The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-07 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRClllT.—thim.msroßo, MARCH 6.
(Before Baron Bramwell and a Common Jury.)
11. 6IILLIMIL

This was an action to recover damages from the defen-
dant for his having broken bid promise to marry the
Ph!intiff*

t Parry and Mr. Coati were for the plaintiff ;
and was for the defendant.
B%7Philbrick
The plaintiff, Eliza Freeman, who was stated to be
about t 2 years old, brought this action against the
defendant, who is employed as bailiff or broker to his
uncle, a maltster and farmer, residing at Hatfield
Broad Oak, in this county, for a breach of promise of
marriage. It appeared that she was engaged as a domestic
servant in the establishment of the uncle of the defen-
dant in the year 180, and an intimacy sprang up be-
tween the parties, which resulted in the defendant making
her an offer of marriage. He, however, refused
to carry out kis engagement, and the conse-
quence was that an action was brought against
him by the plaintiff, which was to have been tried at the
last summer assizes, but the parties came to an arrange-
ment without going into court, by which the defendant
undertook to pay the costs and to give the plaintiff W.
This arrangement, it appeared, however, was only carried
out so far as related to the ants, and the 501. was
paid. The plaintiff went to live in service in London, and
according to the case that was sought to be established on
her behalf, the defendant subsequently renewed his inti-
macy with the plaintiff and again made her an offer of
marriage, and a second time refused to carry out his en-
gagement, and the present action was brought against him
in consequence of that breach. Two of the sisters of the
plaintiff were examined, who clearly proved that the de-
fendant had renewed his engagement, and that he had re-
peatedly expressed his intention to make the plaintiff his
wife, and had called them " his sisters." No evidence was
given as to the reasons that induced the defendant to
refuse to carry out his promise.
Mr. Philbrick addressed the jury principally in mitiga-
tion of damages ; and he also endeavoured to show that
the plaintiff had released the defendant from hie first
promise, and that he had not renewed the engagement.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, LSO!-
(Before the Chief Justice.)

Two special jury causes, which were cross actions for
aaaault, were disposed of by arrangement between the par-
ties, and the others were of the most uninteresting de-
scription.
The Chief Justice got through tht calendar early in the
day, and he then proceeded to try some of the remaining
common jury causes.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.— NORTHAMPTON, MARCH 6.
NISI Piiu COURT.—(Before Mr. Barn Martin and a
Special Jury.)

POOLER r. THZ LONDON AND NORTH WIL,TERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., Mr. Bulwer, Q.e., and Mr. Mere-
wether ap d for the plaintiff ; Mr. Keane, 14. C., and
Mr. Metcalfe for the defendants.
This was an action to recover compensation for injuries
sustained by the plaintiff in what is known as the Watford
accident on the London and North Western Railway.
The plaintiff, who is 40 years of age, stated that he
managed the Northampton branch of the business of
Messrs. Frisby, Dyke and Co., for which be received a
salary of 2001. a year, which would he increased if he
increased the business. Last Whit-Monday he started
from Northampton in a fiat-class carriage of an excur-
sion train to London. He sat at the side of the car-
riage, beck to the engine, and there were three other
persons in the carriage. When they got to llletchley they
took up two other trains, and proceeded with two engines,
about 40 carriages, and nearly 2,000 pieuiengera. When
they got to King's Langley station the train by some man
got off the line and came into collision with a bridge. The
plaintiff was thrown forward, and his nose and forehead
struck the cheek of the gentleman opposite, cutting it open.
The plaintiff's nose and forehead were cut, and he was then
thrown back, his shoulders coming into collision with the
arm of the seat. After that he became insensible, and re-
membered nothing more till he found himself on the em-
bankment with some people attending to him. He was
sent back to Nort' ampton the same evening, and suffered
great palm in the head, back, and abdomen. He was attended
by Dr. Mash, of Northampton, who soon discovered that in
addition to other injuries he was suffering from umbilical
hernia. He went to the seaside, and for a time was in
such a nervous state that be could not bear the sight of
anything that had the slightest appearance of danger, and
at times they were obliged to blindfold hint while be was
walking. His back and head bad got better, but even
now he was unable to write more than one letter, and could
only partially attend to business, in consequence of which
his salary was reduced by M.
Dr. Mash .tated that umbilical hernia was dangerous to
Wei( the truss was not kept on, and that unless the
plaintiff used great care, it might become strangulated
hernia.

Dr. F.rricson, senior surgeon at the University Hospital,
and professor in the London University, stated that ho
had examined the plaintiff a fortnight ago in consultation
with Dr. Mash, and found him suffering from tenderness
in the head and bridge of the nose, and great tenderness
be,ween the shoulders, indicating that the spine had been
strained. He found a rupture in the abdomen about the
size of a walnut, which was perfectly reducible. This was
quite incurable, was always dangerous to life, and might
become strangulated at any time; stooping down, cough-
ing, or straining in any way :night produce that result,
and an umbilical rupture was far more serious than any
other.

Dr. Flewitt, • physician, and member of the College of
Surgeons, was called, but before his evidence was con-
cluded, the defendants consented to • verdict for the
plaintiff—damages 1,0401.

DARTNELL V. THY LONDON AND NORTH WINTER/I RAILWAY