The Express.
London, England, 1852-12-07 00:00:00

Gate intelligence.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YESTERDAY.
&Trawl AT Nam PIMP, MlDl.Llol,:—Barons Ma. ISAROX MIAMI

AMP Corm% Ilium
LANOLEY V. ROlE.—lit►ACl[ OF PROMISE OF MAu-

11,1A0!.

Mr. James (with whom was Mr. Oray), in opening this
case, stated that the plaintiff WIL► the daughter of a vett fi-
nery surgeon, who formerly lived at Shrewsbury, but was
now residing at Walsall. The defendant was a young man
ngaged let funning pursuits, and in the breeding of race-
horse., and was entitled to considerable property under his
father's will. The horned counsel then proceeded to detail
the facts, which were proved by the folluwiug witnesses :
Mary Langley—l am the mother of the plaintiff. My
husband is a veterinary surgeon. My husband's father was
a clergyman. The defendant is a gentleman farmer, living
near bhrewsbary. The defendant first visited my house in
18.60. lie is about 26 years of age, and that is also the age
of my daughter. In IBM he said to me, that he hail come
to the house for the purpose of making my daughter
an offer, but he could never find her alone;
and he then desired to do so in the pro,
scnee of the family. lily husband said ho had
no objection, but his daughter was old enough to judge for
herself. My daughter was leaving the room at the time,
but he requested her to stay. Ile said to her " Have you
any objection 1" She said that was a subject that required
a pod deal of consideration. The defendant afterwards
visited my daughter at my house from time to time. He
said he had plenty of money ; hut he wished to go abroad
after be was married, and he should therefore try to raise
some more money on hi. property. Ile said he should like to
go to Paris for a trip alter the marriage. Ile continued to visit
my daughter from September, 1851, down to November in
the same year. lie proprril being married on the let of
November, in London, in cor.equence of which wedding
dresses, &e., were provided. I objected to their heiug mar-
ried in London. He said he wanted 2001. to go to l'aris
after they were married, and he could get it in London.
They left my house tottotlier, to be married in London.
By the Court —I did not go with them, or any one else.
Examination resumed—My daughter had a female cousin
living in London, and so hail the defen hint, and he
proposed that his cousin should he bridesmaid. They left my
house un a Thursday morning, and were to bare been
married on the Saturday morning after. On Siiiiday I
had a letter to say they were not married, and on that day
my daughter returned. I afterwards saw the defendant.
He came that evening with my daughter. 11, said he had
been di appointed in receiving the money, and my I
daughter preferred coifing home to remaining in town.
He said he was sorry, but they should have to go up again
in a few dila. He proposed that, after the mar-
riage, they should join an hotel with his farm,
and ho would have 700 f. instead of the 2001.
which ho had proposed to borrow on his propeety. We had
the typhus:fever in the house a few dux after my daughter's
return, and the defendant wishes! her to go to London to be
out of the way of infection. She accordingly went to London,
and remained two or three weeks, and whilst there the de-
resident wrote to her a letter of the 16th November, another
of the 2nd December, and a third of the lith Iheember,
still professing his attachment to the plaintiff, hoping that
he should soon Fe able to obtain the money he required on
his property, and then be married, My daughter returned
from London after she hid been there three weeks, and
arrived at Birminghain. She hail negotiated some business
for the defendant iu London, and obtained the MU.
lie wanted to get advanced on his props rep,
which sum she handed to the &fend int. Ile subsequently
unmoved to Walsall, and in April, 1862, defendant came
.I,(j to our house. I believe he saw my daughter, but 1
was not at home. In the autumn of that year he cone to
the Walsall races, and called at our hnuse. Ile promiesid
to come the neat day, as I told him I wanted to see him ;
but ho never came again. Ile continued to correspond
with my daughter, until lie finally broke it off. kly dough.
ter's health has been very indifferent ever since.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitely (with whom was Mr.
Untlsank)—My husband went to Shrewsbury to practise
in Mara; IVA. He earns trout Yoshall, Hs had lived thus

