The sun., 1880-08-15
STRANGE BREACH or PROMISE CASE
The Same Woman Receives verdicts Against
Two Lovers Ten Years Apart.

From he London Tine.
At the Assizes on the Southeastern Cir
cult, held at Bury st. Edmund's. on July 80.
tho case OF Roger against Bagey came on for
mon jury.
This was an action for breach OF promise OF
marriage under circumstances, In ono res pect
extremely rpmnrkahe; Tor it was nm action by
q woman aged ~. VINO ten years ago. had
brought similar action against another per-
son and recovered damng"s. and the promise
In this cast was four years ago. and the defence
set up on this occasion was that tho marriage
was not to take place until the defendan, was
~ nosition to marry, and that he was not So
He had, however. 1t was admitted. married
some on" else. md hence this action. In which
though fer f20 less than ten years ago. 80 that
she Is now In the remarkable and probably
nges In actions for breach OF promise OF mar
Mr. Bulwer. @. G.. and Mr.. Blofeld with Mr..
Reeve was for the defendant.
hs be bpadanb Is spnTer now 70 yssrs q
As long ago as is7o when I she " was Mst about &c.
she had brought AN action OF the same nature
against farmer IN til. county. and the trial.
reported IN the 1unes nt some length on the
3lst Of March. 1871. aud i there appeared that,
four years' standing. The piaintir in that case Sc
recovered f100 damages. That WAS in 1871:
and three years afterward, in 1874. she mado
the acquaintance Of the present deiendnnt. the
son OF a grocer and draper Mt Needham Market
then about 30 aud now about 2S years OF age
Tho parties became engaged but the plaintiff
admitted that tho engagement wns tha the young
man should marry her when his father gave up
the business to him, In April. 1876. a coolness
appeared 10 have arisen between them. uud the
plaintiff wrote to her lover in terms Of some-
thing like remonstrance or reproach for his
she wrote. Z" not know you when I see you. 1t
Is too hnd your keeping away from me 80 long
II had known should have fastened II string
pessed Aboa this Ru time eGR the VSff pan had
q cool ettor from the defendant. and wrote to
had no s answer Then Hpa phe aher
who. 1t appeared. did not approve. the match
wrote to the plaintiffs father with his sons
on. which was received by the daughter and
then an interview took place between the two
fathers. ut which tho defendant was present
and this note was mentioned. On tho 18th of
May. 1876. the defendant wrote letter 20 the
plnintin. alluding to tho interview as one at
which the engagement had been put an end to.
with some unplDasnntness, nearly four and a
half years ago, and the ladys presents were re-
On tho Sd Of August 1876. the plaintiff wrote
to tho defendant in angry terms. refusing to
return his presents. and reproaching him in
Il have once before had the misfortune Of
being engaged to one OF those men whose chief
blight them forever. think you ought to be
made an example OF to prevent others from be-
ing deceived as have been. ! intend to keep
your presents as memento OF your unfaith-
funess, and they may be Of use to me, and you
may have IA lesson to learn which may make
In September, 1878. the defendants father
sold of his stock. retiring from business"
In January last the defendant married another
as already stated. he said that the engagement
was subject TO the condition that he was not to
marry the plaintiff until his father had given
up the business to him. and that he had not
done so.
The plaintiff being called ms a witness, ad-
mltted the condition stated: but her case was
that in 1873 the father Of the defendant retired
from business ia favor OF his son; and when
fore she said that she had hoped that he might
redeem his promise. even after tho rupture be-
tween them. until his marriage made ii hope
former engagement and the action it gave rise
to. and the report OF the trial in the Times was
the disparity of age and the warmth OF her let
ters, &c. Evidence was given by her father to
show that the defendant had since 1878 had his
fathers business. and the printed pacard then
issued was produced. in which II was stated
that the proprietor retired from tho trade"
WIS only tho usual phrase employed when u
tradesnlan wished to quicken the sale OF his
stock; that the business still continued to be
ant; and. though married. living in his house
and supported by him.
The defendant was called as n witness, and
according to his account. he first saw the plnin-
tiff at family party. and she came next day un-
Invited tied to MS parents house. He then went to
certain extent" They u few weeks afterward
began to talk about marriage to a certain ex-
tent" but subject to the condition above stated.
and subject also to his fathers consent. From
August. 1876. he had had no letter from the
plaintiff. and never heard more OF the matter
until the lawyers letter in this action in Feb
ruary last. he having married in January. He
declared that during 1876 he was unable 10 sup
port 1t wife; he was only his fathers assistant
at salary OF ESQ year. living in his lather's
house and being supported hv him. and having
no other resources. and during the yearf
1877 -S-9 he remained in the same position. and
was In the same position now. His wife. he
SAID. had little money given her. perhaps flO.
to buy some furniture. which was brought into
the house He had no interest whatever in his
fathers business. In cross examination he was
challenged with some bills issued after the sale
IN 1878. in which the business was described as
such bills. He believed the sale was two years
ago. but would not swear that it was not in tnu
autumn OF 1879. He admitted that since tho
action bills had been printed in his fathers
plaintiffs father TO ask leave to pay his addresses
to her her father told him of tho former affair.
, The defendants father was called. and stated
that his son had sanctioned the note ho wrote in
April. 1876. TO break of the engagement. be-
cause his sons circumstances did not admit Of
his marrying, and he also stated that his son
had no interest in the business. and that tho IL
censes required for the grocer's business twino
and tobncco) were in his tthe father'sl name
The profits Of the business were, he said be-
tween f2O0 and $500 a year; tho value OF the
stock at present would be about Gl.G00. His son
and he lived, he said, in adjoninG!housss, his
son in the house with the shop. lie himself in
the private house adjoining.
=, Mr.. Simms Reeve. for the defendant, urged
that the business wns the fathers and that the
action was brought for spite.
Mr.. Bulwor made vigorous speech on behalf
OF the plaintiff, urging that as tho defendant had
married another woman without money. he
might rs well nave married his client.
Tho Lord Chief Baron loft the case to the Jury.
who found for the plaintiff-damages. $50.