The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-04 00:00:00

EVENING, JUNE 4,.
.1852.

eased in a cosi whersia the beech of a nusishee contract
was complained of, whim there was mere cruelty,
cowardice, sad recklessness en the part of • defendant,
or lees iodisation to atone or make amends fur
an injury inflicted upon • highly respeetable and
amiable young lady, than would be disclosed in the case he
had then to lay before the jury with reference to the con-
duct of the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was
Yin Harrison, daughter of the late Mr. Francis Harrison,
of Blackheath who formerly carried on the bushier of •
goldsmith in Westminster, and the defendant was a gentle-
man of property residing near Farnham in Surrey ; and
though the plaintiff was compelled to adopt these proceed.
imp to vindicate herself, there would not be any attempt
made on the other aide to disparage her character—indeed
there could not, for scrutiny was invited and censure defied.
The acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendant
commenced about six years ago, at the residence of a Mrs
Techner, at Oodaliaing, where Miss Harrison was staying
on a visit; and in the month of October last year,
the defendant made a proposal of marriage to her,
having on the Bth of that month gone to Mrs. Techner's
where the plaintiff then was, as he slid, to take the plain-
tiff to a party ; but instead of taking her to any party he
took her in a direction contrary to that Ito should have
taken to the party, and In the course of their walk the pro-
mise for the b breach of which damages were now sought was
made. The defendant was not a youth who might, from
inexperience or indiecretion, enter 'hastily into an engage-
ment of this description ; he was, on the contrary, a man of
mater. age, verging on forty, and he did not propose mar-
riage to the plaintiff until he had been acquainted with
her for six years, so that he could not plead that, like
Romeo, he was caught at first sight with the charms of a
Juliet. Tho promise made, as he had stated, was confirmed
by the defendant's subsequent actiors. He introduced the
plaintiff at his mother's house as his future wife, the preli-
minary arrangements for the marriage were made, the
wedding dress was bought, the wedding cake and the ring
were ordered, and ho brought her to London to select
furniture for their residence that was to be,
and even more than this had the defendant done,
for he had himself fixed a day for the marriage ceremony.
On the 3rd of January he left home on a visit to some
friends, the arrangements being made for the marriage to
take place on the 10th of February, but before that day
, arrived he changed his purpose, and he deputed a friend to
' do that which he had not the courage to do himself, namely,
Ito honestly come forward and avow the fact. The members
of the plaintiff's family feeling indignant at such conduct,
called upon him for an explanation, and in reply, he wrote
a letter, the contents of which he would place before the
jury. The I. d serjrant here read the letter. In it the
defendant expressed deep regret for the course he had pur-
sued, and urged that the proposal of marriage he had made
was hasty and ill-advised, and was made under • nervous
excitement, through which he mistook esteem for affection.
Evidence was then given. It appeared that the plaintiff
was 33 years of age, and was entitled to an income of about
1001. • year. The defendant was pawned of freehold
property in Surrey. Medical evidence was given to show
that the plaintiff's health had sustained a serious shock from
the disappointment.
Mr. Phinn, in mitigation of damages, urged that there
was not the least shadow of imputation on the plaintiff, and
that the cause of the defendant not fulfilling his engage-
meat was, that it was considered it would not prove a happy
union. He defended his client from the imputations cant
upon him by the counsel on the other side of reckless
cruelty, and left the jury to say what fair and reasonable
damages the plaintiff was entitled to.
The Deputy Endersheriff having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of 5001. damages.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION-IIOUSE.
George Leri, the keeperuf a beer-shop at the Old Swan
Wharf in Thames-street, was summoned by Inspector
Mitchell before Sir Peter Laurie for " unlawfully and know-
ingly having suffered gaming to be carried on in his house."
The cive clime under the head of charges under the betting
system, so publicly denounced. Mrs. L-vi, the wife of the
defendant, appeared fur him, and stated that ho was pre-
vented by illness from personally atteuding to answer the
accusation.
John Whisby said—l am 17 years of age, and am paid 6
shillings a week as an errand boy to a mercantile concern.
On Tuesday, the 2.3 th May, I went into the tap room at the
defendant's house, at about 8 n'clook. There were at the
time about a dozen boys of the same age in the place. Of
them I knew nothing except by eight. I had some beer,
and I made a wager. The landlord came In as I was laying
&wager with a key named Ilamilton upon the Derby, which
was to be run the tollowing day. I betted 10s. to' s. 64.
against Hobble Noble, the favourite horse, and a lad named
Hamilton took the wager, end we put the stakes into the
landlord's hands.
Sir Peter Laurie—How did you know anything about
Bobbie Noble ?
Witness—By hearing a great deal of talk about the horse
in many places.
Sir Peter Laurie—Was the wager put down in writing ?
Witness—lt was.
Sir Peter Laurie—Had you betted there before ?
Witness—l had not. Ihe wager was written down upon
a piece of paper.
Sir Peter Laurie—Were you making what is called
your book atat
Ia not
thejime?
keep a
book
.
Sir I'eter Laurie—And did Mr. Levi hold the stakes ?
Witness--He did.
Sir Peter Laurie—Have you woo the wager?
Witness—Yes; but I have not yet received the money.
Mr. Levi still holds the money, and the memorandum of
the bet.
Sir Peter Laurie—Who wrote the memorandum ?
I think I wrote one and Hamilton wrote another, and
placed them both in the landlord's hands.
Inspector Mitchell-1 told the landlord, when I went to
inquire into the circumstance, to retain the money in his
hands until the matter should be judicially investigated.
Walter Hamilton said—l am a hairdresser, and 19 years
of age. I have been often in Mr. Levi's house. I have
not seen much betting there. I knew Hobble Noble from
hearing people talking about him, and I was in the land-
lord's house on the day before the Derby, and laid the
wager with Whisby of which he has spoken.
Sir Peter Laurie—Wheu did you get the half-crown?
Witness—Mrs. Levi gave me the half-crown to make the

