Hide Articles List

18 articles on this Page

#cr faniiOK tiorvfsponiici't,

[No title]



[No title]

[No title]





A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE. In the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Divi. sion, before Mr. Baron Huddleston and a Common Jury, the cause of Dods v. Woollett has been heard, and was made an action to recover damages for a breach of promise to marry. Mr. Grantham, Q C., and Mr. Witt were for the plaintiff, and the defendant was not represented by counsel. Mr. Witt, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff was Miss Alice Dods and the defendant was William Charles Woollett. The plaintiff in her pleadings alleged that the defendant in 1877-8 and 9 promistd to marry her and the defendant pleaded that he was an infant in 1877, that he had been discharged from his promise, and so on but within the last few days these defences had been withdrawn, and an order had been made by consent at Chambers, so that now the only question was the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. She was a young lady who resided at Brixton she had lost her mother, an't her father was an inmate of a lunatic asylum. In 1876 she met the defendant, who then lived with his parents at Brixton, and was at that time an officer in the militia, and was looking forward to obtain- ing a commission in the regular army. After the acquaintance had continued for about twelvemonths the defendant proposed to marry the plaintiff, and his proposal was accepted. The intimacy con- tinued through 1878 9, and in 1878 the defendant was fortunate enough to obtain a commission in the 27th Regiment of Foot. He, however, was much troubled by finding that this regiment was at Hung Kong, and by receiving orders to join it there. The vessel was to sail in August, and the defendant tried to marry the plaintiff so that he might take her with him. He went to St. Saviour's Church, Brix- ton, but found that they could not be married there because neither of them resided in the district. He then tried to get married at Lewisham, but the vessel was to sail before the marriage could be celebrated, and the defendant had to depart for Hong Kong but from that place he wrote to the plaintiff in terms of the most ardent affection, and said that if he could not get an exchange he should resign his commission and come home and marry the plaintiff. This cor- respondence, having gone on for about twelvemonths, suddenly stopped, and at length the plaintiff heard that the defendant had married another lady. The defendant was now a lieutenant in the 108th Regiment of Foot, was located at Enniskillen, in Ireland, and was therefore in a good social position. The learned counsel said he asked not for extrava- gant, but for substantial damages, Miss Dods, the plaintiff, was called, and said that she now resided with her sister at Brixton, and she was now twenty-four. She first became acquainted with the defendant in 1876, and he then lived with his father and mother at Brixton. His father was a surveyor. When she had known him about a year he made her an offer of marriage, and she accepted him. Their parents approved of it. Mr. Baron Huddleston What was your father?â A clerk in the Custom-house. She and her sister had an allowanoe of about £ 100 a year in respect of her father. On Nov. 12, 1877, she received a letter from the defendant, in which he addressed her as My own darling old Alice," and said, "I have just come from the post-office, but there was no letttr from you. How is it that you have not written to me at all this week, darling? Please, Alice dear, write to me at onoe," and he signed himself, Believe me to remain till death, your most loving and affectionate Charlie." On the 14th September, 1878, he wrote, My own darling old pet Alice," promised to see he*, and talked of their having a nioe little dwelling, andBaid, "I pic- ture to myself my little home, and can imagine my duck at that window waiting for her darling"â(a laugh) and he subscribed himself "Bver yoir own loving Charley." He sailed on the 21st August, 1879, to join his regiment at Hong Kong, and he proposed that they should be married before they went. On the day before he was to sail she received a telegram from him, in which he said that he had heard from the clergyman, and said further, "Not in the district. Beg Alec go and arrange district church, Brockley. Will be at his office 10.30." She went with him to the parish church, Brixton, on the morning of the 21st, to see if they could be married. He said they had not been long enough in the district, and then he sailed for Hong Kong. He wrote to her from that place on the 10th October, calling her My own darling old Alice," and said, Oh. dear, if you could only know how anxious and nervous I am away from you, dear, to know that you are all right," and he added, I like the regiment very much, dear; the officers are very nice fellows, and gave U8 a warm welcome, dear. Hong Kong is a very warm place and I shall be glad to get home to my own girl. I am very unhappy away from you, and long to get home to my little pet." In the next, month he said, I, 1 have made up my mind that I will resign my commission in January, so as to get hack to my darling one, as I cannot stand being away much longer, dariiti^ and when he arrived he said Nothing in the world will ever take me away from you so long as I live;" and he said further, "As you read this, darling, try and fancy that I have my hands round your neck, and telling you this myself, with kisses, dear." And the conclusion was Be- lieve me ever until death your own loving and affectionate Charley." In another letter the defend- ant said "If you ould only think, darling, what I would give to get back again. I was thinking last night as I went to bed if I could only get away I would give five years of my life, darling." In February, 1880, he said: "I do not think I can stand this cruel separation long. If my people do not do something I ahall have to resign." A week later he sent welcome news," that he should be able to go into the 108th. The last letter from him was dated August 29, 1880. He still called the plaintiff My own darling old Alice," and he concluded, L Believe me, my dear, your own darling until death, Charley." She wrote her last letter to him in answer to this, and left off writing in consequence of his mother telling her that he wished the engagement to be broken off. She afterwards heard that he had married. To Mr. Baron Huddleston: This was about a year ago. The defendant had no income but his pay. His father was in a good position he kept a pony-chaise and a page-boy, and lived in a house of abuut £10 a year. Mr. Alexander C. Dods, the plaintiff's brother, gave evidence as to the engagement, and said that he believed that the defendant's pay was about JEM a year. Mr. Witt said he Relieved that it waa B120. A gentleman upon she floor of the court here stepped forward, and said that he was the father of the defen- dant, and would give evidence if allowed to do so. He added that he had a telegram from the defendant on the previous day, and had not time to arrange for having counsel. In answer to questions from his lordship, he said that his son's pay w as, he believed, 6s. 6d. a day, and he had no means of his own besides this. He was now married. Did he get any money with his wife?âNot one farthing. The defendant was married at Hong Kong in October, 1880, and without the knowledge of wit. ness. Did you approve of his engagement to the plain- tiff ?âYes. He must qualify to this extent. When he found that they were engaged he did not oppose; but at first he did object to the engagement. Mr. Baron Huddleston, in summing up, said that both the plaintiff and the defendant's father had given their evidence very well, and with an entire absence of anything like ill feeling. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for JC200.



[No title]



[No title]


[No title]

UttSKllamrras Jnldltgtm