Mills v. Paine: Surrey Comet Saturday 03 February 1906

Taken from the British Newspaper Archive with minor editing and paragraphing for readability

NEW MALDEN BREACH OF PROMISE.

New Malden Undertaker, “With a Heart of Stone”

 Lady Gets £50 Damages.

A curious plea was put forward by Frederick William Paine of Coombe-road, New Malden, when in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of the High Court of Justice, on Monday, before Mr. Justice Darling and a common jury. He was sued by Miss Laura Charlotte Mills, of 406 Merton-road, Southfields, who alleged that after a long courtship he refused to marry her. Defendant stated that although he walked out with the plaintiff and affectionate letters passed, the relationship between them was merely platonic, and he had declared all along that he never intended to marry her.

Mr. Alan Macpherson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Moyses for the defendant.

Mr. Macpherson in opening the case, said the plaintiff assisted her brother in a laundry business, and kept house for him, and the defendant was a partner with his mother in a business as an undertaker and also as an ironmonger and house agent. In 1898 the plaintiff and her brother were living at Malden, where defendant carried on his business, They were about to leave for Fulham, and the parties became acquainted through the plaintiff going to the defendant’s shop to purchase goods.

The defendant was struck with the plaintiff and wrote asking her to give him her address at Fulham. She did so and the defendant wrote and asked to be allowed to come and see her and walk out with her. The plaintiff consented, and, although they walked out together the plaintiff did not see her way to become engaged to the defendant. The plaintiff told him so, and the defendant said he thought the acquaintance had better terminate and it did. In 1899 the defendant wrote several letters, of which the plaintiff took no notice, but at the end of that year she wrote and told him he might call again.

Another Lady in the Story

In 1900 the defendant, continued counsel, told the plaintiff that he had become engaged to another lady, and she said that in that case there was no point in continuing the acquaintanceship, and it was again broken off. In the summer they met, and the defendant spoke to the plaintiff. She wrote reproaching him for doing so, and he replied and asked her to see him. When they met he told her that his engagement with the other was at an end. He asked that the acquaintance should be renewed, and she said she was willing to renew it on terms of friendship, but that there must be no engagement.

Defendant came to see the plaintiff in October, and in December asked plaintiff to become engaged to him, telling her that the marriage would not take place for some time. That was on Boxing-day, 1900. The lady’s parents were dead, but the defendant spoke to her brother who offered no objection, although the defendant told him that the marriage could not take place for two years, and Mr. Mills said that personally he was against long engagements.

In 1901 there was unfortunately a dispute about some business matter, but, notwithstanding that the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant were undisturbed. The defendant came to see the plaintiff twice a week and took her out. A very large number of letters passed between them and he (the learned counsel) had about a hundred on each side in his possession.

Although the lady had no mother, she had an aunt, a Mrs. Gaskin, and the plaintiff often took the defendant to the house of that lady. The plaintiff told Mrs. Gaskin of their engagement, and the lady asked Mr. Paine about the marriage. In 1902 when they were at the Gaskins’ house, the defendant said, “By this time next year we shall have a house of our won, and I hope you, Mrs. Gaskin, and your daughter, will come to see us.” The relations between the plaintiff and defendant continued till the beginning of 1903, when the defendant suggested another year’s delay, to which the plaintiff assented,

A Miserable Bank Holiday.

At the beginning of 1904, said Mr. Macpherson, the defendant suggested a further postponement, and the plaintiff assented, the relations of the parties remaining the same. In the middle of 1904 the plaintiff observed a change in the defendant’s manner towards her. On August Bank-holiday he did not take her out. She wrote to him and said if she had done anything wrong she was very sorry. The defendant did not reply, although until the end of the year from time to time he came to see her.

In the beginning of 1905, unfortunately, she was late for an appointment through missing a train. After that defendant came to see her again. As she did not hear from him in May, she went with her cousin, Miss Gaskin, to see him, and told him that he was treating her very badly. She asked if he intended to break off his engagement with her, and he said “Yes.”

Counsel proceeded to read extracts from letters written by the defendant. He. had begun with “Dear Miss Mills,” and then by easy stages he got to “My dear Laura,” “dear Laurie,” and “My Darling.” At an early age in the courtship he signed himself “The Scorcher.”

