JUNE 8th, 1911:BREACH OF promise cases, a product of the courtship practices of their time, were regular sources of litigation at one time and usually provided "good copy" for newspapers. One such case, involving a Miss Cahill of Gardiner's Place, Dublin, and a Mr Kelly of Burgh Quay, was reported in today's newspaper in 1911. Mr Kelly did not contest the case and the only issue before the jury was the amount of compensation to award her. Her case was put by her barrister:
“The plaintiff was a young lady of about 22 years of age, engaged as a milliner in Messers Ogilvy’s establishment in Grafton Street.
The defendant was employed as general manager of Weir and Co’s on Burgh Quay, which was commonly known as the ‘Scotch House’. When they first became acquainted the defendant was employed in Mr Keogh’s establishment in Bachelor’s Walk, and the plaintiff was living on Ormond Quay.
When they first met the defendant told the plaintiff, on the 24th January, 1910, that he had been looking for an introduction to her for a very long time.
At that time the plaintiff was engaged to be married to another man, and the defendant, who knew this, induced her to break off that engagement and become engaged to him, pointing out that the other man was of a different religion from her. The plaintiff and defendant became engaged in February, 1910. The defendant had written a very large number of letters to the plaintiff afterwards, which showed the ardour of his affection for her. [Several letters were read out.]
Counsel said there was a couple of hundred such letters.
Mr Justice Boyd: The time was well-spent in letter writing at all events. (Laughter.)
Mr O’Connor [Miss Cahill’s barrister] said the defendant went to the country in October, and after that he never wrote an affectionate letter to the plaintiff.
Mr Justice Boyd: Perhaps there was another Bachelor’s Walk in the country. (Laughter.)
Mr O’Connor said that when the defendant came back the plaintiff tried to communicate with him over the telephone, but he disguised his voice and refused to speak to her. She frequently tried to get an explanation from him, but without success. He made several appointments with her to explain matters, but he never kept them.
After the writ was issued, the defendant forged a telegram in the name of the plaintiff’s solicitor, asking her to meet him at the Edinburgh Hotel.
The plaintiff went there, and the defendant sought to get her to settle the case, stating that if she did not withdraw the proceedings he would leave the country, and she would get nothing. Plaintiff refused to have anything to say to him . . . The defendant subsequently persecuted the girl, calling at her mother’s residence, and arranged to have the marriage take place at the registry office, but when the day fixed arrived he failed to turn up.
When the plaintiff in agreeing to be married at the registry office sought to have a lady friend present as a witness the defendant said he could get two convicts as witnesses in Temple Bar, and they would be good enough for her, and he used strong language towards her . . .
[Mr Kelly, who represented himself,] said he had gone to the country on the 3rd of November and came back on the 6th.
He sought an interview with the plaintiff, but did not succeed. He saw her going to Leopardstown Races at the station, and saw her at the races, but she would not look at him. He further stated that he lost all his savings in the Charing Cross Bank [which collapsed in 1910].
He made every effort to settle the case with the plaintiff, because he was prepared to do anything in order to keep out of law, and keep his name out of the courts.
Under cross-examination, Mr Kelly said he had a salary of £60 a year in his previous job but was paid no salary by Weir’s but was paid according to the turnover.
The jury awarded Miss Cahill £100.
