Some of the most interesting legal cases in our local history are those pertaining to breach of promise.
Those were lawsuits, invariably brought to court by a woman or a male family member representing her interests, seeking financial compensation from a man who had promised to marry the woman and then had backed out.
Most of those cases were successful. The accused man seldom put up much of a defence, and in some cases, failed to offer any defence at all. Locally, the majority of the cases are found in the 19th century. Breach of promise suits became rare after 1900, and died out altogether in the 1920s.
Awards in the 19th century varied greatly, from a low of $100 to a high of $1,200. I have never seen any formal criteria for the amount that should be awarded, or why the virtue of one woman should be worth ten or twelve times that of another.
In most of these cases, the people involved were young, from their late teens into their 20s. A few involved older people. One of the latter group dates to 1860 in Maryborough Township, between a widowed father of 12 in his early 60s, and a spinster believed to be about 40. She did not reveal her age.
The defendant was a man named Charles McCuaig, and he was sued by a woman named Jane Hunter, who lived with her sister and her sister’s husband, Jim Armstrong. He employed Jane to do household and barnyard tasks. The case was on the docket for the spring assizes heard at Guelph in April 1860.
Jim Armstrong led the list of witnesses, and outlined the basic facts of the case. In June of 1859, he stated that McCuaig had visited his farm. McCuaig had entered the kitchen, and had shaken hands with Jane. The pair chatted for a while, and then decided to go out for a walk. Armstrong thought this was unusual behaviour for Jane, who never had gentleman callers. He followed them out and, remaining hidden, had watched them talking at the edge of a field.
McCuaig stayed for supper that night, and went home late in the evening. He returned about a month later, in July, for another visit, and came back a third time on a Sunday in October 1859. That day, the couple went away in a carriage, and when they returned McCuaig asked to speak privately with Armstrong.
McCuaig told Armstrong that he and Jane had been discussing marriage, asked if Armstrong had any objections to the match. Armstrong told the court of his astonishment, and that provoked some laughter in the court room. McCuaig then had asked Armstrong whether Jane was 40 years of age.
That brought louder laughs and guffaws from the spectators in the court. Armstrong indicated that he did not know the age of his sister-in-law, and that he could think of no objection to the marriage.
Charles McCuaig and Jane Hunter then went outside for a while, and when they came in again McCuaig confided to Armstrong that he believed they had agreed to get married on the following Thursday. Spectators in the court were beginning to view the case as a comedy, and more laughter filled the room.
McCuaig then asked Armstrong if he had a preference for a minister. He replied that he had no intention of dictating to the prospective groom. That brought the loudest laughter so far from the court room.
Continuing his story, Armstrong testified that McCuaig stated he would bring a minister, and then asked whether there would be any danger of a charivari.
Armstrong said he suspected there would not be one, as there were very few young people in the neighbourhood.
By this point the spectators in the court laughed at every statement made by Armstrong. They found the situation absurd: one of the oldest residents of the area and a homely middle-aged spinster acting like teenagers.
McCuaig went home that night, a youthful spring in his step as he climbed into his carriage. The Armstrong household began preparations the next day, preparing food, a cake, and sewing a wedding dress for Jane. They invited a few neighbours to be present on the evening of the planned ceremony.
Some 15 family members and friends gathered in the Armstrong parlor on the evening of the planned ceremony. Charley McCuaig, though, did not show up, and neither did the minister. After sitting around for about an hour, the guests became uneasy, and Jane, mortified at the way the big day was turning out, asked Armstrong to take her to McCuaig’s residence to discover why he did not appear.
Armstrong refused to go. Apparently, he wanted to keep as far away from the affair as possible. Eventually a neighbour agreed to take Jane to McCuaig’s farm, but they did not find him there.
Charley McCuaig eventually showed up about a month later, and had a conversation with Jane before going away.
He returned again a few days before Christmas. On that occasion, Jane left the Armstrong farm in the afternoon, walking toward Hollen. That night, McCuaig appeared, driving a cutter containing one of his sons, two daughters, some in-laws, and Jane.
Everyone went into the house to warm themselves. Then McCuaig’s family left. Armstrong went to bed after an hour or so, leaving McCuaig and Jane sitting in the parlor and talking. When Armstrong got up the next morning McCuaig was still there.
He asked Armstrong to go with him to obtain a marriage licence. Armstrong, still desiring no involvement in the whole business, refused. McCuaig tried to reassure Armstrong, saying that he was sure to get married this time. The courtroom roared with laughter.
Armstrong eventually relented. Unfortunately, they were unable to obtain a licence in Hollen, and returned to the Armstrong farm. McCuaig said that he would go to Elora the next day with Jane, and get married there.
The next morning, Armstrong told the court, Jane busied herself getting ready, but McCuaig seemed very despondent, especially for a man about to be married. The judge and the rest of the people in the courtroom shook with laughter.
After sitting glumly for a few minutes, McCuaig announced that he could not get married. He got up and spoke with Jane privately. After that he told Armstrong that he hoped there were no ill feelings about his decision not to marry. McCuaig left the house, and never returned.
Neither Jane Hunter nor Charles McCuaig testified. Jane had sat emotionless through the trial, wearing the dress her family had made for the wedding.
There were a couple of other witnesses, among them Sam Kilgour, who was related to Armstrong by marriage. He testified that he had questioned McCuaig on his decision to avoid the wedding ceremony. His only reply was that he was not surprised that Jane was upset. That, of course, prompted more laughter in the court.
The jury retired after some instructions from the judge. They returned with a verdict in favour of the plaintiff, Jane Hunter, for $150. She had asked for $1,000.
Those may have been the oldest people to be involved in a breach of promise case in Wellington County. It was also unusual for the courtroom decorum.
The spectators found mirth in the proceedings almost from the beginning, and by the time the jury retired, the jury, lawyers, and even the judge had joined them in raucous laughter.
The award, though far less than the amount wanted, was still a considerable one in an age when working men often laboured for a dollar a day.