Just a few lines to let you know I am quite alright.
I am leaving Dublin for London to-night. I should get into London at 6 o'clock to-morrow morning & will be back at Hurdcott tomorrow night. My leave is up at midnight to-morrow.
I have enjoyed my trip immensely and find Ireland a very nice place. You see they hardly know there is a war on over here and in England things are pretty different. In English towns you can hardly see your hand in front of your face at night, but here there are no lighting restrictions.
I am enclosing a P.C. with a packet of shamrock seed. They tell me they will not grow out of Ireland, but try them and see.
I am also enclosing an account of a breach of promise action. I have been told that during Shrove-tide it is often the custom between farming families to arrange weddings without consulting the wishes of the chief parties at all. The father of the girl paying £200 or £300 to the father of the boy, who must have a pretty decent farm and stock etc. If there is more than one boy in the family, the money is, I believe, divided among them and helps to start them in life. I expect Mum and Dad would have heard of this from their parents bot I did not know about this before. They also tell me that the priest's wedding fees differ according to your means - a poor man paying £5 or £6 and a wealthy man perhaps £20.
I have collected a nice lot of view and souvenirs of Ireland which I will pack and send them to you when I get back to England. I will try and send them by different mails so that some of them should reach you.
Hoping you are all quite well,
I remain
Your Loving Son and Brother
Tom
______________________________________
Newspaper clipping
A £400 Nest egg
Limerick Breach of Promise Action
Deal for a fortune
A commercial transaction says counsel
***********
Today at Nisi Prills, before Mr Justice Moore and a city common jury, a case of Reeves vs Kennedy was heard. The plaintiff, Mary Reeves, an infant, suing by her father John Reeves, a farmer of Ploughlands, Croom, Co Limmerick, sought to recover £700 damages for alleged breach of promise of marriage from the defendant, James Kennedy, a farmer of Ludden, Ballynesty, Co. Limerick. The defence was that the promise, if made was subject to a condition which was not fulfilled - namely the payment of a fortune - and that the promise was mutually rescinded.
Mr Serjeant Sullivan and a Mr Patrick Kelly (instructed by Mr P. G. O'Donnell) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr P. D. Fleming K.C. and Mr James Comyn (instructed by Messrs. W. Leahy and Son).
In stating the case Serjeant Sullivan said that the plaintiff was a very charming girl her parents occupying a good position as substantial farmers. Then defendant occupied an equally substantial position and was a most eligible partner for the lady. He had a farm absolutely unencumbered with supercilious relations (laughter). Not only had he a fine farm in the Golden Vein, but he was the owner of about 20 milch cows. He was a young man between 30 and 35 and well fitted to become the husband of the young lady. The parties met at Croom Races in 1916 and met frequently afterwards.
Although he was taken with her charms, there was a certain element of economy about him, because, before he finally committed himself to proposing to her, he ascertained that there was a little nest egg of £400 in the bank which he would get. The grey heads in the parish would say that the defendant was foolish in breaking away from tradition and select a girl after his own heart, with a comparatively small fortune, for he could have done much better from a monetary point of view.
The girl's friends were not going to take a pig in a poke and her father and some others went to inspect the defendant's place and they came to the conclusion that she was making a good investment for her £400.
On July 3, everything was arranged to the satisfaction of everybody. Defendant bought the wedding ring and six guineas present for the bridesmaid and the event was fixed for July 17. On July 11 plaintiff wrote to him to make arrangements with the priest and he replied breaking off the match because of certain things that did not please him. He thought that he would not waste the ring so he married another lady.
The plaintiff a young lady of attractive appearance gave evidence bearing out the statements of her counsel. She added that she had bought the trousseau in preparation for the wedding.
Mr Fleming suggested in the course of cross-examination that it was a commercial transaction and that the match was broken off because the girl's father was "shifting" in reference to the fortune.
Evidence was given by plaintiff's father that when he offered the defendant a fortune of £100, the defendant replied "Oh you will give me another hundred". Witnesses remarked "you are a long time after the girl and you are getting enough. The defendant then consented to take £100. In cross-examination, witnesses denied that the £ 100 was to be paid in a solicitor's office by a certain day.
The further hearing was adjourned until tomorrow morning.
