Home Page

This was an action to recover damages for a breach of promise of marriage. The defendant pleaded first that he did not make any promise, secondly that a reasonable time had not elapsed to enable him to perform it, and thirdly that it was part of the agreement that was entered into between him and the plaintiff that the marriage should not take place until the death of his father and that he was still alive. Mr. Hawkins Q. C. and Mr. Garth were counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Biron was counsel for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action is a young woman named Susanna Lydia Hawkins, the daughter of a labouring man living at a place called Stouting near Canterbury and the defendant is the son of a small farmer in the same village, the former being 25 and the latter 44 years old. They had been intimate or “kept company” together for more than ten years and the defendant constantly visited the plaintiff at her father’s cottage and he repeatedly expressed his intention to marry her. On the 25th of October 1859 the plaintiff and her brother and the defendant went to Canterbury and the latter procured a marriage license and a ring was purchased, but the defendant took no further steps in the matter until a day or two before the period for which the license was in force would have expired, when it appeared he went to the plaintiff and asked her to marry him on the following morning. She agreed to do so but when the next morning came the defendant said he could not get married that day as the old man (his father) had gone to Canterbury as he expected he would do.

The marriage license then ran out and the defendant afterwards gave directions that the Banns should be published but on the morning after they were given out the first time, the defendant went to the brother of the plaintiff and told him that he should not get married to his sister. William Hawkins the brother of the plaintiff proved that the defendant had courted his sister for more than ten years and he said that about two years ago he asked her fathers consent to their marriage and he gave it, and after that the defendant used to come almost every Sunday and have tea with them and he and the witness’s sister used to walk out together and “courted” each other. On the 15th October last, drove the defendant and his sister to Canterbury Fair and the defendant told him that he had got a license and he thought he should be very soon married. Witness in reply said that he might if he liked. (A laugh.)

The Banns were subsequently published in the Parish Church, and on the following morning he met the defendant and he said to him “I mustn’t marry your sister.”

Cross-examined witness did not know what was meant by a man having an ardent affection for a woman. (A laugh.) The defendant seemed to be fond of his sister in his way. (Laughter.) He never saw him kiss his sister. (Renewed laughter.) The defendant was a “farming” man and had worked for his father who had a small farm of about 40 acres. His sister bought some new clothes for the marriage. He was quite sure they were not bought to go to the fair in. They did not all have a jolly day together at Canterbury.

He left his sister and the defendant by themselves and when they got home the defendant told him that he thought three guineas was a “terrible sight” of money to give for the license. (Laughter.) Mr. Biron in his address to the jury for the defendant said it appeared to him that such an action as this ought never to have been brought. The fact was that the defendant was really nothing more than a poor labouring man and the plaintiff had sustained no loss by not being married to him. There was no doubt that a sort of courtship had been going on between them and that the plaintiff had accompanied the defendant to fairs and other places as was usual with persons in their condition of life.

The defendant however had at length discovered that he was not in a condition to support a wife and he submitted that it was a fortunate thing for the plaintiff that the marriage had not been carried out. John Green the father of the defendant, was examined and he proved that the farm was occupied and which was his own property consisted of only 22 acres and that he had raised money upon it by way of mortgage. He also stated that the defendant worked for him as a labourer and he paid him £5 a year and his board and lodgings. The learned judge having summed up. The jury after a short deliberation returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £25. (1860)