Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1861-03-15
A Spicy Breach Of Premise Case in Eng.
land

A Spicy Breach Of Premise Case IN Eng.
In the Court of Queens Bench in London, on
the 10th ult., a breach of promise case was
tried. The defendant pleaded that he did not
promise, and that he had been discharged
from such promise if it had been given.
Mr.. Collier, in opening the case, said: This
case, as they had heard, was an action for
breach Of promise of marriage. Mrs. Rapson
was a widow, and had been married at the
early age of 16, in the year 184l and she was,
therefore, now about 36 years of age. Her
husband had died in 1855, and since that time
had kept the Temperance Hotel, in Falmouth,
and she had supported herself and family in a
respectable manner. The defendant was a
draper, carrying on business in q manner pecu-
liar to the County of Cornwall, by going round
from place to place with his wares in what
were called "rounds." He had established a
connection, and had obtained q very good busi-
ness. In 1855 the defendant had formed the
acquaintance of Mrs. Rapson. He came to her
every fortnight, coming the Friday, and
going away on the Saturday; but in short
period he extended his time for remaining
there until the Monday, going with Mrs. Rap
son to chapel on the Sunday evening, and they
were treated by the neighbors as engaged per.
sons, and the defendant demeaning himself as
the master of the house. Things went on in
this way till the year 1860. lie came there
frequently, and many letters passed between
them. He should only trouble them by read
iog few Of these letters. He would give them
some by way of sample, and would begin with
one in 1857
Dear Emily My kind compliments to you,
and hopping (the defendant had a peculiar
well as 1t leaves me. 1 hope to be here on
Friday. Believe me still your affectionate ad-
mlrer, GEORGE STARKE."
"The 18th March 1888
Dearest Emily: You will no doubt think me
unkind IN not answering your note, hopping it
will find you well, as il leaves me. / am,
dearest, yours till death. GEORGE"
If the defendant, when he wrote this letter,
had not meant marriage, he must have meant
something very wrong. Then came another
letter:
Dear Emily: You will, 1 hope excuse me
for not writing sooner, but I will tell you why
when see you, hopping, dearest, this will find
you and family well. am yours, GEORGE"
When a man began to sign only his chris.
tian name it was strong symptom.
Dear Emily: l am not in time for this
mornings post, hopping this will find you well
Yours always, GEORGEu
Dear Emily This 1 hope will find you
well: and you will be still thinking of one who
can only be with you once a fortnig ght hope
we shall have happy meeting, a meeting of
two loving hearts.
Yours always, GEORGE"
Dear Emily: hope this will meet you
and family quite we'll, still loving you, and
ever longing for Friday night, when can be
with you. Yours always, GEORGE"
" Dear Emily: 1 long to be with you, as
am very dull L hope this will find you well,
as am very poorly. When / think of you it
makes my heart leap for joy. shall enjoy
my Emily's sweet countenance, and bask in
the hepes of the future.
Yours always, GEORGE"
That was rather more loving than the others.
Then came another in 1850
Dearest Emily You will no doubt think
me uuklnd In not coming down tonight, but
am very busy. My best love to you darling
Good night my dear one. Believe me, yours
only, GEORGE.n
Up to July, 1860, the attention of the de-
fendant did not at all abate, and at that time
he wrote from Glasgow to Mrs Ransom:
" Dear Emily: You will not think me un-
Kind tor not writing to you sooner, but could
not get it done until now. L got to my jour
neys end safe and sound. Hopping this will
you well and the rest of the family, you must
not expect another letter till you see me.
Yours truly, GEORGE"
This "yours truly" was little indication
Of the mind shifting. On his return in Au-
gust, 1860, the defendant came to the house
and desired to see the plaintiff; and he then
threw himself on the floor ami went through
the form of tearing his hair, and cried out
d" W hat shall do! Oh forgive me. had
wife and three children in Scotland. Do with
me what you please" This, of course, af-
fected the plaintiff very deeply. He came
came there once again, and went through the
same scene. Inquiries had been made whether
the defendants statement Of having wife and
children was true, but it did not matter
whether it was or not; the defendant had acted
most disgraceful and unmanly part. If he
had wife and family, then nothing could be
moro base than his deserting them and en-
deavoring to seduce this very respectable
woman. If it was not true, then what could
the jury think of the defendants conduct who
had held himself out as the future husband of
woman for four years, and then had gone
through this scene, representing himself as
greater rogue than he was, for the purpose Of
getting rid of the engagement The lady got
800 damages.