 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899 |
|||||||||
|
Published by the Division of Law Macquarie University |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
[breach of promise of marriage] Rule v. Hick Supreme Court of New South Wales Burton J., 16 September 1836 Source: Sydney Gazette, 27 September 1836[1]
Rule v. Hick. - Mr. Foster in stating the case observed, that it was an action for breach of promise of marriage, Louisa Hannah Rule was plaintiff, and Robert Hick defendant. The declaration contained two or three counts, all alledging that the parties had agreed to marry each other, damages were laid at £1000. Defendant had pleaded the general issue. Plaintiff was the eldest daughter of Dr. Rule, a gentleman who came out as Surgeon in the Layton, defendant was a clerk to Mr. Robert Anderson. He became acquainted with plaintiff, visited her family daily, and subsequently expressed a wish to the father to marry his daughter. The father then told him that she was of age and could judge for herself. Defendant then made direct proposals to plaintiff, which were then accepted. At that time he was receiving a small salary about £40 per annum, but he explained to Mr. Rule that it was Mr. Anderson's intention to encrease [sic] his salary to £100 per annum. Rule then at defendant's request purchased several articles of household furniture, this was in March last. He had also informed the family that he expected a letter from England, but provided it did not arrive he would not delay the marriage beyond the month of June. He afterwards received a letter from England, which stated that he had been left property to a very considerable amount. He called again on the next day, and mentioned the good fortune he had met with. Rule then observed a strange difference in defendant's conduct, and on the following day he heard that defendant had spoken to a person named Rowley, to whom he said it was not his intention to marry plaintiff. The next Sunday he did not appear as was his usual custom to take plaintiff to church, he called on Monday, but his manner then was very much changed. He then expressed an intention of going to England, but said nothing about the marriage previous to his starting. During the time the courtship was going on he had written some poetry to her, which the Learned Counsel read, it was much after the style of ``How sweet are the breezes What blow through the tresses." Defendant after this complained of the rudeness which Mrs. Rule, and the dogmatism which Dr. rule had displayed towards him. He Mr. F. hoped to prove that defendant whilst a poor merchant's clerk would have been very happy to have had made plaintiff the partner of a poverty obscurity, but when he got his fortune his mind had changed - he would not presume what defence would be set up; it only could be an attempt to mislead the judgment of the Assessors. After defendant had had daily opportunities of ascertaining the character, habits, manner, and disposition of the young lady, he had thought proper cruelly to abandon her. But he (Mr. F.) felt satisfied the verdict that day would convince plaintiff and others that they could not blast the respects of young women with impunity, and that even in New South Wales, honor and honesty was the best policy. He then called, Mrs. Louisa Rule. - Hannah rule the plaintiff is my eldest daughter; I know the defendant Robert Hick, he visited our house 8 or 9 months, almost daily, except about 3 weeks when there was a coolhess between them. All the family were present when he visited; several months before he said anything to Dr. Rule he was engaged to my daughter; he afterwards in my presence asked Dr. Rule if he had any objections to his marrying her. Dr. Rule said she was of age and could please herself. He then asked my daughter if she would marry him; she said she would. Hick then asked Dr. Rule to buy some furniture for him. He bought some linen and had it marked with both their initials. When this was done he said, mother! mother! I have caught myself, I believe that poetry to be in defendant's handwriting. He said he expected a letter from England, but if it did not come he would not delay the marriage beyond June. He bought a ring and tried it on my daughter's finger; my husband said he had no fortune to give her; he said he did not want money; his salary was small but after his marriage he expected it would be very much encreased [sic]. In June he received a letter which he brought and read to us, it stated that he had got £1000 left to him by his deceased uncle. (The remainder of her evidence was only confirmatory of the learned counsel's opening speech.) William Hunt. - My brother in law keeps a shop in George-street, defendant came there in June last; I asked him if he was not going to be married, he said not; he thought he was going home. I meant Miss Rule as the person to whom I thought he was going to be married. Cross-examined. - The neighbourhood did not speak very highly of Miss Rules they thought them rather loose characters. Mrs. Frances Solomon - I am the wife of Moses Solomon; we kept the British Hotel; I know Mr. Rule's family, also know Mr. Hick; met them both at Rule's, and at my house; he has sent for her frequently to my house; I know he bought a ring; Hick bought some things at an action sale held by Mr. Lyons; he gave the plaintiff £7 to buy a wedding dress; I disliked the dress when bought; it was a dull colour for a young girl; I was a kind of confidante of defendant; he told me he would not have broken off the match had it not been through the conduct of plaintiff's parents; they interfered too much with him; he meant (he said) to go to England per the Abel Gower; Hick told me he believed plaintiff was a virtuous girl. Cross-examined - Plaintiff never acted as bar maid in my house; the officers used frequently to come to our house; they were dressed some times in full uniform, sometimes as sailors - indeed every variety of dress; they staid as long as they liked, but none of them ever slept there; plaintiff never staid later than nine o'clock; defendant told me they could not detain him in the Colony, as it was not a case of seduction. Some letters were then put in, where defendant explained the reason why he had broken off the courtship, alleging that it was owing to his having been insulted by Mrs. Rule. This closed the plaintiff's case. The parties then endeavoured to enter into a compromise. After a considerable delay, it was ultimately agreed that a verdict should be taken for plaintiff, with damages £10. The counsel for defendant at the same time intimating that the defendant was desirous to state that no imputation whatever rested on the plaintiff's character.
Notes |
|
|||||
|