Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a case of breach of promise of marriage, damages in which were laid at £5000. The action was at the instance of Miss Fanny Pugh, residing at the North-Western Hotel, Stafford; and the defender was the Hon. William Henry Bruce Ogilvy, presently residing at Cowden House, in the parish of Muckhart, and county of Perth.

The pursuer, in her condescendence, alleged that she is twenty-seven years of age, and is the daughter of the late Benjamin Pugh, of Treberth, in the county of Pembroke, gentleman farmer; that the defender, who is of the same age as the pursuer, is proprietor of the estate of Cowden, in the parish of Muckhart, in Perthshire, an estate yielding a yearly rental of about £1066; and that, in the year 1865, the pursuer was managing the Crewe Arms Hotel, at Crewe, in the county of Chester. The pursuer also made the following statements:—“In August of that year, the defender stayed at the hotel for some days, and then made the acquaintance of the pursuer. He returned in the following October, and remained for some time, during which period he paid his addresses to the pursuer, professing to do so with the object of making her his wife. On the 15th of that month he made her a formal offer of marriage, which she, after taking some time for consideration, and the defender continuing to press his suit, accepted. The defender thereupon entered into an explanation of his position and property to the pursuer, and promised to settle upon her the provision set forth in the note of instructions narrated in the following article. The terms of the settlement were frequently discussed by the defender, who asked the pursuer to name her own attorney, and a trustee to act on her behalf, in order that the contract might be at once drawn out. Accordingly, the pursuer named John Broughall, Esq., solicitor, Shrewsbury, as her attorney, with whom she asked the defender to communicate with reference to their marriage settlements. The defender did so, and dictated to Mr Broughall the following note of instructions, to prepare the necessary deeds:—“£5000, the interest to be settled on Miss Pugh for her life, then to the children equally. If husband survives wife, then to husband for life. If Miss Pugh survives, she to have the power of leaving £2500 as she thinks proper, and the remaining £2500 to husband's next of kin. About £14,000 on mortgage on the estate in the parish of Muckhart, in the county of Perth. The value of the estate is between £35,000 and £40,000.—M'Kenzie & Kermack, W.S., 9 Hill Street, Edinburgh.” Edward Jeffreys of Lighteliff, in the county of York, engineer, and Edward Halsey of Alderley Edge, in the county of Chester, hotel proprietor, were fixed upon by both parties as trustees; and Mr Brough-hall, on the instructions of the defender, prepared a draft marriage settlement in the following terms, as agreed on by the parties.—The defender to convey his property in the parish of Muckhart, subject to the charges thereon, to the above-mentioned trustees on trust, to raise by sale or mortgage £5000, the interest of which was to be paid to the intended wife for her separate use for her life, and after her decease to the intended husband for his life, and after his decease the principal to be divided between the children of the marriage equally. If no children, one moiety of the principal to go to the next of kin of the intended husband, the other moiety to the next of kin of the intended wife, or to such person as she might bequeath the same to by her will. On Oct. 22, the defender wrote the following letter to Mr Halsey, of the Crewe Arms Hotel, in whose imployment, as manager, the pursuer then was:—

“October 22, 1865.

Sir,—I believe you have been aware for the last week that I am going to be married to Miss Pugh and I now write to hope that, under the circumstances, you will be able to dispense with her services under the usual month's warning, as but for her engagement the affair would probably come off within the next fortnight.—Believe me, yours truly,

W. H. Bruce Ogilvy.”

The defender represented to several other persons that he was engaged to be married to the pursuer. The defender, at a later date, wrote to Mr Halsey and Mr Broughall that he was afraid that a serious obstacle would prevent the marriage taking place. The pretended obstacle was, that the defender represented that he had been previously married to some lady in Scotland. He about the same time wrote to the pursuer, apparently with the view of breaking off the marriage. The defender subsequently, in a letter to the pursuer of 8th November, admitted that this story of a previous Scotch marriage was utterly untrue. About the 19th November the defender visited the pursuer at Crewe, and it was then arranged that the marriage should take place, if possible, on the then following Thursday; and on the 20th of that month the defender wrote and sent Mr Broughall a letter, in which the following passage occurs:—

“Crewe Arms Hotel, November 20, 1865.

My Dear Sir,—Will you kindly come here on Thursday with the deed of settlement, as the marriage is to be on that day, and I want to go to Carlisle that night.”

