The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-22 00:00:00

-
wee a ward in Chancery, and my husband was arpoictod
by the court to attend him. ble is a Itratenaut in the
82nd liagimeat. I orinesated to hie suit to my daughter. Rs
arrived home in April hat. At their first interview the de.
feadant'soondoct was not SO warm IS I should have thought
it would be. Her conduct was that of a lady "'tamed..
This was on the Thursday before Good Friday. On Good
Friday be dined with us ; on Saturday he went to Mewl.
On the Thursday following we all went to the theatre, owl
he slept at our 1101108. On Saturday, the 22nd April,
he took my daughter to the Crystal Fees. Re
dined at His behaviour was very cork
bat my meter as very affecticeate. I knew og
so quarrel& Oa Sunday the plaintiff seemed nays%
and she telegniphed to him .to come. He mid be
had an appointment with his citor and mold aid COSIS
until the Wednesday. He was on that day with ay
daughter slow for an hour. She 'eked him to
stop, but he would mot, and went out of the house. He
seas for me, sad said he had broken the engagement with
my daughter. He was in a dreadfully excited sate.
trembling, and in a cold perspiratiou. My daughter sll4
to him, bat ho would not stop. I have not seen him lime
to speak to him. He gave me no reasons foe breaking aft
the match.
Cross-examined—When she gave her comsat to the
mgagement the plaintiff was 17 and the defendant 21: sad
I thought that the marriage should be postpooed. but I did
not contemplate their ahaagin their minds. When dity
first met ori his return hoes Wiia of cause they treed osa
another. His conduct led am to suppose he was very die.
tank I can say no more than that.
Mr. Hawkias—What could he do more than kin her!
(Laughter.)
Witness—l cannot say mom than I have said. I did ant
speak to him about being did's&
Wee there anything marked in his conduct towards hal—
-1 canted say ; I never had a daughter engaged before.
No, but you were"engaged" yourself you know. (A
laugh.) 1 can sa jrynsoldmore than I have. After we sae
home from the Palms we were all comfortabls,
and he and I chatted till 2 in the rooming. but I did art
complain to him of his conduct. He and my daughter wen
together again ea the following eaftrday. I oottood
no • peculiar in their conduct. I never knew they had
words 'On wee nothinj to indicate that anything
had weaned. the Saoday I saw that the pleatiff was
not happy, bat I thoaght she was annoyed that
Henry did not come. She mid she thought was
very unkind at him. Ho came on the following Weelate.
day sad told me belted had a disetuwirs with my dough.
ter about breaking off the engagement. My daughter told
me Harry wanted to see me, and I went. He wild set
see us together. He said Charlotte and himaalf Wright it
better to break off the engagement. I said I would have
my daughter in, but he said he would sot are
her. He did see her, but would sot lisp
to speak to her. His reason was for breaking od
the engagement was that he Dever could love her. lie did
n=that they
_had had disegreementa on the envious
y. Hs Ad sot complain of her tamper. He =Mho
wanted to break it off for a time ; that he should coatis's-
to visits at the loses as wad, and that the es.
gagemeat should stand over. Of comma I said I
could not think of such a thing. I reasoustratid
with him,
hadwhen he said that he Wad nOt love
her. He seen my daughter and be mat her to me to
say he would like to see me. When I saw him he seemed
very much distressed. I said I should take his letters to my
friends, and see if I mold not popish him for what I con-
sidered his disgraceful conduct.
him by
Mr. Hawkine—What, punish
an action for a breach'
of promess—ise•
I
Witnlf 1 bad bad my way, I would have punished
him in a very different way. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkint—l should like to know how you would have
punished him.
Mr. Keane--1 object that what the lady would have dons
is not evidesos.
The Lord Chief Justice—l think that you are over the
hoe, Mr. Hawkins.
Wiesen—The interview sided by my saying I would
call my daughter, and thereupon he took up his hat rd
went away. I don't remember going to an evening party
with my daughter within a week after this. We west to
some private thsatriciabe at an intimate friend's, but I think
sot within a week. I think the piece wee Mails and
Pam. My daughter plaed once and only oats.
Reexamined—The defendant did nos show me soy
paper at the last interview, nor did he give me asy mum
for breaking off, but that he could not love her. Frost
his manner I thought that he wirers to stand ovvr.
[The case wes proceeding when report left.]

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sitting, at Nisi Prius at Guildhall.—(Before the Lord
Chief Baron Pollock and a Common Jury.)
HOLMES V. SITSON.
This wan an action by an omnibus drives to reeover
damageable bodily injuries sustained in consequence of the
alleged Improper construction of a temporary
the Midland bridge over
Bliilwty. at Kentish Town.
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Butler Rigby 'peened for the
plaintiff ; and fir. Gifford, Q.C., for the defendant.
The plaintiff wan the driver of a Highgate omnibus' sod
the defendant was the contractor of the works of the Mid.
land Railway at Kentish Town. In the progress of the
works the defendant bad occasion to construct a temporary
bridge in the Kentish-town-road, and as the plaintiff was
driving his omnibus over it one of the wheels suddenly sank
into a hole which had been left opeo, and be was thrown
off the box with considerable violence, sustaatiog a men
injury to his shoulder, which prevented his following his
occupation for several mooths. It was said that • year
most elapse before he could entirely recover.
For the defence evidence was given to show that the
bridge had been properly built and was approved of by
the surveyor of highways for the parish, and that the
accident had arisen from the plaintiff driving against the
temporary kerb and displacing it, whereby the wheel of
the °melbas dropped 4 oe 5 inches.
The jury found • verdict for the plaintiff—Damao
1004