The Express.
London, England, 1863-08-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCIIIT.—CROYDON, Atorsr 13.
(Before Baron Bramwell and a Specie! Jury.)
COURTNEY F. WAGSTAFF, AND SEED F. WAGSTAFF.

These two causes involved the same issue, and it WAS
therefore prearranged that they should be tried together,
The Hon. G. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were for
the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., sad Mr. Mennen
for the defendant.
These causes were commeneed on Wednesday afternoon,
and they were not brought toe conclusion until yesterday ;
but an the question at issue was not one of general interest,
it will not be necessary to go into the details at any grent
length. The plaintiffs are gentlemen connected with the
London prey, and the object of the actions was to endea-
vour to establish against the defendant, who is • merchant in
the City, the proprietorship of • penny newspaper called the
Iron Timra, which wan established in the month of January
of the present year, and expired, after lingering out •
melancholy existence, a few weeks afterwards. The
plaintiffs claimed • certain sum for arrears of salary due to
them, and also payment for their services to the end of the
parliamentary session. According to their evidence,
they were engaged by a Mr. Thomas Lyttleton Holt, who
had the management of the paper, for the session of
parliament at a salary of five guineas per week ; at
the time the mar stopped there were three weeks' salary
due to them, and, in accordance with the custom of the Lon-
! don press, they were entitled to be paid for the remainder of
the session. It was alleged, on behalf of the plaintiffs, that
Mr. Holt bad always given them to understand that there
were parties in to backqrround who were the real pro-
prietors of the paper, and that they had plenty of money.
With • view to tix the defendant it wee shown that he '
was in constant communication with Mr. Holt, and that
he had advanced money to pay the printing bill every week;
that he was very frequently at the office, and appeared
to exercise the authority of • proprietor by several acts done
by him, and which, it was contended, rendered him liable
upon the present action.
The case for the defendant was simply that he never
stood in the position of • proprietor of the newspaper, but that
on the contrary had by a special deed (which was put in)
expressly guarded himself from incurring any liability in
that shape.
. . .

Mr. *agstaff, the defendant, was examined, and his
version of the connexion that existed between him and the
Iron Times was that he had been acquainted with Mr. Holt
for many years, and bad upon one occasion sent him to
Canada upon some business connected with en oil com-
pany. In the beginning of the year Holt called
upon him, and asked if he would lend his assistance by ad-
vancing money to bring out • new morning newspaper,
which he represented was likely to be very successful, and
at bin earnest solicitation he agreed to advance him 1,0001.,
but he expressly stipulated that be wu not to incur any
liability beyond this sum, and that Holt was to be the prin-
cipal, and was to repay him bin money if the speculation
turned out successful, and the deed that had been pro-
duced was expressly drawn up by his solicitor for the pur-
pose of protecting him from incurring any further lia-
bility. Under this agreement be advanced LOOM in
the first instance, and afterwards, at the pressing solicita-
tion of Mr. Holt, he advanced further auras, amounting in
the whole to 2.7001., and he had lost that sum by the
transaction, his only merlin', being certain bills of exchange
that bad been given to him by Holt The evidence of the
defendant was positive as to the fact that he never was the
proprietor of the paper, and had never held himself out to
be so.
In

_ Mr. Wagetaff admitted that if the
speculation had turned out a successful one, he would have
beau entitled to claim three-fourths of the interest in the
paper, and he also said that he was aware that when it wee
nearly on it. last legs au attempt was made to carry it on
by means of a company, and if this bad been successful
something like 10,000/. would have been raised, and he
would have been entitled under the agreement to three-
fourths of that sum, but he said that this was entirely a
plan projected by Mr. Holt, and he knew nothing about it,
end bad nothing to do with it. The defendant likewise
denied positively that he was aware that the fro* Times
was established principally for the purpoee of puffing cer-
tain companies with which he was connected.
Mr. Thomas Lyttletoo Holt was exan.ined as a witness
for the defendant, and confirmed his evidence in every
particular relating to the circumstances under which the
Iron Times came into existence. He declared that be
alone was the proprietor, end that Mr. Wagstaff had
nothing more to do with the affair than the advance of the
1,0004. He also stated that the engagements he made
with the plaintiffs were merely weekly eogagetnente, and
that they were perfectly well aware that the affair was a
speculation of his own, which be hoped to make profitable,
and it was not likely that he should, under such circum-
stances, have made sessional engagements.
Mr. Prentice, at the close of the defendant's case, ad-
dressed the jury in reply, and he contended that the deed
relied upon was only • sham to protect the defendant
in case things went wrong, and that it was clear from all
the facts that he was the real party responsible for the Iron
Times, and that, without him, it would have never been
in existence. In reference to the facts he also reminded
the jury that it was admitted that if the speculation had
been successful be would have realised • very large profit,
and he contended that, under these circumstances, he ought
not to be allowed to escape from a claim like the present.
Baron Bramwell, in summing up the ease to the jury, said
that with regard to the question of damages, if they should
consider the defendant liable at all, they would have to de-
cide whether the engagement that was entered into was
• weekly one, or one for the whole session of parliament ;
bat the substantial question undoubtedly was, whether it
had been established to their satisfaction that the defen-
dant was the proprietor of this newspaper, or whether the
agreement that had been put in was merely • ,ham agree-
ment with a view to enable the defendant to avoid the re-
sponsibility that was now sought to be thrown upon him.
He concluded by putting several questions to the jury upon
different points of the case.

