The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-13 00:00:00

MAERI&GZ CABL

The plaintiff in this are was the daughter of a widow,
who carried on the business of a lawmaker at Netting-bill,
and the defendant was the eon of a deceased merchant.
The action was to recover damages for • breach of promiu
of marriage accompanied by seduction. and at the trial
before the Lord Chief Justice, in Middlesex, the jury
awarded the plaintiff 2,50 X damages.
Mr. Muddlestoo. Q.C. (with whom were Mr. D. Beane,
Q.C., and Mr. Wrenfordsley), now moved on behalf of the
defendant for a rule fora new trial, upon the grounds that the
damages were excessive, and that the judge had misdirected
the jury. In reference to the first point, the learned
counsel detailed the circumstances of the cue, which have

already been fully placed before the public, and in particular
drew attention to the indiscretion of the plaintiff herself,
the little care which her mother Boomed to have bestowed
upon her, and also the fact that the defendant's income,
as far as the evidence at the trial showed,
was only between 6001. and 7001. a year, whilst
it was suggested at the trial, but not proved, that be
bad received 100,0001. under his father's will He after-
wards read an affidavit of the defendant, in which he swore
that his actual income from every source did not exceed 7501.
a year, of which 6441. terminated with his life. He further
stated that he had not seduced the plaintiff. Their acquent-
mice commenced by the defendant meeting the plaintiff in
Oxford-street on the IGth July, 1863, on which oc-
casion she leeched with hint at his request at a confec-
tioner's shop at the corner of Marylebons-lane. That she
afterwards accompanied him to the shop of ]tears. Orant
and Gut, silk merchants in Oxford-street, and he pur-
chased for her 14 yards of blue glace silk for 41. 151.,
15 yards of black lace for 9s. 4d., and a
shawl for 10e. 6d., which she accepted from him as
present. That on that occasion she made ass of au ex-
premien which showed that she would not object to a
more intimate connexion between them, and that a day
or two afterwards he met her by appointment and accom-
panied her to Cremorne-gardens ; and within a quarter of
an hour after their arrival there be had connexion
with her at a house of ill fame in the neighbourhood, with-
out any objection or condition on her 1... rt. Under these
circumstance it was contended that the damages were so
excessive that the court would interfere to revise the find-
log. As to the alleged misdirection he (the learned counsel)
read the shorthand writer's note of the summing up, sad
contended that the effect of it we" to lead the jury to
believe that they could give damages, not only for the breach
of promise of marriage, but for the desolation which had
been brought on her mother's house.
Mr. Justice Keating inquired whether imputations had
been cast upon the plaintiff in the course of the trial.
Mr. Hoddleston— Yes ; and he was prepared to take upon
himself the responsibility of so doing. He imputed that
she bad been to Cremorne, sad to Evana's ; that the had
been living with the defendant at differept places. There
were some questions as to her being with a greengrocer's
son at the foresters fete at Lord Holland's park ; other
questions in reference to a man named Price ; and a Mrs.
Beare was cross examined as to whether the plaintiff had
not said that Major Gordon had seduced her before she
knew the defendant. The statements in hie brief, however,
fully justified him in putting the questions he had.
Mr. Justice Keating—Such questions might be very
appropriate, but if they failed in convincing a jury they
might he dangerous.
The Lord Chief Justice said that there were also impu-
tations in reference to the persons in two houses in which
the plaintiff had lived. He had fully expected that wit-
nesses would be called to prove what was suggested, but
no such witoceses were called.

Mr. Justice Smith—The fact of the learned counsel being
instructed to pot such questions only amounted to this—
that the client who gave the instruction must take the coo-
sequences when it turned out that there was no evidence to
prove what had been said.
The Court, after some further discumion, refused the
rule.
Hale refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock and
Barons Martin, Chained!, and Pigott.
BOUILLON V. VALENTIN.

At the @Mica of the court the Lord Chief Btron asked
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., one of the counsel for the defendant.
whether Madame Valentin desired to have the judgment of
the court inthiecaee.

Mr. Ravin said he was informed and believed that she did.
The Lord Chief Baron—ln the first instance the court
declined to give judgment until the other case of " Valentin
v. Hall" had been tried, but as the defendant wishes for
our judgment, wears bound to give it. Oar judgment is that
in the case of &mitten v. Valentin" the verdict which
was found for the defendant shall be set aside, and that
there shall be a new trial. When the court orders a new trial
it usually does so without making any remark; and we
adopt that course on the presentoccarion.
Mr. Baron Channel' said the court would reserve the
question of costa until after the new trial.
Mr. Bovill—As the plaintiff is a foreigner, will your
worships call upon him to give security for costa
Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., no the part of the plaintiff, hoped
that question would be mimed by a separate motioe.
The Lord Chief Baron—We cannot deal with that
matter now. Mr. Bovill most make it the subject of a
separate application.
Mr. Bovill also asked their lordships to direct that the
property taken from Madame Valentin should be brought
into court, but they said this question must also be raised
by a distinct motioo.
Buie for a new trial made absolute.