Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1880-03-20 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

BREACH OF PROMISE ACTION.  • Lord Coleridge and a special jury heard the case of Ditcham v. Worrell in the Common Pleas Division. The plaintiff was the daughter of a fancy geode merchant in the City, the defendant was the ern of a feather merchant in Bunhill-row, and both of them resided at Upper °lepton. The engagement commenced in 1875, and continued until the spring of 1879, when it was broken off. Mr. H. Matthews, Q. 0., and Mr. Spokes appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. D. Seymour, Q.C., end Mr. Bucknill for the defendant.  Mr. George Thomas Pearce Ditcham, the plaintiff's father, said: The marriage was arranged to take place on the sth Tune last. The defendant's father said that he would allow his son £3OO a year, pay hie expenses in the City. and find £3OO for furniture. Mr. Worrell was very seriously ill in April and the marriage was put off in consequence. Upon this some unpleasantness occurred between the young people, and he wrote to the defendant, and after some correspondence he and the plaintiff went to see the defendant. He would not ray what his grievance was, but only said and repeated, I refer you to Linda." The plaintiff said, "Tow, you have been influenced by —," and the defendant at once said," I will call mamma." Witness said, "Linda, we had better go," but Mrs. Worrell came and insisted upon his remaining. She said that the plaintiff only came there for what she could get, that she had humbugged her poor boy for four years, that she was only fit to marry a man with .£3500 a year to meet her extravagant habits, and she would take her oath that before they had been married six months there would be murder. Witness asked the defendant to reconsider his decision, and he said that be loved Linda as much as ever, but he would not make her his wife. There was no troth at all in the statement that the plaintiff was extravagant; she was one of a large family, and had seen no extravagance at home.  Cross-examined When he left he mid to his daughter, "Come along, you have hod a lucky escape." This did not refer to the defendant, but to the temper shown by Mrs. Worrell. (A laugh.) He had never seen the plaintiff inn "temper.' She was of a most amiable disposition. The probate of the will of the defendant's father was put in. His property was sworn under £0000; the income was left to his wife for life ; then £9OOO was to go to his daughter, and the residue to the defendant. _ .  Mr. Digby Seymour submitted that the promise was made when the defendant was a minor, and no subsequent ratification could support that promise. There must, upon the authority of Oindaead v. Mullis, and Northcott v. Doughty be a new promise made after attaining his majority, in order to bind him. Mr. H. Matthews submitted that there was evidence of a fresh promise on what took place about arranging for the wedding. Lord Coleridge thought not. It was not the practice to go on promising to marry; there was here strong evidence in confirmation of the promise; but he doubted whether there was a fresh promise. He suggested that the matter should go to the jury: and then, that he should give no dicision, but leave the plaintiff to move for judgment. Mr. Seymour would then have the opportunity to object that the plantiff could not under , the circumstances succeed.  Mr. William B. List was then called for the defence lie mid that he was one of the executors of the will of the defendant's father. The business of the deceased was left to the widow for her life, and the defendant managed it for her and received £2ooe year for so doing, and this was dependent upon his good behaviour. The personalty amounted to £