " Certainly; by all means." After this 1 made
preparations for the marriage, and expended nearly £lOO in
doing so. The defendant presented my daughter with two
silk dresses, a gold watch and chain, and a gold bracelet.
He said, " These are only for common wear ; and I have
been looking out for a diamond necklace, but I have seen
nothing to my fancy, and I will look out for a better." He
said he would get one. On the 24th of June the defendant
moved to a larger house in Noel-street, Islington. About
that time my wife made a statement to me about furniture,
and I went to the defendant's house with my son. I saw
the bedroom, and it was certainly not sufficiently furnished
according to English notions. I spoke to the defendant
to
about some extra furniture which he had promised
get. He said that he was a German, and had always been
furnished in the German style. I said
my he had promised
get the things, and that I was sorry
to to
had so little influence with him. a7l: that
asked me t daughter
no o look at
the bedroom, and I said, 's Vhoro is the wardrobe whew

my daughter can put her clothes ?" There was no washirg-
stand in the room. lie said he would see my daughter and
wife, and make it all right with them. This took place on
the 9th July. The defendant said that he had £OOO or
£7OO a year, and that his property consisted of railway
shares and houses in Berlin.

Cross-examined—My daughter has made no other en-
gagement. She is entirely free now. I did not on the 9th
July find fault with all the furniture. Ido not think that
there was anything I praised. I think the defendant's wife
had been dead only a few weeks when I made his acquaint-
ance. When I alluded to my daughter having little influence
with the defendant, I did not say that I could see clearly
that they would not be happy together. I never said it had
better be broken off. My daughter has no letter from the
defendant.

Re-examined—l never heard of any renewed offer by the
defendant to marry my daughter until this morning. In
the defendant's bedroom there was a small bedstead and two
or three chairs, and there might have been some few other
articles. After the defendant's engagement he generally
called every day to see my daughter.
Mrs. Hannah Meyer, the mother of the plaintiff, said—
The defendant asked me at various times how it was my
daughter was not married, she being such a very nice young
lady. I said, being an educated young lady, she requires
what I cannot give—a fortune sufficiently large to put her
in the situation I wish her to be in. He asked me this a
great many times. He afterwards asked if she had any ob -
jection to a German; and I said "Certainly not, for my
family are German." My daughter speaks German. He
afterwards asked if I had any objection to his recommending
a " party." I said, "Certainly not." Two or three days
afterwards he asked if I should have any objection to him-
self. I was rather surprised, and did not answer. He told
me that his income was £6OO or £7OO a year, that he would
make a kind and affectionate husband, and that my daughter
should have everything that a lady could desire. He said he
would se Ale upon her £5,000 for her own use and disposal,
and that ii he had no children he would leave her the whole
of his property with the exception of a legacy to his sister.
Afterwards I saw the defendant, and asked him if it was
true what my son had told me, that he refused to fulfil his
engagement, and he said, " Yes." I asked him for the
reason, and he got out of temper and said he could not be
troubled, and would give no answer. He said we might go to
law or do what we liked, for he would not fulfil his engage-
ment.

Cross-examined—From inquiries of Messrs, Samuel and
Montague we found that the defendant had to their know-
ledge an account not equal to what he had represented; but
the defendant said that he had landed property and state
papers, as they called them, in Berlin, in addition, The
defendant only kept one servaitt,

Mr; Sergeant Ballantine—The defendant is nearly 70, is
he not ?
Witness—He told me he was 60.
I\lr. Sergeant Ballantine—But would you believe an
elderly gentleman as to his age ? (Laughter.)
Witness—l believe he was not more than 60, for he could
walk smartly from Islington to Hounsditch. (Laughter.)

Re-examined—The defendant said that after he was
married ho would keep a cook and housemaid, and my
daughter should have a lady's maid if she required it,
Mr. Alfred Meyer—l am the brother of the plaintiff, On
the 9th of July I went with my father to the defendant.
He said he would buy any furniture that was requisite. I
saw the defendant on the 12th July, when he was ill. He
said his illness was caused by eating fruit, ice, and wine.
(A laugh.) I saw him again with my mother, when he said,
" Tell my dear Frances that if I die everything will be hers."
On Thursday, the 16th July, I saw the defendant, when he
said he would not marry, and had changed his mind. He
told ma to carry home the message. This was the day after
the plaintiff had declined to go to Scarborough with the de-
fendant until after they were married,
Cross-examined—My father did not tell the defendant
that he clearly saw the parties could not be happy together.
I am not certain that the Thursday when I saw the defen-
dant was tke 16th July.
Mr. Meyer (the plaintiff's father) re-called and examined
by Mr, Sergeant Ballantine-1 instructed my solicitor to
write this letter of the 17th July to the defendant,
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine submitted that the promise here
was to marry and settle £5,000, and that these two items
formed one promise. This being so the promise must be in
writing,
The Lord Chief Justice said there was no conditional pro-
mise to marry upon a settlement being made; and his
opinion was that this action was brought upon the mere
promise to marry. He thought that there was no founda-
tion for the objection,

Mr. Sergeant Bellantine then addressed the jury in mit

gation of damages. He pressed upon the jury the fact that
there was no scrap of writing in the case, and no witnesset

but members of the plaintiff's family, so that the jury had

only heard one side—and by law the defendant in a case of
this kind was incapacitated from giving evidence himself.
A defendant was therefore left helpless in the hands of his
enemies, and it behoved juries to watch evidence given for
plaintiffs who sued for such a cause of action, in order to
take care that no undue weight should be given to it.
The Lord Chief Justice in summing up went through the
evidence, and in reference to what had been said about the
defendant now marrying the plaintiff,said that he regarded
that offer as being in the nature of a thing done for dramatic
effect ; for it was an offer which could hardly be accepted.
It, however, confirmed the evidence that the defendant had
made a promise to marry, and the jury would have to say
what danaasco the phantiffsrao entitled to for an uncaylained,
absolute, capricious refusal to perform his engagement.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found for
the plaintiff, damages £750,
This was the last case tried, and at its conclusion the
Co urt rose for the holidays,

Fighting on the Frontier of India.

