The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-28 00:00:00

ANDREWS V. HtFF.

This was an action for an alleged breach of
promise of marriage. The defendant pleaded,
first, that he did not make the promise as
alleged; secondly, that before the breach the
plaintiff discharged and exonerated him from his
promise
; and thirdly, that the plaintiff was not
ready and willing to marry the defendant, The
plaintiff's replication to the defendant's second plea
was that atter such exoneration the defendant again
agreed to marry the plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Griffiths appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Serjeant Piggott and Mr. Orridge
represented the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff, Miss Luisa An-
drews, was the daughter of a farmer residing near
Bristol, and the defendant, Mr. Evan Evan Huff,
was the son of a farmer living in the same neigh-
bourhood, the age of the lady being 38, and the
young gentleman being 25. Miss Andrews had
£lOO a-year of her own, and the defendant, who
was in business at Ashton-under-Lyne, near Man-
chester, as a chemist, had good expectations:
burg the defoncloint'o apprentace§hip ho began to

pay attention the plaintiff; and they were eventu-
ally engaged to be married. For some short time
the engagement was broken off, but was subse-
quently renewed. Several letters written by the
defendant to the plaintiff were put in, written in
the most polite terms, but scarcely so warm as would
be expected from a lover to his affianced wife. On
Oct. 6, 1858, the defendant, who had been gradu-
ally cooling down towards the plaintiff, married
another young lady of 21 years of age, who had no
money. Miss Andrews had then brought the pre-
sent action.

Mr. Serjeant Piggott, in addressing the jury in
mitigation of damages, said that Miss Andrews, the
young lady of 38, might think herself well off that
she had not married such a boy, in comparison to
herself, as the defendant. He had a shop, certainly
but he only gave £l5 per annum for it, and_ having
only just commenced business in a little country
town as a chemist he surely could not be considered
either a great catch or a great loss. Misi Andrews
had her £lOO a-year, and, in fact, was much better
off than she would have been if she had married the
defendant. As for his expectations, he would have
nothing till his father's death, and, although he
would then have a little property, yet they could
not have lived upon expectations, and it was not
an agreeable thing to have to look forward to his
father's death before he could have got married.
Under these circumstances a very small sum would
be sufficient to compensate Miss' Andrews for her
loss.

Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up, said that the
only question for them was the amount of &images,
as it was admitted that the promise was made, and
broken. In order to properly estimate the amount
of damages they must look at the difference of posi-
tion the plaintiff would have occupied if she had
married the defendant. If she had been seduced,
or the defendant had left her to marry a richer
woman, then the damages ought to have been
heavy. But what loss had the plaintiff sustained?
What possible hope of happiness could a woman of
38 have had with a young man of 25, who hap-
pened to have been smitten with her for a short
time. They ought to have taken Punch's " advice
to persons about to marry—Dont! " The lady was
a great deal older than the defendant and more ex-
perienced and worldly. If it was said he ought to
have known his own mind, why she ought to have
known the risk she ran. As to the love letters that
had passed, it was the coldest series of love
letters he had ever seen. It was certainly a miser-
able thing for a woman to be courted fur a time and
then thrown off in this way, but still, if the de-
fendant had changed his mind, it was the right
thing to say so, for if he had married her after he
had changed his mind he would have been a rogue.
He could not help regretting such an action was
brought, but still, as it was before them, the jury
might say to what amount of damages they consi-
dered the plaintiff entitled.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £5.