The Express.
London, England, 1862-08-04 00:00:00

defendant ever to have adopted such • step, and that it was
an illustmtion of the old story of the monkey sad the tetrad
the hot cbeenuts. lle wished it to be clearly understood
that in these observations he did not intend to refer to the
respectable gentlemen who acted as the Oehler' solicitors
(Mews. Lewis and Lewis), but to other feriae more imme-
diately connected with her, bet who did not oars at all for
her feelings or for the defendant's, or what exposure took
place, so long as they effected their object of obtaining
money. The !aimed counsel then proceeded to refer to the facts
of the case, cud submitted that, even upon the evidence 113
it stood, it WWI ridiculous tosuppose that General Shirley had
ever made a promise of marriage to the plaintiff. The fact
was that the whole proceeding was one that might be ,
chased among the tricks of London, of which the jury no
doubt bad frequently heard. What could possibly have
been intended by such an advertisement as the one they bad
heard of in this cue, arid which had led to the plaintiff and
the defendant being introduced to tech other? Had any
one ever heard of a respectable young woman or any young
woman who had respectable connexions causing such an ad-
vertisement to be published—an advertisement describing
herself as young sad accomplished, and requiring an engage-
ment with, of all otherpersons in the world, single gentlemen
or widowers? Why, the object was perfectly plain.
She could not have expected that any person
with honourable intentions, or who really wanted
the services of a respectable young woman
to superintend his household affairs, wankl have answered
such an advertisement. Then,
.again, there wee the name
of the party to whom application was to be made—" Coo-
! stance." Did any one ever hear of • housekeeper of such
• name? Why, it was perfectly ridiculous. Thereoould
be no doubt u to the real object and intention of insert-
, ing such an advertisement, and it had that effect. The
defendant answered the advertisement, and he was not
going to attempt to justify his oondn.t on the awe of
morality ' • but the question now before them was whether
be had made a promise of marriage to the plaintiff,
and whether he ought to pay her • large amount
of money as damages for breaking that promise.
What were the facts of the case? Why, within •
very few days of the first interview that took place
between the parties, the plaintiff accompanied the
defendant to Greenwich, and then to Southend, where
she remained with him all night. As to the lettere that
had been put in, they showed clearly the nature of the in-
timacy that existed between the plaintiff and the defendant
almost immediately after they became acquainted, and they
were no doubt couched in terms of great affection. The
defendant did entertain great affection for this young lady ;
and but for her own 000 duct, to which he alluded in one of
the letters that had been rend to them, he would have con-
tinued to protect her, and he was still desirous of making
provision for his child, and also for the plain-
tiff herself, but be would not submit to an
attempt like the present. He then went on to cam.
meat upon the other facts of the case, and said
that it was ridiculous to imagine that the defendant could
ever have made a promise of marriage to the plaintiff, or
that she could have been deoeived by such a promise sue
if it bad been made ; because the condition of a man in the
position of Cameral Shirley, and the fact that he was mew
rated from his wife, must have been known to all the world.
The learned counsel concluded • powerful address by re-
peatiog that he did not desire at all to defend General
Shirley from the chargeli of immoral conduct, but he did
donee to convince the jury that be was not the hese and de-
liberate seducer that he hail been repreeonted to be by his
learned triend,sad that the plaintiff had no tight to recover
in the present action.
Baron Bramwell, in summing up the cue to the jury, said
they bed nothing to do with punishing the defendant for an
immorality of which he might have been guilty, or with
giving compensation to the plaintiff, or providing for the
child ; and the only questions for them to consider were,
whether the defendant had promised to marry the plaintiff,
whether he had broken that promise, and if so what amount
of damages she was entitled to by ratio° of his so doing?
He then called their attention to the facts that bad bees
disclosed, and said that the advertisement which had led to '
the parties being introduced to each other wu certainly •
very singular one, and that there appeared to be no doubt
that within a very few days after the parties were first in.
troduced to each other they went out together, and the
nature of the C0131)67j011 between them was perfectly clear.
It was for the jury, therefore, to say, looking at all the
facts of the ease, whether it was probable that the Weed.
ant ever made a promise of marriage, or whether • young
woman not only twenty-one years of age, but even one of
fifteen, could have been deceived as to the real character of
the soonexion which the defendant was desirous to form
with her.

The jury, after consulting a short time in the box, ex-
pressed a wish to retire. They returned into court in about
tweet; minutes, sod pee • verdict for the defendant.

THOMAS V. BHllll.ll'.

This was another action brought by the same plaintiff
:st the defendant to recover upon a contract he wan
alleged to bare entered into, and which was contained in
the letter produced in the former trial, for the support of
the child of the plaintiff.
It was arranged, however, that the case should be referred,
and no evidence was consequently gone into.