On 11th November, Mr Broughall forwarded to

Page: 203↓

the defender the draft settlement prepared by him in the terms above set forth; and on 25th November Mr Broughall wrote to the defender to return it revised. To this letter the defender, on the 27th of the same month, replied as follows:—

“Kennedy's Hotel, Princes Street, Edinburgh, November, 27, 1865.

Dear Sir,—Wishing to be off my engagement to Miss Pugh, I have asked her what sum she will accept as compensation. I await her answer; in the meantime I shall retain the deeds.—Believe me, yours truly,

W. H. Bruce Ogilvy.”

And on the same day he wrote to the pursuer as follows:—

“Kennedy's Hotel, Princes Street, Edinburgh.

My dear Miss Pugh,—I hope shortly to have your answer to my question of the other night.—Believe me, yours truly,

W. H. Bruce Ogilvy.”

The pursuer was very much astonished and indignant at receiving this letter, and handed it over to her agent, who, on the 9th December following, wrote the defender as follows

“Shrewsbury, December 9, 1866.

Sir,—Yourself and Miss Pugh.—Miss Pugh has handed me your last letter, to which she can hardly be expected to reply. I will thank you to return the draft settlements, and let me know the name of your attorney.—I am, Sir, your obed. ser.,

John Broughall.

The Hon. W. H. Bruce Ogilvy.”

The defender has since been frequently communicated with on behalf of the pursuer, but has persisted in his determination to break off the marriage, and has made no reply to the communications addressed to him, nor made any reparation for the injury done to the pursuer. On 4th April 1866, the defender was married in Birmingham to Sarah Boyden, daughter of the late Henry Boyden, of that town, pew opener at the Jewish Synagogue. The pursuer, in consequence of her engagement to the defender, left the situation which she held as manager at the Crewe Arms Hotel, and was otherwise put to considerable expense in anticipation of her marriage. By the defender's breach of his promise and engagement to marry her, the pursuer has been grossly and wantonly injured in her feelings and prospects in life, and has suffered great loss, injury, and damage. The sum of £5000 is, in the circumstances, a fair and reasonable sum as damages and solatium, to the pursuer.

The defender, in his condescendence, admitted that he made the acquaintance of the pursuer, then house-keeper at the Crewe Arms Hotel, in the month of October 1865, and that he then made an offer of marriage which she accepted, but he explained that this was on the third day after the defender's arrival at the hotel in October, and that the defender had not previously any acquaintance with the pursuer. He also admitted that the pursuer employed Mr Broughall, of Shrewsbury, to obtain from the defender a statement of his means, and of the settlements he could make on marriage. He admitted also that he gave information on that subject to the lawyer employed by the pursuer, and gave him the name and address of his agents, but he said that nothing was known, and he made no admission as to the alleged note of instructions, or as to the alleged draft marriage settlement. He also explained that the pursuer and her attorney did not communicate with Messers M'Kenzie, & Kermack as to any settlements, and did not imform them of what is said to have been arranged. The defender also made the following statements:—The defender's marriage is admitted. His letters are referred to for their terms. Denied that the breaking-off of the proposed marriage has caused any injury or damage to the pursuer, either in her feelings or otherwise. Explained and averred that before 24th October 1865, the defender had made the pursuer aware of his unwillingness to marry her; that two letters were both written upon that date to the pursuer's attorney. That on 2d November 1865, the defender wrote to the pursuer from Liverpool a letter, earnestly advising her to reconsider matters, assuring that she would not be happy, and plainly informing her that he wished to be off, but would marry her sooner than face an action for breach of promise. On the 8th November 1865, no answer having been sent to that letter, the defender again wrote from Liverpool to the pursuer a letter, requesting her to inform him whether or not she intended keeping him at his promise. Subsequently, on 27th November 1865, the defender wrote from Edinburgh to the pursuer's attorney a letter stating that, wishing to be off his engagement to the pursuer, he had asked her what sum she would accept as compensation, and that he awaited her answer. On or about the same day the defender wrote to the pursuer from Edinburgh the letter also quoted in the condescendence. All these letters were duly received. From the time when he wrote these letters, down to a recent date, at all events down to a period considerably after his marriage, the defender heard nothing of or from the pursuer or her solicitor, and he understood that she had relinquished, and in fact she did relinquish, all claim upon the defender.

The issue for the pursuer was as follows:—

“Whether, in the months of October or November 1865, the defender promised and agreed to marry the pursuer; and whether the defender has wrongfnlly failed to perform the said promise and agreement, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”

The damages were laid at £5000.