Morning journal and courier., 1884-02-06
Dam ages From MT. Joy.

A Suit fer Breach of Promise Wen by a
 Queer Widow.
 From an Editorial Article in the LeRdon Times
 Mrs. Miller, of Bournemouth, has won her action against MT. Joy for breach of promise of marriage, and has been awarded e2,35o ($11, 75O) damages. Granting that the con- duct of the defendant was blsmable and fool ish throughout. 1t Is an alarming doctrine that 8 man engaged to 8 woman must carry out his engagement, though he diGcevers- whether by her own confession OF not-that her past has been what Mrs. Millsr's had been. The verdict throws curious light oa the moral standards which guide jury, even though it be a special jury of the county of Middlssox. It would seem as if they thought very little harm of a woman for having lived
 four or five years as 8 Rentlemans mistress,
 and very great harm of man who declined,
 for any reason, to allow such woman to re. pair her reputation at his expense.
 The plaintiff, . person past her first youth, was the keeper of milliner's shop at Bourne mouth, where Mir. Joy, the defendant, is 8 builder in large way of business, and repu- ted to be wealthy. Mrs Miller, as she calls l herself-thoush she has never been married appears to have considerable attractions, | which were discovered early in last year by l MT. Joy. He is over sixty years of age and | is 8 widowsr with ten children. His first ] wife died on January 9, 1882, and out of re- gard, it would seem, for her memory, he immediately began to look about for 8 successor. He had had nearly forty years of happy married life, he said, and he was anx- | ious to renew that condition, though with another partner. Mrs. Miller, supposed widow, a neiRhbor with whom he was l brought into frequent contact, seemed in l every way suitable and three or four months
 after the wife was buried the two neighbors | began to walk out together of an evening
 and to talk about marriage. MT. Joy, in- l deed, maintains throughout his evidence that | not disputed that there was some understand | ing of the kind. Then, early in June came
 a noteworthy journey to London. There is l Q conflict of evidence as to what exactly l happened in London, MT. Joy denying and | tho plaintiff asserting that 6 ring and even wedding dress were bought. But there is no | question about one incident, @ visit to som 6 l friends and namesakes of Mrs. Miller's, at l Wimbledon, the object of the visit being that i MT. Miller might make an important state 1 ment t0 MT. Joy. This statement, which was made at the plaintiffs request, and the | making of which must certainly tell in her favor, was to the effect that she was not a | widow at all, and that her child was illegiti- l mate.
 It appears that some fifteen years before
 she had been an assistant at MesSrs. Truefitt's | and had there formed the acquaintance of a 1 wealthy American, who prevailed upon her | to become his mistress He was so ignorant
 that she had herself to teach him to read and | write but she was content to live with him, | and she did so for four or five years. Then, | in 1872, he married some one else, and she, l after making a scene at the Langham Hotel,
 brought an action against him for breach of | promise and the wss settled by her | S-s l It was with this sum. indeed, that she set up her unsuccessful business at Bournemouth. l It would seem that the information given by | Mir. Miller was not quite so full as this and
 the point Is important ss bearing on MT. | Joys subsequent conduct MT. Joy appeared to be in one sense relieved that the lady was | not widow. 'I took Q general view of it,'' | hs says in his cross examination, meaning l that ''thsre might be an advantage in her not having had former husband" He was | not told, he declares, "that she had lived | with man for four or five years" He | thought that the unfortunate episode iR her
 past life had been a case of yielding 10 | sudden temptation. If we are to believe | Er. Miller, the defendant at this time was | very much in love, and WAS quite prepared | to oondon8 the past. Then 6ame some pecuniary transactions of a rather obscure
 kind, and the pair returned to Bournemouth. 1 After that the change in MT. Joys feelings l | wholly opposed to the match There were | stories agrinst the future stepmother of | which they made the moet. She was repre-
 sented as quarrelsome, Htigious and, in deed, she seems to have had 8 large expert
 sncs of courts of Isw-snd in every way un . l desirable. There was one story, which the defendant swore he could prove, ts her ! having left Bournemouth in mans clothes | In less than 8 fortnight MT. Joy appears ie | have made up his mind to break OF she | match, as recorded in a memorandum made by him on the night of 5uae 18th. His
 family were too strong for him, SO he called l on Mrs. Miller, according to his own account, | and told her that he must withdraw, she not opposing his wish. With regard to all this time, there is, however, the most fragrant | conflict of evidence. There was Q bedroom
 scene, In which the defendant called on Mrs. I Miller, who was unwell, and staid some time 1 at her bedside and in connection with this | she now makes grave charges against him,
 which he stoutly repudiates. On the other
 hand, she charges him with breach of conf | dence with threatening to ''baze her secret
 over the town" and with doing his best t5 l ruin her in her business There are naatters l of simple hard swearing on the ons side and
 on the other. The jury had 60 decide be-
 tween them, and they heya decided that the | plaintiff throughout is to be believed, that
 she has been badly treated, and that she | must have compensation amounting as the | defendant declares, to nearly five years of his income.