Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1883-03-26
Btggar's Breach of Promise Case.

A London dispatch says: Mr. Biggar has
appealed against the verdict in the breach
of promise suit. Mr. ROLAND, his counsel,
said that the defendant first became acquaint-
ed with the plantifat Paris on Nov. 8, 1881,
Mr. Biggar having at this time left London
for certain s-(laughter)-a accord
ing to the evidence Of Miss Hyland the de-
fendaut Oh the seventeeth of the same
month said, You may have perceived my
marked attentions to you. I wish to marry
you, but there is an obstacle"-it was a
Question whether he said obstacle" or
"obsi acles.n
On the same day be said to her he did
not think he should be able to keep vile
rs he should wish TO do and remain in par
lament. That was all that occurred ex-
| cept that the plaintiff told him that if the
| obstacles We're not removed he should not
come any more to her house. She further
stated that on the nineteenth he again came
TO her aunt's house and said he hoped to
have the obstacles removed by prayer.
| Lord Justice Brett. What were the obsta-
Giles? MIR. ROLAND. There We're several.
In tho first place Mr. Biggar was 81 years
ofage.
Lord Justice Brett. He could not get rid
of that by praying. Laughter.
Mr.; ROLAND. Secondly, that he was
afraid of having young family.
Lord Justice Brett. But be could not get
rid of that by praying. Renewed laughter.
lfthere were no other obstacles the promise
was unconditional
relating to what took place between the
parties in Paris.
Lord Justice Brett. Are you quite sure of
that Laughter.
Mr.. Roland Except that thew went to-
gether to various churches, and that be
prayed for the removal of the obstacles.
Lord Justice Brett. Why should he have
prayed for the removal ofthe obstacles?
Dir. ROLAND DIR. Biggar said the obsta,
Giles were very irksome to him.
Lord Justice Brett. Very irksome because
| he could not marry the lady?
Mr.. ROLAND No. but because he could
not marry at ALL Great laughter
| Lord Justice Brett. Then be must have
had marriage in his mind.
Dir. ROLAND The defendant swore that
it was the plaintiff who proposed to marry
him, and that he had not proposed to marry
her.
Lord Justice Brett. That would not sign.
fy bit if he assented. [Laughter.l
alr. ROLAND went on to say that accord
ing to the defendants evidence he had told
the plaintiff that there were obstacles to his
marrying any one ut ALL on which she ask
ed him if the obstacles could not be remoy-
ed. and he replied, Possibly yes probably
not but will enter into no promise with
you of any kind"
Lord Justice Brett. But he had kissed
her at this time?
Dir. ROLAND. He had. Laughter.
| Lord Justice Cotton At what stage was
that? [Great laughter.
Mr.. ROLAND. Between the seventeenth
and nineteenth of November and subse-
quenty. Laughter
| Lord Justice Brett. That was more than
| impairment it was unseemly.
Mr.. ROLAND. That is matter Of taste
Great laughter. But Mr.. Biggar was
stranger in Paris and knew nothing of the
language. They were both Irish people,
| and for that reason their intimacy was
greater than it otherwise would have been.
Lord Justice Brett. That Is large step
toward promise to marry. Anything else?
There is large shop in Paris.
Mr.. ROLAND. l consider 1t immaterial,
but he gave her pair of boots laughter
aud noticing hole in her stockings Tpreat
'aughterI he presented her with a pair of
stockings.
Lord Justice Brett. Only one pair
Laughter.]
Mr.. ROLAND I believe that was all, nv
lord, and he gave her and her sister some
gloves. This was as they were passing by
the shop.
The application for new trial was dis.
missed, with costs.
----e-e-----