The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-08-16 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-YESTERDAY.

Mr. Baron Bramwell took his seat upon the bench at nine
o'clock yesterday.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.— SCHOLES V .
BRIERLEY.—This was an action for breach of promise of
marriage. The plaintiff was Miss Mary Elizabeth Scholes,
residing with her parents at Southport, and the defendant Mr.
James Bvierloy, the manager of a jean and nankeen manufac-
tory at Manchester. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Fearnley
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wheeler for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, in stating the case for the plaintiff,
said if he were well instructed she had good ground to
complain that the defendant had behaved to her in a most
treacherous manner. He had entered into a solemn contract
with her, which contract he had broken, but it was a contract
which must be treated like every other, which a man had
deliberately entered into, and was bound morally as well
as legally to fulfil. It was for a man well to consider before
he entered into that contract, whether he had made it upon
sufficient grounds, and whether his mind had been properly
directed to the consequences of the contract, and if he broke
it he was bound in law, in honour, and in morals to atone so
far could for that breach of contract. He
appre as he possibly
hen3ed that when the jury had heard the facts of this
case, they would be of opinion that it was a breach of contract
which especially called for damages at their hands. It appeared
that the plaintiff in this action was the daughter of a respectable
tradesman, a tailor and draper, residing in Southport. The
defendant was the manager of some important works in
Manchester, holding a respectable situation, and a good position
in society, and living in very good, ho would not say extrava-
gant, style, such as might probably induce a young woman to
suppose that a marriage with him would be advantageous to her
if they were uni,ed upon pure and proper principles. The
plaintiff and the defendant were, he believed, both members of
the Wesleyan connection. Their first acquaintance was
farmed at a Sunday school in the year 1554. The defendant
visited at the house of the plaintiff's parents, and paid her very
marked attention, but did not say anything about mar-
riage until the attentions had become too palpable to
be mistaken. The plaintiff's father then deemed
it his duty to ascertain what the defendant's in-
tentions were. On one occasion, when walking home
together, the father, in consequence of something he had
heard, asked the defendant what his intentions were. The
defendant then distinctly told the father that his object was to
marry her, but expressed a desire to postpone the match for
some time until his position had improved, as he had reason to
believe that he was shortly about to be taken into partnership
in the firm of which he was manager. The father immediately
replied that time was of no importance, that his only object was
to know what the intentions of defendant were, and having
ascertained that these were honourable, of course' he had no
objection to the continuance of the addresses; Things then
went on without any remarkable incident until at last the
young lady received intimation that defendant was paying his
addresses to another. It would indeed appear that for a
considerable time the defendant had been paying his addresses
to both these young ladies at the same timer Let the jury
then call to mind such a case, and ask themselves what would
be the state of things if such a man were to be allowed to
come into court, under such circumstances, and say : "It is
true I did make a promise, it is true I did court this young
woman and led her to suppose I would make her my wife, bui
I have changed my mind, and the best thing I could do both
for her and myself, under such circumstances, is that we should
break off the marriage.'.' It was true they heard such defence4
sometimes set up, and heard it said, " What could he do he
had changed his mind, and was he to marry her after having
changed his mind ?" But who brought the young lady into
the dilemma ? Who made the promise ? Without attending
seriously and solemnly
to the consequences of such a promise,
what right had any man to enter upon such an engagement,
and then after having won the affections of the young lady, and
induced her to believe that she was to receive his protection
through life, to turn round and say he had changed his mind,
that he had made a promise, but, Under the circumstances,