One letter ran :- “My dear Laurie, – I expect you will have been looking out for a letter from me. I well know what it is to watch the post. I have been to chapel twice and church once lately. On the latter occasion I was present at a christening and I wondered whether I should ever have to take part in a similar ceremony. It was the first baby of a young couple. The people said it was a beautiful baby, and ever so good. With love, yours truly, Fred”

Mr. Macpherson tantalised his audience by reading only the beginning and end of a letter: “My dear little funny little girl…. Yours faithfully, The Rum ‘un.”

Writing to his sweetheart about prospects, Mr. Paine said: “Keep your pecker up, pet. I can see a good thing coming on. I have been paying special attention to laundries.”

Advice to Brides.

“I am hanged if I can write love letters” said the young undertaker in another epistle. Sympathetically. he referred to her toil in the laundry:

“I do hope you are not fatiguing yourself with the **** laundry work. It won’t be for ever, and by placing our trust in Him who does all things well I have trust in the future.”

After having had a lecture, he wrote:

“You mean to give me a piece of your mind and I deserve it. I am afraid I am more like the thing that makes bacon than the little thing that bills and coos.”

In one of the letters a cutting from a newspaper giving advice to brides was referred to:

“Immediately after the wedding promise one another never to wrangle and never to have any secrets from one another. Then your souls will grow together as one.”

This, said counsel, showed, he supposed, that one might get excellent advice even from the halfpenny Press (Laughter).

The Learned Judge: I am not going to make any judicial pronouncement about it. (Laughter)

He also gave the lady a ring, but made the stipulation that she should not wear it on the “engaged” finger, and once when she did so, there was a tiff. But the relationship went on and Miss Mills was so satisfied that she was to be married that she accepted a present of house linen from her sister. Then came the falling away of Mr. Paine, his failure to write to Miss or to see her, an attempt at an understanding the gentleman blunt repudiation, and then this extraordinary letter sent to the lady :-

New Malden, May 25th, 1906.

Without Prejudice.

To Miss L. C. Mills:

Madame – I have received a letter from a solicitor, Mr. Lay. I am astonished at your audacity. After all the kindness and sympathy I have shown you, after all my endeavours to sweeten your miserable existence, you threaten to blackmail me because you have failed to inveigle me into marriage, which you know well I have never desired. Have I not reproached you for persisting in these endeavours? As far as I am concerned you are as virtuous as when I first knew you, but this is through no wish of yours. When you have tempted me, I remembered what you have you told me about a certain relation of yours and knew your object. When you induced me to visit your aunt and cousin, I soon expected a trap; but still out of kindness of heart, I allowed the friendship to continue at the same time pointing out to you times out of number how useless it was to continue is with the object you had in view for reasons you persisted in turning a deaf ear to.

It is most painful to me to have to write to one for whom I have had the kindest regard but since you abuse what was  intended for a purely Platonic companionship, I am reluctant, but feel justified in making use of your letters, which fortunately I have retained or have not destroyed since the first commencement of our acquaintance; also, if I find that certain relatives are assisting you, I shall feel justified in to them certain statements you have made to me concerning their moral character.

I am instructing my solicitor to deal with the matter, and to whom I am handing the whole of your letters for the purpose of defending the action I am threatened with.

Yours faithfully,

F. W. PAINE

The Lady’s Appeal.

A few extracts from Miss Mills’ letters were also read by counsel:

Dear Fred – “You are a curious article. I feel like a fish out of water. Just give me a tip what to do to make things right. I have just been thinking that you have got a heart of ice in you. If this is so, I shall have to melt it. Had you heart turned to show that there is no there is no way of touching it? I have not even had one little letter for months. Let us try and be happy again.

Plaintiff was then called, and in bearing out the opening statements aid that on Boxing Day they went out together. Defendant asked her if she liked him well to be married to him in a year or two, and would wait, and she promised she would. Defendant told her he was in partnership with his mother. He had had a business in the Waterloo-road, and  had sold it when his father died, and had put money in the Malden business. He said he was worth about £1,000. In the spring of 1901 the defendant gave her a ring.

Plaintiff then produced a gold turquoise ring and handed it to his lordship who passed it to the jury. Plaintiff said the defendant asked her not to wear the ring as an engagement ring, as it was not good enough

Mr Moyser: Whenever there was any talk about marriage did not the defendant always refuse to consent to a marriage, and whenever you approached it did it not cause a little difference between you for the time being? – I never spoke of marriage unless he spoke first. Is it not a fact that up to this day you have never been introduced to defendant’s mother? – Yes.

