Breach of Promise Print E-mail

At Manchester Assizes, on Monday, Lord Justice BRETT heard the case of LANGLEY v. TRICKETT. It was an action to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage.
 
Mr. SMITH said the plaintiff, Mary Ann LANGLEY, was a single woman, and the defendant was John TRICKETT, or as he seemed to have styled himself on one occasion, Johnny Trickett. The plaintiff lived in 1878 with her parents at  the “Hit and Miss”  public house in Bacup. Whether the name was suggestive of what was about to take place or not he could not say.
 
The Judge: What is the name?
 
Mr. SMITH: Hit and Miss, my Lord. (Laughter.) Continuing the learned counsel said that it seemed in the month of December, 1878, “Johnny came marching home,” for once, he supposed - (laughter) - at any rate, he marched to Miss. LANGLEY’s home. Week after week Johnny went down to see them in his best Sunday clothes, and told them how very well off he was. He told them that he was a single man, but on two occasions he said he had been a widower a year and five months. Eventually he proposed to her and spoke to her parents, and was duly accepted. Then as he was an accepted man he thought he must do something great, and the plaintiff, who up to that time had been a factory operative, must, he said, stay at home, and he would make up for her earnings. The consequence was that she left her situation and had lost the 16s a week that she formerly received. Johnny had actually promised the mother 1l per week for keeping her daughter until  the wedding could take place. He told them he had a house at Waterfoot worth 280l, which he had just sold; also that he had an interest in a co-operative mill, near Bacup, and that he had lent money at various places.
 
No doubt these statements tempted Miss. LANGLEY to receive the proposals  of the widower. But “misfortunes never come singly,” in the month of February following, in consequence of a County Court proceeding, bailiffs went to plaintiff’s father’s house. The High Bailiff went down to the house, and there found Mr. John TRICKETT promising a lot of things, and stating he would find the money to pay out the bailiffs. Mr. NUTALL, the high-bailiff, on seeing the defendant, began to wonder where he had met him before, and at last it occurred to him that Johnny lived at Waterfoot, and the plaintiff and her parents found out for the first time that the defendant was a married man. (Laughter.)
 
Mary Ann LANGLEY, the plaintiff, who appeared to be about 26 years of age, said she was living at Rawtenstall. In December 1878, the defendant visited the “Hit and Miss” public house, Bacup, which was then kept by her father.
 
Mr. SMITH: And at last did he propose to you? - Yes. - (Laughter.)
 
More than once? - Many a time. - (Laughter.)
 
The Judge: And did you accept him? - Yes I did. - (Laughter.)
 
The Judge: Did you say you would marry him? - Yes. - (Laughter.)
 
Continuing in reply to Mr. SMITH, the plaintiff said that after the defendant proposed to her he said she must not go to work in the mill, and she stayed home 14 weeks in consequence. She received 16s a week at the mill. He said he would pay her mother 1l a week. He was a felt printer. He told her he earned 3l a week.
 
The Judge in summing up, said the defendant had in the interrogatories he supplied to the counsel whom he expected to defend him done all he could to insult the plaintiff. In his pleadings he said he was a married man, and that was his idea of an excuse for deceiving the plaintiff. The interrogatories were infamous. He was a great blackguard, and had behaved like a blackguard. He made a promise to the girl, and he broke it. It was a shameful promise for him to make, and it was still more shameful for him to pretend that he was ever going to fulfil it. And then when he had broken it, he administered to the poor girl a lot of interrogatories, all as insulting as they could be, and not one of them suggesting or containing anything that was true. Therefore he was as bad a fellow as they could have.
 
The jury gave a verdict against him for an amount that there was no chance of his paying at all, he would go through the County Court, and get rid of all liability. Therefore they must give a verdict which would enable the plaintiff to squeeze the money out of him. He thought that they would take it that he was as bad a fellow as could be, and the jury must hit him as hard as they could, and find a verdict for what they thought he could pay. - The jury returned a verdict for 25l.
 
The Judge (to Mr. SMITH): You may have immediate execution.
 
 
< Prev   Next >