It would seem that an English jury, when it gets
an oppor- tunity of fining Mr. Biggar, thinks that such an opportunity ought not to be neglected on the slight plea that the evidence is hardly adequate to sustain satisfactorily the case against him. Miss Hyland's case against him for breach of pro- mise of marriage, tried on Thursday in the Queen's Bench, was not a strong one, as Lord Coleridge pointed out ; but there was, we suppose, enough evidence to convince a jury decidedly predisposed to convict Mr. Biggar, especially as in breach.of- promise cases the rules of evidence, against men at least, are always construed in a manner not very satisfactory to them, though very satisfactory to the damsels whom they are sup- posed to have deserted. Miss Hyland claimed £5,000 damages, and thejary awarded only 2400, a tolerably moderate course for a jury probably prejudiced against Mr. Biggar, and certainly not likely to have formed any better opinion of him from the nature of the evidence with which he furnished them for the estimate of his character. He appears to have taken a very cautious course as regards the lady, to whom he never wrote very affectionately, though he admitted kissing her and telling her of "obstacles "to his marriage with her,—these obstacles, as it appeared subse- quently, being two natural children for whom he had to piovide. Taking everything into account, the verdict, though we cannot say we could have concurred in it, was not as ex- cessive as might, trader the circumstances, have been expected. Juries in breach-of-promise cases rarely act with even so much scrupulousness as the jurymen who gave damages against Mr. Biggar.
Previous page
