Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This is an action of damages for breach of promise of marriage at the instance of Susan Durno, residing at Cushieston, in the parish of Rayne, and county of Aberdeen, against John Leys, a farmer in the neighbourhood. The pursuer states that the defender courted her and repeatedly asked her to marry him between May and November 1861; that she gave no definite answer but allowed him to visit her, except during harvest; and that on 8th November they formally pledged themselves to each other in marriage;

Page: 83↓

that trusting to the defender's repeated promises and entreaties, she has made preparations for the marriage according to the custom of the country. The pursuer's sister says that the pursuer had told her before Whitsunday that the defender had sought her, and that she was not to tell their mother that she was to be married to him; but her brother says that in June she told him that the defender had made a proposal of marriage to her, and that she preferred him to some others who were paying their addresses to her. The pursuer's own case is that she did not accept the defender till the 8th of November.

In regard to direct evidence—on which the discussion mainly turned in the Court here—all that the pursuer adduced is a statement by her mother that the defender on 9th November told her that he was going to marry the pursuer; and the evidence of the pursuer's brother, who says that the defender came to his house on the 11th of November, and in answer to his remark, “I understand you and Susan are to be married,” replied, “Oh, ay; but it is likely to go against me for some time yet.” The pursuer further relied upon a certain amount of intimacy between her and the defender, and his courtship, and also a common report about the marriage, which the defender never disclaimed. The defender, since the date of the alleged promise, and in December 1861, has married, and he alleged that between May and November of the same year he was engaged to his present wife. The Sheriff-Substitute (Watson) and the Sheriff (Davidson) adhering, found that the pursuer had not proved her case. The pursuer advocated.

To-day the Court altered these judgments, and found for the pursuer, assessing the damages to which she was entitled at £25. The Court proceeded mainly on the direct evidence of the pursuer's mother and her brother, holding that the question put by the latter and the defender's answer to it were not explainable on any other theory than an engagement. The Court also relied on the courtship of the defender and on the rumour of marriage, which he had not disclaimed.