BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

A postcard image probably from the early 1900s. 
Source not known

The Illustrated Police News – 15 December 1883

An action for breach of promise of marriage, brought by Miss Agnes Leg, daughter of the Rev. Thomas Lee, formerly of the Congregational Church, Epsom, against Mr. Edmund West, a clerk at Somerset House, was tried in the Queen’s Bench Division on Wednesday. It appeared that the defendant met the plaintiff in the year 1879. The defendant acted as organist of the Epsom Parish Church, and the lady was at school at Epsom. He was thirty-six years of age, and she was eighteen. A correspondence commenced between them on musical matters, and soon became of a wore tender character, and eventually, in August or. September of 1880, resulted in an engagement. The defendant appeared to be very fond of the plaintiff, and after the engagement an enormous number of love-letters were written by him to her.  For some time he wrote two or three times a day, letters which, when copied, covered four or five pages of foolscap each. Mr Waddy, in opening the case, characterised them as letters of great warmth, and of a manly and honourable character. In September, 1882, the defendant’s affection appeared to cool, and on the 18th of that month he wrote her a letter breaking off the engagement. Defendant had pleaded that the plaintiff had exonerated him from his promise ; but in the opening of the case Mr. Grain stated that he admitted the promise and the breach, and that the question for the jury was one of damages only. Miss Lee, a young lady of attractive appearance, was called, and proved the facts shortly. She was cross-examined by Mr. Crain with a view to show that the action had been brought entirely against her wish and without her knowledge ; and a letter was put in from the plaintiff to the defendant’s sister, in which in effect she said that her father had brought the action against her wish, and would not let her discontinue it. At this point the young lady completely broke down, and had to be carried out of court, After a pause, Mr. Grain, in answer to his lordship, said that he did not wish to pursue the cross-examination, and proceeded to address the jury for the defendant. He said that no doubt his client had broken off the contract, but submitted to the jury that this was no genuine action by Miss Lee; that it was brought against her will; and that it was entirely her father’s doings,  who wanted to make damages out of it. Mr, Waddy replied.  His lordship having summed up, a juryman asked whether there was any reason given by the defendant for breaking off the engagement, his lordship answered that, so far as he could see, no reason was given except that be had ceased to love her. In answer to another juryman, his lordship said that there was no evidence that the defendant had any private property except his salary. The jury, after ten minutes deliberation, found a verdict for the plaintiff for £700 damages, and his lordship gave judgment accordingly.