The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-29 00:00:00

PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

BR 00K V. CARL. R (AT YORK).—Mr. Bliss, in
the plaintiff, Betsy Brook,
the case, sal,
‘e late Mr. John Brook, who
stating '
'firer and a person of was th, 1 daughter of tL
erehong, near Holmfirth.
was a w oollen inanufactt
and. four daughters, all
consi-
derable property at Upp.
He had a family of five soree7
wzerriied, except the plain-
tiff. Ralph
of whom we re respectably
Carter, resides in the
vear.s lived with his
The de
a.nd for many
nsiderable property.
a woman of co
same place,
ufacturer, and his
mother, who was'
He was himself h• woollen mat
family and that of living near each
the plaintiff,
•
other, were well acqt,:ainted- The' defendant and
the plaintiff grew up as friends toga, 'her from child-
hood ; as children they were: playmat es, and, as the,
jury could well understantl, when
p
he. laintiff
arrived at the age of about eighteen the.,r attach-
, men t ripened into strong affection, and the de. Pendant
I, mntinued to court her for years. The learned
c ounsel said he wished he had not to add—and th,'.s
R 'as one of the causes, no doubt, of the reluctance.
w ith which the plaintiff had resorted to this means
of redress—that, when about thirty years of age,
the defendant so far overpowered and took advan-
tag e of her affection that sh e became by him the
mother of a child. The chihl was acknowledged
by the defendant, and was treate d kindly by him and
also by the members of his family. The infant died
when it was nineteen months o Id, and the defen-
dant and other members of the family attended
the funeral. The plaintiffs father was very angry
at the birth of the child, and the defendant not being
received in the house as he had previously been, dis-
continued his visits, but subsequently continued to
meet the plaintiff at the houses of her sister and
sister-in-law. This continued for a great number
of years, and, with the single exception that had.
been mentioned, their intercourse was .characterised
with propriety and purity. Matters wet-it on in this
manner for some' time, and many years ago the
plaintiff's mother died, and, her sisters being mar-
ried, she was left to keep house for her father. She
always expected that the defendant would fulfil his
' promise, and at this time an engagement was made
between them that they should be married upon her
fat her's death. Ibis occurred in 1857, but shortly
befc're his death h e met with some pecuniary mis-
fortunes. After her father's death, when the de-
fentiartt knew he would be called on to fulfil his
pronese, he foreho re to go to the house, and after
hopin g and w aiting day after day, month after
month, and year by year, at last, when the plaintiff's
patienc e was exhausted, and love almost desperate,
the defendant was' called upon by a professional man
to fulfil his promise, and he refused. Some cor-
respondence took place, and the defendant denied;
that he had made any promise, and he now pleaded.
this as his defence ; and contended further that if a
promise was made it was abandoned by both parties,
and that the defendant had been absolved, exoner-
ated and discharged from his promise by the plain-
tiff. It was true (the learned counsel said) that both
these parties were advanced in life, the defendant
being about 63 years of age and the plaintiff about
61.. (Laughter.) The jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. Damages £5OO. On the application
of the defendant's counsel the judge consented to
stay ,execution, as it was thought the damages were
excess wee
BILLS T. NELSON (NOTTINGHAM).—The plaintiff
is the dani_ehter of a farmer in respectable circum-
stances, residing at Bawtry, North Notts, and the
defendant, a surgeon practising in the same town,
and a widower of 40 years of age. The plaintiff,
who is a young woman of very attractive appear-
ance, engaged herself last year as housekeeper to
the defendan. According to the defendant him-
self the case was one of love at first sight. After
keeping the defendant's house till the close of the
year, the plaintiff had a child by the defendant,
who, as was alleged, promised to marry the young
lady before and after the event occurred. He did
not do so, and no w denied that any promise was
ever made. The child was not affiliated in conse-
quence of the defendant's promise of marriage. The
jury found for the p laintiff, damages £l5O.

CO UNI R I .711A_RK1Y