There is no later news as to the war on the frontier. The
telegrams in the Bombay papers as to the action on the
20th November were fully transmitted, via Suez, about ten

days ago.
The following are details of the earlier engagements of
the British force :
"The force assembled at Nawakilla on the 10th October.
At nine p.m. on the 20th, Colonel Wild's brigade (as it then
stood—Guides, 20th Infantry, sth Punjaub Infantry, 100
sabre Guides, and 100 of the 11th Bengal Cavalry) marched
over awful ground. At daybreak on the 21st they halted at
the entrance to this pass and were then joined by let Pun-
jaub Infantry and sth Goorkhas and a mountain train
battery. At about nine they had entered as far as Roostum
Bazar, had a short halt, and moved on over what Colonel
Wilde said was the worst pass he had ever seen. The
enemy first showed at twelve, but not in number. The Ist
Punjaub Infantry Guides, and the 20th Punjaub Infantry
crowned the heights. The let and Guides then went on,
the 20th supporting the guns. At about two heavy firing
commenced, and the guns and 20th were pushed on; the
20th Punjaub.lnfantry left the guns firing, and pressed on
to the head of this pass (where our camp is now below) to
see the enemy flying. Pickets were posted, and during
night and next day the rest of the fcrce came in, baggage
not arriving (completely) till the 23d. On the 24th a re•
connaissance was ordered—cavalry and 20th Punjaub In-
fantry—up the Chumbla Valley. The enemy crowded (a
thousand or two) on the Buneyr Height to our left. The
cavalry rode on 11 miles, and had they come back early all
would have been well. The enemy, however, tried to cut
off their retreat, and we had to fight our way back to the
pass. It rapidly get dark, and the enemy then worried our
rear, charging among us sword and spear in hand, to be
bayoneted down. Our orders were to retire protecting the
cavalry, and the enemy followed us right into camp most
bravely, past guns, Europeans, and all. They were soon
driven back with fearful loss, but fired all night. The next
day the Guides and Ist Punjaub Infantry pickets repulsed
them on the right, aided by guns and European marksmen,
so they did not attempt to stand, and lost fearfully. Next
day the Buneyrwar, some 1,000 strong, attacked Eagle's
Nest Picket, held by 30 Europeans .and 80 of the 20th
Punjaub Infantry, charging straight to the breastwork up
a steep hill, sword and matchlock in hand, time after time,
for nearly four hours. The guns (mountain train) and
some of the 3d, sth, and 6th Punjaub Infantry peppered
their right flanks in aid of our pickets, and, not counting
those killed by them, 150 were counted dead in front of
our picket. They acknowledged to 400 disabled. They
attacked the camp and this picket and fought furiously,
just as we were going, by order, up another spur to
attack them. The let P. I. behaved splendidly, and if ever
man deserved the Victoria Cross, Major Keys does. He has
lost two fingers of the left hand, and his adjutant was
knocked down by a stone, but is all right. sixty of the
enemy lie dead here ; lots more must be up the hill, and we
shot a lot as they bolted. All killed on the 30th are Hin•
dustanis; they fought most splendidly, rushing up hill sword
in hand at the breastwork. The 20th have lost 50 killed and
wounded; the 6th about the same; other corps trifling.
Lieut. Richmond, 20th, Lieut. Gillie, H.A., and Lieut.
Clifford, Punjaub Cavalry, are officers killed since coming
out ; Lieut. Drake, 32d, Lieut. Bar:ow, Survey, Lieut. Pit-
cher, and Major Keys, Ist Punjab Infantry, are wounded.
The enemy now bolted to Buneyr on the 30th.
difficult hill
" An affair, which was attended with unfortunate results,
but which was one of those liable to occur in a (Id
country new to the officers and troops engasge.
t The cover-
about 2 o'clock on the afternoon of the
6eilellealuntry was under
ing party of the 71st Foot and Native Infantry
2d Sikh Infantry,
iffiLcurred
the command of Major Harding; try
and had commenced
unfortunately held to his
after they had received orderbsutto
to do so, support was soeffnat
wounded European soldier who
was firDel,ajor ilarding, in his natu-
ral anxiety to bring
was lying under the opera
was
but with The detachment
and. aYs surrounded.
its
extrication, the following
loss, which cannot be sufficiently regretted :—Major Hard-
ing,gevroeunntudall y too
effectedlon g,
Sigh Infantry, killed; Lieut, Murray, 71st Foot,
2d
Guides, wounded ; Lieut. Oliphant, Ghoorkas,
kil'ed ; Lieut. Dougal, 71st Foot (doing duty), killed ; Lieut.
wounded ; of the men four Europeans, with one native offi-
cer, and 30 sepoys, were killed; and four Europeans, with
two native officers and 33 sepoys wounded—total, 38 killed
and 41 wounded. The enemy 'exhibited much boldness,
coming on sword in hand,
" The advanced pickets on the right flank of Sir Neville
Chamberlain's rear position were five times attacked on the
night of the 12th, but these successive attacks were well
a ePUI4c4 under the direction of tlajor Drownlow, whose