'me jury, after • abort minsultatioti, said they were of
opinion that the agreement was a real instrument drawn up
for the objects contained in it. With regard to the engage-
ment they were of opiniou that it was not • masional en-
gagement, but • weekly one. They were also of opinion that
Mr. Wagstaff vas not the proprietor of the newspaper.
Baron Bramwell said that upon the answers just given the
verdict would be for the defendant.

Mr. Prentice ■ubmitteerthatr the jury should be asked to
my whether they were of opinion that the defendant had at
any time acted iu such a manner is reference to the manage-
ment of the paper as to raise a ressoriable impression on the
minds of the plaintiffs that he was the proprietor.
Berea Bramwell put this additional question accordingly,
and the jury, alter deliberating a short time, said they were
of opinion that during the last three weeks of the existence
of the paper Mr. Wagstaff had so aided as torsi,. a reason-
able impression that he was the proprietor.
Upon this answer leave was given to the plaintiffs' counsel
to move foes verdict to be entered for them for three weeks'
salary.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—ExisroL, Auousr 13.
(Before Kr. Justice Wiles.)

---•
WATEEILUg E. WINISTON.-lIREACH Or OF MARRIAGE.
. .

-....-.
Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Ulm were for the plaintiff
Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., wee for the defence.

The declaration stated that the defendant promised to
marry the plaintiff ; that a reasonable time host elapsed, and
be had refused to fulfil his promise. The defendant denied
the promise, and alleged that the plaintiff wee not ready and
willing to marry.
Mr. M. Smith, in stating the case, said that the plaintiff,
Mire Jane Waterman, was the daughter of Mr. Cbarlea
Waterman, who was a muter carpeater of Bristol, and she
brought her action against the defendant, Mr. Peary Wins-
ton, for a breech of the most serious engagement into which
parties oould enter. It appeared that the defendant, Mr.
Winston, after an acquaiotance of some months with Mies
Waterman, made bar as offer of marriage, and the engage-
ment was announced to the parents of Him Waterman, and
also to her acquaintances, and for several seen the inti-
macy went on, and Mr. Winston ultimately, in the most
heartless way, broke his engagement. The plaintiff, Miss
Waterman, went in the year 11156 to Brecon, as fore-
woman in the shop of Hrs. Rich, ► milliner there. blia.
Rich carried no a respectable Bantus. and Mime Waterman
went into establishment, and whilst there it wee that
she met the defendant, who it appeared was a young man
in a respectable position in life. He wu agent to a canal
and coal company in Brecon, and the salary and the appoint•
ment that he bad under that company be (the learned coun-
sel) wee told were worth to him about 200 f. a year. He wsa
a pima thaniono in a respectable ponitian of life, end, in

point of age, was somewhat older than Miss Waterman, the!
plaintiff, who was about 23 y ears. lie had said that Miss 1
Waterman went to Brecon in 1856, and ate very soon
afterwards made the acquaintance of the defendant. He
walked with her and her cousin upon various occasions,
and received leave to see her at Mrs. Rich's, and after eight
or ten months the intimacy ended in courtship, and court.
ship ended in his making her an offer of marriage.
There could be no doubt of that, for be should be
able to show them letters written by Mr. Winston to Miss
' Waterman, which could leave no doubt that they were in-
deed engaged persons. They would find that the defendant
wrote to the plaintiff's parents, as a young man would write
to the parentis of the girl to whom he was engaged, and he
distinctly wrote of his marriage and his prospects. That
intimacy went on for • considerable time, and he (the
learned counsel) of course could not tell them what passed
between the two young people about the time mentioned
for their marriage and their prospects in life ; but, unfortu-
nately, after the promise bad been made for two years, Mr.
Winston seduced Miss Waterman, and the consequence was
that • child was born in 1861. Not a breath of suspicion yea
there upon the fair fame of Miss Waterman previously, and
the cruel position in which she was then placed was en-
-1 tirely owing to the man to whom she was affianced,
and who *educed her in the way he (the learned counsel)
had mentioned, after having obtained her affections.
The girl was, of course, mint uoluippy when she found the
state in which she was, said she celled upon Mr. Winston to
fulfil his engagement before her chime became known to the
world • but all her entreaties were in vain, andhe refused to
fulfil his promise, and the poor girl was obliged to go home
to bee parents, and there she was confined, and it was for
the breach of promise to marry her trader those aggravated
circumstances that that action was brought. There was
really no Idea upon the record by the defendant, except
that be did not make that promise. He had, however,
stated that she was not ready to marry him. Such •
statement was untrue—the poor girl was only too willing
that she should become the wife of the man who was the
father of her child. His (the learned counsel's) duty would
be simply to show them that the promise was made and
then toast them to award such damages as they thought
would recompense, as far as they thought damages could re-
compense, that poor girl. The letters would speak for
themselves, aa they were the sort of letters which would be
written by a man to the girl of hischoice. They were writ-
ten when both were engaged is business, sod they referred
to the business in which each was engaged, and they also
referred to conversations and matters between themselves,
to which the jury could have no key ; and in part the
letters were unintelligible ; but there could be no doubt
that the promise bad been made and that the
defendant had treated Miss Waterman as his affianced bride.
The learned counsel then read a number of letters which
showed that Mr. Winston stood not only in the position of
• man who was likely to get 00, but in the position of one
who had to • oonsideaable extent got on. It would be •
question for the jury to consider how his prospecta stood,
when they came to consider the injury dune to the poor
girl, who reasonably hoped that she might share his posi-
tion, so that they might give her a compensation for the loss
which she had sustained, It was clear that an engagement
was made, and that the parties were together as accepted
husband and wife, the letters to the father sod mother
showing that. Those were the short facts of that came.
He should call the father before them and then they
would have no doubt that the )engagement was made, and
being made, that it had been cruelly and heartlessly
broken. _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Rich, Charles Waterman, father of the plaintiff, and
some other:witnesses were examined in support of the plain-
tiff's case.
Mr. Kerslake cross-examined the witnesses with a view to
show that the defendant au a mere boy when be became
acquainted with the plaintiff, and also to raise au inference
that no promise of marriage was given.
Mr. Kandla° addressed the jury in an able speech for the
defendant, and the Judge having summed up, the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 100/.

