FROM THE ARCHIVES:THE PRACTICE of arranged marriages and the courtship habits of some people in the 1920s were exposed by this breach of promise case in 1925, in which a young woman was left with a baby while the father, a man twice her age, married someone else a month after making her pregnant and promising to marry her. The names and addresses of the people concerned have been edited out. - JOE JOYCE
COURTED BY PROXY
COUNTY MAYO BREACH OF PROMISE
‘I have no hesitation in saying that in the way this case has developed it is the most extraordinary breach of promise action I have ever heard, or of which I have ever heard,’ said Judge Wyse Power at Ballina Circuit Court, in giving judgement for £220 damages in an action brought by a farmer’s daughter, aged twenty-one, against a farmer.
The claim was for £500.
In June, 1923, said Mr Fitzgerald Kenny (who appeared for the plaintiff), the defendant sent two emissaries, one, a man named Murphy, to the plaintiff, and the other, his brother, to the father of the plaintiff, asking whether there was a possibility of a marriage between himself and the plaintiff being arranged.
The parents consented to an arrangement when the defendant himself called.
It was agreed that the plaintiff should get a fortune of £150 down, and £50 in twelve months’ time.
The marriage should take place within three weeks.
Subsequently, the defendant, who was 42 years old, called on the plaintiff frequently, and when the three weeks had nearly elapsed he showed her a deed of conveyance of the farm from his mother and brother to him, and told her that they would go to Belmullet on their honeymoon.
By agreement the wedding was postponed until after Christmas, and later on the defendant promised to marry the plaintiff in February.
Intimacy occurred, but a month afterwards the defendant married another woman.
A baby girl was born to the plaintiff in November, 1924.
[The] father of the plaintiff, in answer to counsel, said that in the County Mayo, nine-tenths of the marriages were arranged by parties other than the principals involved.
The defendant admitted seduction, but denied the promise of marriage.
He had been keeping company with his present wife for fifteen years, and the match with her was arranged a fortnight before the wedding.
Asked whether he was not ashamed of his conduct in regard to the plaintiff, the defendant replied – “I do not think so.”
The defendant’s wife gave evidence that he had been keeping company with her for fifteen year, and had given her a ring five years ago.
In January 1924, he sent a man to her to arrange marriage, and they were married on the 15th March.