Carlisle Patriot February 6, 1880 Miss Howarth and the Butcher

Miss Howarth and the Butcher

A breach of promise case, HOWARTH v. DUCKWORTH, came on for hearing at Manchester on Saturday. Mr. ADDISON, counsel for the plaintiff, said she was a young woman of great respectability, residing with her parents at Crawshawbooth, and she had been treated in a most shabby and cruel way by the defendant, who was a butcher living in the same place.   The parties were about the same age, 26, and the engagement between them seemed to have begun when they were 19 years of age. They were well known to each other from infancy, but when the plaintiff was about 19 years of age the defendant suggested that he should be allowed to “keep company” with her. The parents of the latter thought she was rather young, but in order to avoid any clandestine courtship they agreed to allow the young couple to see each other at proper times. Matters went smoothly for some time, and the defendant was in the habit of walking home with from chapel with plaintiff, escorting her to Sunday School parties, and in other ways acting as an accepted suitor of the plaintiff.   In 1875 a slight lovers quarrel arose, but it was made up and the defendant proposed marriage. Having succeeded to his father’s business, he in 1877suggested that as he was only 25, and just starting life, the marriage had better be delayed until he was pretty comfortably settled. In 1878 it became rumored that defendant was paying great attention to the daughter of the flourishing innkeeper of the place, one Miss. HOYLE. The plaintiff was much grieved on learning this, and at her  request her mother sent for defendant, and interrogated him on this subject. He professed to be very indignant that anybody should say such things. He, however, ceased visiting the plaintiff, and afterwards married Mr. HOYLE’s daughter, who was in a better position than the plaintiff.   The plaintiff, Mary HOWARTH, gave evidence in support of the learned counsel’s statement. She said it was in the year 1871 when the defendant first asked permission to keep company with her. He got her mother’s consent to that.   The JUDGE: Did he get yours? (Laughter.)   Plaintiff: (smiling), yes. He used to spend his Sundays at our house, and when my parents had a house at Blackpool, he came and stayed as my father’s guest. In 1875 we had a lovers quarrel - (laughter) - but that was made up between us, and from Christmas, 1875, to August 1876, we were good friends.   COUNSEL: In the month some arrangement was made as to your marriage?   PLAINTIFF: Yes; he wanted to be married, and said if I would consent he would leave Crawshawbooth, and he wanted to live with “our folks” when we were married. There was no fixed time for the marriage, but it was to be when his shop was ready. In May 1877, he began to carry on business for himself, and he then said he would put the marriage off for a little while, as trade was so bad.   COUNSEL: And all those years you were willing to marry him? - (no answer.) Well, we will take that for granted. (Laughter.) In cross examination the plaintiff said the defendant never made her any presents, nor gave her an “engaged” ring. The lover’s quarrel was occasioned by his keeping company with another.   The JUDGE: You were a little jealous, was that it?   Plaintiff: Yes.   The plaintiff’s mother having given corroborative evidence, the defendant George Henry DUCKWORTH, was called. His appearance was striking in contrast to the plaintiff’s, for while she had evidently arrayed herself in her best attire, he had apparently made but scant efforts to excite admiration in the matter of dress. He stated that he only did a small business, and was at present possessed of no other source of income save the £15 which he got for playing an organ. He admitted having kept company with the plaintiff, but said they had quarrelled several times, and that when she spoke to him about being married he told her she would have to mend her ways or they would never agree. He did not remember offering marriage, but doubtless he would have done so if she had altered her ways.   After the Judge had summed up, the jury consulted together for a few moments, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, £75.

 

< Prev		Next >