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A respectable, gentlemanly looking man, named Heron
Hudson, described as a reinmercuil traveller, was placed
at the bar yesterday before the Lord Mayor, in the custody
of detective officer F'ackman, who had apprehended him at
Birmingham, upon a warrant signed by his lordship,
charging him with embezzling various sums of money,
amounting to 153/., received by him on account of his
employers, Mews. Forbes, Hudson, and Co., wine mer-
chants, in Garlic-hill.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson was engaged to conduct the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Gammon appeared for the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was employed by the pro-
secutors as commercial traveller, and in that capacity it was
his duty to travel through the midland counties and obtain
orders and also to collect the debts due from the customers to
the firm which came within the range of his journey. To en-
able him to do this lists of debts were sent him to collect,
embracing the customers of each district through which he
passed on his journey. On the 2nd of June, io the present
year, a list was sent to him comprising the amounts due to
the firm from customers in Nottingham. On the 214.11 of
the same month a similar list was sent to him comprising
those customers in Derby whose accounts were due, and on
the Ist July another list, which was for Burton-on-Trent,
was mat to him. Besides these a number of other lists
were forwarded to the prisoner, all of which be returned on
the 4th July, when he came to Loudon, together with the
amounts mentioned therein, but the three lists particularly
alluded to he did not return, nor did he hand over the
money. On the 4th Auguste however, the prosecutors re-
ceived a letter signed by the prisoner, id dated Hansworth,
in which was enclosed the three lists in question, stating
that he had received the money, amounting to 153/. 171..
less about 61., and treated it sea debt, which he would pay
' off by instalments of U. per week, or if it were required at
once he could obtain it of his brother. He had spent a
portion of the 1531. in the purchase of a lease, and the rest
he had laid out in the purchase of a stationery business.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Goodman, the chief
clerk, Mr. Garrard, the junior partner in the firm, stated
that there had been originally a written agreement with the
prisoner, but since the death of his brother, who wets a part-
ner in the firm, a fresh agreement, which was verbal, had
been entered iuto, and the monies alleged to have been
received had been paid to the prisoner since the verbal
agreement. The prisoner had not to bear the brunt of any
bad debts. He was paid by a commission alone. The money
he collected was on account of orders the prisoner himself
had procured. The commission would not be upon the
amount of the orders he received, but upon the actual re-
ceipts which he brought, so that he would not receive Corn-
miasion upon a bad debt, although the order for the goods
which had been supplied were obtained by him.
Mr. Gammon put some questions, apparently with a view
to place the case is the light of a debt; but upon a suggestion
from Mr. Goodman, he abstained from pushing that ques-
tion at present.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson said it would be necessary to obtain
the attendance of witnesses from the country, in order to
prove the payment of the money, awl be therefore asked for
• remand.
_ _

-
The prisoner was remanded, but upon Mr. Gammon's sp•
plicstion was admitted to bail, himself in 40U1., and two
sureties in IMOi. each. . .

A gentleman present maid if be were allowed to say a few
words, be thought the whole matter might be easily ex-
plained and settled there and them.
His lordship said he could not allow any observations to
be made, as the prisoner might be prejudiced, and as to a
settlement he could not sanction such a pt oceeditig.
Mr. Gammon explained that the gootlemao who hail
spoken was the prisoner's brother, and the Mr. Hudson who
bad died WAS a partner in the film, and another of the pri-
soner's brothers, and Mr. Garrard waa the brother-in-law.
The whole matter, be thought, aroma out of a little family
feeling. This, however, was denied by one of the firm.
hail was tendered and accepted, and the prisoner was
allowed to leave the court with his friends.

REILY v. STEVENS' PATENT BREAD
MACHINERY COMPANY (LIMITED).