The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-08-26
LlyDLADr SMITH AND THE FARMER.
An Odd Breach of Promise Case -Connictins
stories-OId Enounh 20 Know Hetter.

At the Liverpool Assizcs on Tuesday.
Aug. I. before Mr. Justice Dcnman and com
bridge Inn; Panworthaln, near ircst3ni sued
Mr.. james Strickland. farmer and cattle dealer.
near Preston, for breach OF promise OF mar
The plaintiff stout comely- docking person.
sail she had Kept the Bride Inn y i,Inwio os,
husband was tho landlord Of the house. The
defendant was farmer on the estate OF SIR
Henry de Iioghton, his farm being about mile
from her house. She had been four times mar
ried. all her husbands being landlords Laugh
teri Her last husband died on the sth Of March.
married. Ills ast wife dSd in 1875. He COM mi9
menced paying the pa ntit attentions in March,
ls7S; He kept teasing her very often llaughterl.
asked hi% { i wes money he wanted, and be
sne then asked b% did he nt to be Sr S SS
lord. and he said. MOI" he was worth ss,0o0,
and that was quite suhic. ent Tor him and
her TO make them comlorta ble and he would
take her TO his house and make u lady Of her.
lLaughterl She accepted his ofrer and from
that time he came to her house in the capacity
Of n man who was 10 marry her He served the
company with drink, and took, part in the bust
four times n dav. John Rhodes the brother OF
her first husband. used to preside over her din
ner table. bui on one occasl0n wncn the us,
sit at the head OF the table. and the defendant
sat down. saying that it would not be long be-;
make very comfortable pair. ILaughterl The
defendant continued his visits to her up TO the
end Of July or the beginning, OF August, 1876.
ried on the ith OF January last. She was to have
met the defendant at the Crgston agricultural
show ON the 9th Of August. 1876. the dcfendant.
who had been 70 her house week PREVIOUSLY
having brought her tickets. She saw the de.
PENDANT at the show. but he took no notice OF
her Afi.r the show lie never came near inc
house. There was no quarrel between them,
and the last time be- Was at The house they part
ed good friends. The defendant had u very
firm. bred IN.
Sold Sold. '"' III '''' u ~ ''''''' "''" ~ "''''
Cross-examined by Mr.. Ambrose--Her daugh-
ter WINS present when the defendant asked her
to become his wife. Tho daughter was 20 years
Of age. 1t was about 10 o'clock at night when he
proposed TO her. She was standing in the lobby,
and he would not let her 20. saying he would
stick to her until she promised to accept him.
in reply TO further questions the plaintiff said
she had sevcn children-fOur daughters and
three sons. The youngest son was ~ years OF
age. She was Sc years Of age.
james Strickland. the defendant. n tall. stout
man. apparently between SIS and SO years OF
age. was then called and examined. He said he
was farmer at Walton-lc- Dale. near Preston.
lie had been in the habit Of going 70 TIE Bridge
| Inn about thirty years. The plaintiff bccame
the landlady about five years ago. and during
that time he had been in the habit of going. y
| the house about two or three times week. He
never had any conversation witi the plantln
| in March. 1876. about marriage. and he never
| promised u make her his wife or said he was
| worth about 5000 He never waited on the
company at the plaintiffs public house, H.
|
July 1876 The last time he was at the house
the plaintiff asked him If he would make hen
| his wife. and on his saying he would not. she
ordered him out. At tue agricultural show at
! erosion. on the 9Th Of August he purposels
! avoided the plaintiff. and on the following day
/ he received letter from her saying she was
/ sorry she had spoiled his pleasure, and that sh'
! did not know She WAS u bosgart 10 him
/ lLaughter H. was introdu ed To his present
| wife IN September last and he married her ~
January. The present was hi- third wife. Ii
! cross-rNaminutiOn tn" defendant said he had
| two farms the rent of them being respectively
! Eill and e270 a wear. lie grazei about 50 COWS
on 100 statute acres.
HIS LJrdship. ia summing up, alluded 70 the
/ admitted immortality between the plaintiff and
the defendant and said II WIS a dsgustn M
thing on the par of two old people to anticlpat'
! marriage 10y behaving in the disgraceful wa,
| they had done. He thought the admissions as
L. that made their conduct most dsgracciul
whatever the opinion OF the jury might be. The
! question. however. for the Jury was whether
there had been promise oi marriage, aud, /
SO, what damages the pluintif WAS entitled e..
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
| damages $500. The announcement OF the yer
| dict was received with some slight applause II
. court. which wis Immediately suppressed.