Morning journal and courier., 1886-02-03
hoped some day to blossom into poet Here was a specimen:
And as the lighthouse is to him Who lives upon the main, So shall my love to thee, darling, Tor. auar. nd l1rfar. ram ai,,

1 For ever and ever remain. | Laughter. In August and November the plaintiff, her father and mother were at Margate, and in the latter month she was as- tonished to receive from the defendant a let ter which, though beginning with F'My dear est and darling Tillyn seemed to be made up of excuses for breaking off the engagement He wrote after sleepless night, and sub thur"
 The father called upon him, but did not see him, as he said he felt unequal to the in terview. Through mutual friend named Jacques matters were rearIanged, and the engagement went on. In December, how ever, he wrote to the plaintiff, addressing her as sMy dear Miss Williams" /" and break ing off the marriage for once and for all. There was some excuse about the future mothers -in-law having had words about the matter, but MT. Winch submitted that this was no justification for breaking the con tract. Some mothers-in-law were very de sirable, others were not, but there was way of avoiding them.
 MT. Clarke-I wish you would explain it. Laughter.
 MT. Winch-There is a way, and shall be happy to explain it to any gentleman of the jury who desires to get rid of mother-in- law. [Laughterl The defendant, the learned counsel continued, told tho plaintiff in writing that she had behaved in the most trustworthy manner all through, adding that if they had been left to themselves few would have had happier engagement, and con- cluding with 9'Good-by; sincerely yours '' The defendant said he only agreed to marry the plaintiff upon her father consenting, but the father did consent The condition was fulfilled, and the parties could not withdraw from the engagement. The reason for break ing off the match was the mother-in law and nothing else, and the mother-in-law was no defence in law. Counsel stated in concIu- oio hat tIo 1o6y ho1 i,, health from the breaking off of the engage ment, and she had consequently been under Sir Andrew Clarke.
 Miss Williams, the plaintiff, gave evidence to the effect stated by her counsel. Cross examined by MT. Clarke, the plain tiff denied that the marriage was to be con- ditiona1 on her fathers consent. In fact, she told him that if he not marry her except on such conditions he did not sufficiently care for her. She did not, and her mother did not, Complain to the defendant about the social position of some of his brothers-one of whom was sailor and another carpenter or that the defendant had deceived them about his relations. Her mother did not say,
 "My daughter is lady, and cannot hear of her marrying into family like that" There was no dispute about the provision the de- fendant wished to make for his mother and sister, who lived with him. Her father did say to the defendant that if anybody married
 
 half strangle the daughter and would kill the fellow Laughter. The defendant, after the engagement was broken of, annoyed her (the plaintiff by the way in which he walked past stall she had at a fancy bazaar at Clapham and otherwise. He father had threatened him with legal proceedings for casting imputations on her.
 MT. Williams, the plaintiffs father, gave evidence to the effect that he never withdrew his consent to the marriage. He said he complained to the defendant of want of at tentions to the plaintiff in the way of giving her flowers or gloves, or taking her to tertainments for which he would have to pay. Laughter. The defendant replied that he thought it we'll to save his money for the marriage. Witness suggested that it was possible to carry that too far, even to giving the impression of meanness. The defendant was irritated at the suggestion of meanness, and witness withdrew the expression, and they shook hands and smoked cirgar to- gether. Witness did not suggest that he should make some presents to others besides the young lady such as her mother.
 Mr. Clarke, before calling the defendant, submitted that his client had acted in the most straightforward and honorable manner throughout, and that it was only when he found that the plaintiffs friends were against the marriage that he, for the sake of the young lady herself, who would have been placed in most miserable position if the marriage took place, wrote to put an end to the engagement
 Mr. Staples, the defendant, gave evidence bearing out that view of the case, and said he received a great deal of abuse in the matter from the plaintiff and her parents both be- fore and after the engagement was broken off lie emphatically denied having annoyed the plaintiff either at the bazaar or else where.
 His lordship left it to the jury to say if the promise made by the defendant to marry the plaintiff was an absolute promise. and if so what damages she was entitled to.
 The jury then retired, and were absent half an hour On their return the foreman said:
 ssWe find that the promise was absolute, and we give verdict for the plaintiff with one farthing damages"
 His lordship refused an application by MT. Clarke to certify for costs.