Sir Peter Laurie—Had you any beer?
Witness—l had not any beer whatever.
Sir Peter Laurie—Did Mr. Levi know that Mrs. Levi had
given you the half-crown to lay the wager?
Witness—lle did not know it until ten minutes after-
wards, when he came into the house.
Mrs. Levi—My husband knew nothing about it. The
feet is my husband first informed the Superintendent ups
the subject
The Inspector said that his attention wee first drawn to
the house by the ciacumstanee of a robbery which had
taken place in the remises in which the first witness en.
amined was an errand boy. From these premises a cloak
and some money had been stolen, and in the tourse of the
investigation, which it had been found necessary to ins*
tute, the attention of the polite had been necessarily at-
tracted to the beer-shop, which was frequented by of
the description of the two who bad been Just ex
there was no doubt at all that the produce of the
was applied to the purposes of hotting there.
Mrs. Levi—l enure your Lordship that I did not give
the half-crown to Ilamilton with the intention that he
should lay a wager with it. I knew nothing at all
about betting going on. As for my husband, he goes out
every morning at an early hour, and does not return till
half-post 10 at night ; and he is employed all the time as a
porter. Ilamilton was to have laid out the money for me.
Inspector Mitchell said the landlord had acknowledged
that the circumstances of the wager and the written state-
ment of it were known to him, es well as facts connected
with other wagers made in the house. It was not neces-
sary, the officer submitted, to make any further details at
the present moment.
Sir Peter Laurie—Certainly fit. I have no doubt that
the matter is in excellent hands, and I tract that the City
police will exercise the utmost vigilance fa eases of this de-
scription. Beer shops, so long as they aumaln to a certain
extent independent of magisterial cembuil, are, in al
opinion, the high road to the Old Bailey, eipecially whoa
they are mixed up with this atreaktas batten arum
which has destroyed so many clerk. mai dirt poems it
whom the confidence of their employees has been repass&
It is gratifying to me to be able to state that in the metre.,
politan public-houses the practice has been to all appose.
ance completely checked. I know that in the aTelledell
district of Marylebone there is not one piablitehenes hl
which betting is allowed. I attribute that to the pewee
which the magistrates have over licensed houses.
Inspector Mitchell said he did not think there was
public-house in the City in which the practice was per-
mitted.
Sir Peter Laurie—The infamous betting-houses whiek
have started up of late out of the efforts to abate the forma
nuisance are not, I apprehend, to be put down without am
set of parliament, and the legislature must as soon as
possible supply the remedy. The authority of the magis-
trates in other cases can be exercised in my opinion
effectually by the City Police Act, and by particular provi-
sions in the Metropolitan Police Aet, it is enacted that
every person who shall keep. any house, shop, or place of
public resort wherein provisions, liquors, or refreshments
of any kind shall be sold or consumed, and who shall
knowingly suffer any unlawful games, or any gaming
whatever therein, shall be liable to a penalty amounting
to SI. for every offence of the kind. From a careful peruser
and consideration of the acts of parliament on this most
curious and important question, and of the decisions made
in the courts of law I believe that the fact of keep a bet-
ting room ins public house is sufficiently an set ef
to bring a victualler within the pro of al=
against gaming, and that all such rooms Y limed beam
may be suppressed es the law now imraft may e. gab
of parliament to which I have moss ftaiiMy redismail
beer shops come within the same porybions and as,
strictions.
Mrs. Levi requested that the MI might be adjourned
until her husband should hays 4111 liggertunity of ap-
pearbig.
Sir Peter Laurie—He she be heed Mat isertainly. I
dare as ha_ will have the Stinks the par-
ticular degas addle amp airkst Yr& sae slim-
-1 I am dakmakmill. medl know
Wins jek is dm eatimaiaation, to
cheek SDli.
TM um, was Ilam mimed to Masi ewer till Thursday
next

Francia John Absolm7,;;;;;;;;t wko keeps a brothel
at No. 39, tlichaoad•street, Vaszball-read, was Ibtally
gambits, oa a charge of Isdoesatly asswaltlag his owe
daughter, a gild of 10 pan of ago, sad Woo with sosult-

ing and
of 11.
Mr. Elliott observed that there could not be the slightest
doubt on the mind of tiny person who hod braid the evi-
dence, of his guilt in respect of the disgusting and un-
natural offences with which he was charged ; and, after ex.
pressiug hi. utter abhorrence of his idiom:liable conduct,
• ntenced him to pay a penalty of 51. for the assault on his
daughter, and also M. for the assault on the girl Evans, or
in default to stand committed to prison for tour months.
The prisoner not being prepared with the fines, was handed
over to the gaoler, and it was said that some time ago he
seduced his eldest daughter. now a girl of 20 years of age.

to seduce Catherine Evans, a girl