Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord President—I never saw a more clearly proved breach of promise; and I never met with a breach of promise, in the station in life in which these parties are, in which the pursuer was better entitled to damages. The defender has been courting the pursuer for years, and it was understood that the parties were to be married. So far, indeed, had the defender gone in 1865, that he gave in the names of the pursuer and himself to be proclaimed. That is proved by the evidence of Laidlaw, and no attempt is made to cut down that evidence. But for some cause or other the defender chose to withdraw the proclamation, and there was some estrangement between the parties from March 1866 to March 1867. But then again the parties came together, and in August 1867 matters were all arranged, and provision made for giving in the names to the session-clerks of the parishes of More-battle and Jedburgh, for proclamation on 18th and 25th August. But before the 18th the defender changed his mind; and on the morning of the Sunday he called on the session-clerk for the purpose of stopping the proclamation, which was done. Down to this moment he has not given any explanation of his reasons for so doing. Then see what followed. On Saturday 24th he came to Morebattle, and again professed his affection for the pursuer, and promised to marry her, in presence of several witnesses; and again it is arranged that their names shall be given in for proclamation on the following day. He did accordingly give in the names, and they were proclaimed on the 25th, but before the arrival of the second Sunday, he again interfered and withdrew the names. The Sheriff says that if the pursuer instantly on this had raised the action she would have been entitled to damages. Therefore his reason for refusing damages, must be in what occurred subsequently. Now what occurred was this. After this breach of promise, he came and offered to renew the engagement, but the pursuer would—I think most properly—have nothing to do with him. But is that a reason why she should not have her action of damages? There is neither law nor common sense for that proposition. In such circumstances she had already received great injury, but she would probably have received much more if she had gone on with the engagement. She was perfectly entitled to refuse to have anything more to do with the defender, and also to bring her action of damages. Therefore, I am for returning substantially to the judgment of the Sheriff-substitute, but the question of the amount of the damages is still open for consideration.

The other Judges concurred.

The Court awarded £40 to the pursuer.