two years. Before that he had been living at
Abbots Bromfurd. It was not proposed that the defendant
should raise money to put my daughter in the Swan lon at
Shrewsbury. I never said so to Mile Clough. She kei pe
en inn in that town. I was present when my daogliter
made a representation upon whii h more, was lent to the
defendant, to bu returned in three weeks. My doughter
has had a former action for breach of promise, in which
was a witness, against a person called Parton. It was
tried, I believe, in July, 1849. She got 4001. damages.
remember stating on that trial that my daughter was very
poorly in consequence of the lows of Mr. Parton.
She recovered nee spirits after the trial again.
I remember producing forty or fifty love lettem
ow Mr. Parton's trial. I cannot say whether my
daughter ever had any other love affair. My daughter
25. Dal not say that she was of
Cm that ago ia4u. douit
knowknowmy daughter was L
en,out she will be 26 next
birthday. I don't know the year in which I was married
I can't tell to within two or the. a years. 'rho plaintiff is
the eldest child. When it was first proposed to raise money
on the defendant's property. he objected that it would in.
convenience him to do en until ho was 2d years of age—lie
is now only 24 years of age.
Ito•mamined—T;ie deleinlant knew of the action against
Parton before he began to piy his addresses to ray daugh-
ter. Defendant first proposed to borrow money.
Mr. Langley—l am Ito father of the pliiiii.ff. I re-
member the il.foliciant paying his addresses to my q iughter.
The witness corrobor ited the general facts, and to oceeded
to say : In February 1852 I saw the defendant at Wolver-
hampton, and asked him why he had neglected n.y daugh-
ter. lie said he had not done so ; he loved her as much
as ever, and intended to make her his wife. lie filti 't-
weeds ceased to pay any attentions to the plaintilf. I went
to see the defendant in the August following, and diced
with him. A person called Jorier, a veterinary surgeon of
Shrewsbury, vies also present. After dinner I told defen-
dant I wanted to speak to him privately ; but lie refused
to go out of the room, and slid that what I hail to commu-
nicate I must state before Jones. I refused to do so and
left the house. In the September following, I wrote to the
defendant, remonstrating with him on his conduct to my
daughter. I did out, however, receive any reply. Soon
after I saw him in Walsall, when I mid I would like to
speak to him about my daughter, and he replied in a very
offensive manner. Defendant's father left him about
9,0001. lie breeds race horses and hunters. Ile told me it
cost him 2,0001. to stock his farm. He told me he should
be worth considerable property when he was 25 years of age.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whfteley—No one lert! the
passionate expression, I have jut iyOkesi to as having been
made by the defendant but myself. There never was u pro-
position that my daughtre should take the Swan Inn by
herself. I drank wino with the defendant et the Walsall
rues.

Eresebius W. Langley—l are the brother of the plaintiff.
I saw the defendant at Walsall some time ago, end asked
him how he could serve toy sister so badly. Ile said he
lured her as well as ever, but he wanted somebody with a
lot of money, the same as his brother had. Ile told use that
he should have 40W. a year when ho was 24 years of lige.
Defendant knew of the action against It.trtou, and told rue
that the verdict against that person served hint tight—
that he was "a scamp, and ought to hare been tun-
sported." (Laughter.)
This being the plaintiff'. cue, Mr. Whiteley addressed
the jury for the defendant, and urged that the action had
been brought in London instead of Shropshire, because the
partite wcto too well khown in their own neighbourhood.
Ile did not intend to east any imputation on the plaintiff,
but he must oleo observe that there was no charge filmiest
tke defendant of having attempted to injure the person of
the plaintiff. Ws conduct towards her appeared to have
been perfectly moral and correct. The statement that
the defendant intended to marry the plaintiff when they
first went to London could not be true, because
neither of the parties hail resided long enough in London
to enable them to get married there. The fact of the
plaintiff and defend .nt b, tog away from home together un
that and on u subsequent occasion, to ley the let:digit, was
imprudent ; :out ne advantage had been taken by the dc.
Implant of the tempt Aiwa which had bean put in his way.
The whole proc :tiling, on the part of the plaintiff and her
parents, who appeared to be cunning and &winning people,
was an attempt to entrap the defendant, and obtain fur the
daughter either a husband or a second verdict, wi
damages, fur a breach sat promise withiu three years.
It had not been shown that any great warmth of
attachment existed between the parties, and Ms never in
his life had reed cinder love letters than those which had
been pr elueed in court, for they did not coldirii. a single
passi, mate eel:re...hoe. It was simply a question of datneges
and he would ask the jury what injury the l• ' • if had
sustained, either in eharacte ror person ? Ile contended
that the smallest amount of damages would satisfy the
justice of the case. Tke defendant's property had been
greatly exaggerated ; and such actions, brought as they
gencrully were merely as conintercia speculations, ought
nut to he encouraged.
The learned Judge having briefly summed up,
The jury retired, and, after being absent nearly four
hours, returned into court with a verdict fur the plaiutiff—
damages, 3241.