When the acquaintance between you was renewed again, was it not renewed at your special request? – I don’t remember it. Did he not ,whenever the subject of marriage cropped up, give you to understand his means would not permit it? – No, never.

Did you not often refer to your hard work at the laundry? – No, I did not. Did you not speak of you hard times, and say you were in want of money, and did he not give you a few shillings? – No, I never borrowed money.

Did he not say the ring was given him by a customer, and that he would give it to you? He said the ring was made a present to him by a person for whom he had made a valuation. When he gave it to me he said it was not good enough to wear as an engagement ring. I did, however, once wear it on my engagement finger, and as he was cross about it took it off.

Why did you write him a letter soon after saying: “I hope you are not cross with me for the trick about the ring. Do just forget it, and I won’t do it any more”? He seemed cross, and I thought I would write him. He asked me if I could forget him, and I said, ”No I could not.”

I must put it to you, did you say anything about using mouse or rat poison? – Plaintiff did not reply.

His Lordship: Did you say anything about trying to forget him with the assistance of rat poison? – I might have said it.

Mr Moyses: In a letter written to the defendant on May 18th, 1901, you say: “Hope you found your black girl. You don’t say anything about her, Is she very nice?” What did you mean? – He wanted me to go out with him and I said I could not, and he then said he would find a black one if I did not.

You signed that letter, as you did many others, “Yours sincerely”? – Yes. I told him should sign them no different. In another letter you write: “I believe you have someone down there. I shall have to run down and see.”

His Lordship: If this is only a platonic friendship with her, why should he not have another platonic friendship?

Mr Moyses: Why should he not? (To plaintiff): I see in another of your letters you say: “I went out on Sunday and met such a nice gentleman.” Who was the gentleman? It was a nautical friend of both.

I put it to you that it was an extraordinary thing for a lady to write to a man who was to be her husband. – He was known to both of us.

About this time you went away to the country on a visit and you write him: “Just off to see a young farmer. He is single, so there may be a chance yet. (Laughter) Do you say in the face of that letter that there was an engagement that you should be husband and wife? – Yes

The Defence

Mr Moyses, for the defendant, contended that the letters which had been read negatived the idea that the parties contemplated marriage. “This,” he said, “is not the first time a man has made a fool of himself over a woman, and it will not be the last. You, gentlemen of the jury , know that as well as anyone.”(Loud laughter). The defendant was carrying on a correspondence with Miss Mills, but he was an undertaker; he was averse to marriage; probably a funeral would have been more in his line. (Laughter)

The defendant, who said he was 35 years of age and gave evidence affirming what had been put to the plaintiff in cross-examination and denied by here. There was, he said, simply a friendship between them, and he positively denied that he had ever promised marriage. He had always tried to avoid being drawn into such an action as this. The business was his mother’s, and although his name was used he was not a partner. The plaintiff’s representatives could have seen the books but had not done so.

Cross-examined, he denied calling the plaintiff his darling though sometimes he signed himself “with fondest love”. The friendship warmed up about 1903. The plaintiff made a great fuss of him and he liked that. (Laughter) He did not always kiss the plaintiff on meeting and parting but sometimes he did, though not in the presence of others. The relationship was one of companionship.

Did you have any affection for her? – I had a sincere regard for her. One would not go to see a person he did not like. (Laughter)

Did you love her? – Oh, yes, I loved her.

Do you say you absolutely made it clear to her that you would never marry her? – Yes.

Cross-examined. – The letters about future happiness were merely letters of sympathy. The relationship was purely platonic.

Summing up, his Lordship said that in the letters there was not one word about marriage. If there was a promise of marriage it was remarkable that it was not mentioned in the letters. The jury had no right to award damages just because the defendant had made love to the plaintiff. They must be satisfied there was a promise. If the relationship had been an immoral one it would be easy to understand but it was not. This sort of liking was common in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Women who could write then – there were very few – used to write affectionate letters and there was no suggestion of immoral association. Was that sort of thing done and gone in the twentieth century? According to defendant it was not. He found the woman unhappy and wrote her friendly letters.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff with £50 damages. Judgement accordingly with costs.