The Express.
London, England, 1857-07-25 00:00:00

The learned counsel having severally addressed the jury on
behalf of their reative clieLts,
The karned Judge ermined up the evidence, and
The jury found a the prisoners Guilty.
Previous convictions were then proved against Black and
Alsop, who was a tickst-of-leave man, and they were sen-
tenced to penal servitude fur twenty years. The other pri-
soners ware sentenced to fourteen years' penal servitude.

CIVIL SIDL

(Before Mr. JusticeemsWWl end a Commas Jury.)
YARNELL P.
This was an action fur breach of promise of marriage, in
reply to which the defendant by his plena had not only
denied the making of the promise, but had also alleged that
the plaintiff and defendant had mutually agrwel to exonerate
each other front the performance of the promise.
Mr. Serjeant Hayes and Mr. Flowers were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Baden for the
defendant.

The ylaintlff Elisabeth Yarnell, is a dressmaker at East
Botterwick, about 34 years of site, and the defendant, who
is about 27 years old, now lives at Ditneaster, but until re-
cently lived at East Buttentick, he being captain and part
proprietor of a boat plying between the two places, and
being in the habit of gulag with hie boat backwards and
forwards from nne to the ether. As long as about eight
years ego an intimate acquaintance had become tatablished
between the plaintiff and the defendant, the latter of whom
was frequent in his visits to the former, and not very parti-
cular ma to the time of making there.

Jens Merrell, the p • sister, living with her parent•
at Bishop's Norton, deposed to the frequent visits of the de-
fendant at the elnintirs how, and al.. that she hod several
times beard him say that he intruded to marry the plaintiff;
that two days had been filed for the wedding, one in July
Itti3, and the other in April, lt+ss , but that on the deg A
tined the defendant did not make his appearance.
Marla Middleton, the plaintiro aunt, • widow, pr 4w4
that the defendant had ones, said that she should I the
bridenmaid, and no one else, and that she had • jt„.By
bought • deem and • bonnet on purpose for thew with".
That wan in 1553 and she had seen the plaintiff ~ja
fondant together as late a. August, 1356, apparent ly en the
usual terms; but that In December of that ye or ha was
married to mother lady at Donratter.

The foliating letter. were read as part of t 1 u planeirn
can :
"Doncaster, Jo tit's_ tkrj.
"My dear Elimbeth,—l hare sorry to u,l you we
shell not be home before tumidity or lust ,y seat. g re-
ceived your Letter which contained a man J fshity, for
neither nursed miss Glew nor purposed t a walk see th her
and I hope my dear Dear Meath you will sever believe
that ear I said i was glad you was fount' , au, fur g think
have reason to say as little Sent that as yourself, ea I hope
yea will not think no more about that fo r I mast help whet
they my but I shall not my A deal re we at press for it
looks like rain we may be home on Sa' Silky so I 'hall con-
clude with my kind love to you and s tha /neap,.
" Your affectionate 10 tee, "R.
Pay do.t thoush,oo4 my I o, • 1157 troth
Ur think toy bort looMe . mring
0, Do tb thine A b art of york
Faithful to the and tw r ems,.
an. 2.
"My bran Doer Elizabeth. hepe youutterwick haveJ got the
wont of the Row over but Ihi ve mine to come yet. I have
not heard any one say any thir g ADDS, I'ykett says that wee
was tesod blood to stair that ul dbrnasd gutted Nevi' oat ea
weed, but I shall not say A. deal at presented I ham to come
Ste year house by daylight. please teat me know sow way
ersether for I dorsi not at any other time I lay the blame
area myself for your sterna it hut. I wee set than
" Your e .ffoctiosalle lover
"R. Moony.
I was at Theme oastinday ea if you rote I received no
Lea r. Adwe ged bleat-pat. Des Dear Elizabeth if lam
,ever to come isse vour 11 sue any more after this time please
ate ll ins for I eitimitlar ry much like to know your mad.
.11 bra SUMS same yours for ever."
" Denotes April 29, &S.
" Ma 4es Elitabelh,-1 weaved yours this morning and
wet glad to bear from: ou but not about you going away. I
dark you might havesid where you was going too but that
is wanetbing you dent wham me to know, you talk
alr rat the eight uf stoney pleasing me but the sight
of you say love .plesees me much better but I
have never had one with money nor without sin I
sac to ems you bat I hos I have not acted aa I
bete to hose don to you but have you done so to me. Ido
t know anything lathe contrary but you and God knots
weather you have or not but if wee are not to go together I
brpe God will forges us and if we should never meet no
more upon hearth bare shall meet in Seven. I ran look
la • ck and Slink of the y hours nay days and night. wee
• Ss spent together but _have they come to an bend at last.
knever yet intended haring any one else but you my dear
•' dear Elizabeth but yes my we must part but as you have
another ready you will ere but little about that. I cannot
get home before tuesaday bat I moat conclude it will soon be
r. pat time so so more at peasent from your loving
OR. IL.
Mr. Macaulay, on the pat of the defendant, denied that
• the defendant had ever made any promise of marnage, but
• that he had, =fortunately, when he was only about 18, con-
. Incited an improper intimacy with the plaintiff, which she
• himself had terminated in April, 1854. The expressions in
• sM letters referred to an intimacy of that sort, and not to
songpromise of marriage; and it was very remarkable that
t if a via In April, 18,56, had been fixed for the marriage, and
the t had failed to make hie appearance, no allusion
the subject should have been made in the letter of the
29th el that month.

—ThedrifeOersitt;iiannt, who lived next door to the plaintiff
at Bniterwick, was called, and proved that the defendant
need is visit the plaintiff at night, and that one morning
after he bad been there all night his father and uncle came
after him, and the plaintiff denied that he was there, but
that he was discovered concealed in • closet. Another
neighbour proved that in April, 1855, she heard the plaintiff
and defendant quarrelling, and that the plaintiff said, " You
may go oat sad never come ba any more, for I don't want
thee ;" to which the defendant replied, " Well, well, don't
let everybody hear."
Mr. Sarjeant Hayes having replied,
The learned Jodie, in summing up, commented upon the
singular circtunstance that there was no reference to =w-
rier, In either of the letters, and that if the dere were
used, as had bean roggested, there was no evidence of such
nessemssy the preparations as publication of banns or
peeeistai a marriage licehe nse.
Tie Jay retired for a abort time, and then returned with
a ver fur the defendant.