EQUITY COURTS.—YesrenuAr.
Bk.ollt ray roam Jusvices or mesas..
LI PARTE BIRD, IN RE CARER AND TELOE, BANK-
RUPTS.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. PAl..bs, for the assignees of the bank-
rupts, appeared in support of an appeal from the decision
of the commissionsr, admitting a claim against the bank-
rupts' estate in respect of a debt allegol to he due from
them to the creditor. Tho only question of interest in the
case related to the evidence adduced to establish the debt,
which consisted of the usual affidavit of debt sworn by the
creditor before a justice of the peace of New York, where
the creditor resided, and of an affidavit by a notary
of NLw York that the justice,before whom the creditor's
oath had be. n taken was a magistrate of that city. The
question was, whether this last affidavit ought also to hove
contained a statemen• that the notary was present when tLe
until was administered to the creditor. - -
Their lordships held that the affi lavit filed was suffi.;;Jiit
evidence of the claim without the anditional statement
suggested.

rsrnsr. ray Nuns or rue nous.
MACLAREN V. STAINTON.
This was a motion to dissolve an injunction which bad
been granted to restrain the Carron Company from prose-
cuting an action in the Court of Session in Scotland au .inst
the trustees and executors under the will of a Mr. Henry
Stainton.

Ir. Stainton, it appeared, wu for 27 years the ma•
naging director in England of the Carron Company, which
is a chartered company in Scotland for the manufacture of
iron. Mr. Stainton died worth, as was supposed,
more than 300,0001., a portion of which was real pro-
perty in Scotland, and a suit was instituted in this court for
the administration of his estate. The Carron Company,
however, who claimed a sum of 69,0001. against the estate
of the deceased for an alleged balance due from him to
them, and 38,0001. for interest, instituted a suit in the
Session Court, and an application was thereupon made to
this court for an injunction to restrain the parties from
proceeding in that suit, and the cause now came on on
motion to dissolve that injunction. The principal point
involved was whether the court bad jurisdiction; it
being contended that it had, on the ground that the corn-
, pany had premises and an agent in London, and also win iu
Liverpool.
His Honour said he conceived the court had jurisdic-
tion, and that, under the circumstances, it was fit and
proper to exercise it. The motion to dissolve the injunction
must be refused, and the injunctiuo would therefore con-
tinuo against the proceedings in Scotland; but there must
be liberty to apply if any of the parties wore so advi•ed.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Thomas Sandy., a clerk in the banking house of Glyn
and Co., was brought before the Lord Mayor upon a charge
of having stolen a 5411. note awl two 30/. notes, the property
of his employers. Mr. Mullen., of the firm of Bush and
Mullen., solicitors to the Committee of Bankers for pro-
tection from felony and fraud, attended fur tho prose-
cution.

Mr. Mullen said, the ease involved a complicated in-
quiry, the prisoner having pursued for the purpose of
evading detection a course which had caused a great deal
of contusion in the books of the establishment.
Mr. 11. B. Ittynelds, clerk at Messrs. Glyn and Co.'s
banking house, said the prisoner had bets right or
nine years in our bank. On the 23rd of Sept.
last, the balance of the day was wrong, the effects
being 2001. short of frit they ought to be. Upon
inquiry it was ascertained that a 2001. note was missing. I
do not 'craw whether we shall be able to learn the par-
ticulars of that note. On the 28th of September we found
that several other notes, to the amount of 200/., were me...
ing ; but the baloney was then right. On the I Ith of Oc-
tober four not., were missing, to the amount of 1001 (Inc
of them was for SOL, dated 9th March, 1852, and numb nd
88,114; one for 301., dated Bth May, 1852, numbered
7:1,10PJ ; and a third for 301., dated Bth May, and
numbered 74,634 ; other notes, covering the whole amount,
having been placed in their at, ad in the bank note drawer.
These three not, e, it was ascertained, had been paid into
the banking house by Messrs. Newton.
The prisoner was rrmaneed.
WESTMINSTER.

Richard Hamilton Graltam, described as • retired cap-
tain from the army, 88 yeses of •ge, was committed for six
wei ha ti the House of Correction, with hard ►ubour, for
iudectut exposure.

SPORTING.
TATTERSALL'S.—Momn AY.
WOLVERHAMPTON STEEPLE CHASE.
5 to 2 agst CAnig (taken and afterwards off.ved)
5 to I Vengeance (taken and afterwards offered)
8 to I -- Simple Peter.
8 to 1 lleroine.
8 to 1 -- Any other.
WOLVERHAMPTON HURDLE RACE.
6 to 2 agst View's (taken and afterwards offered)
4 to 1 Odllllllll (taken and afterward/offered)
cull:Arm CUP.
2,000 to 30 eget Nancy (taken)
2,000 to 30 Scarecrow (taken)
2,000 to 30 Muscovite (taken)
1,000 to 15 Merry Bird (taken)
1,000 to 16 Weathergage (taken)
DERBY.
Ted or three small bets were laid at 12 to 1 sot West
Australian, 16 to I agst Reiver, 18 to 1 eget Pharos, 40 to 1
agst North Pole, and 1,000 to 1.5 against Fiona-ma-Cowl.
Offers to take 20 to 1 about Umbria.