The Express.
London, England, 1859-12-20 00:00:00

Bramwell, and Common hrlam)

M. Buss

111:77 0. HODOXIXIIOIII4-11ATIMIONIAL ADTLIMI/11.3.

The declaration in this case stated, that the defendant, in
consideration that the plaintiff would, at his request, marry
the defendant's daughter, prumited within a naroaable time
to pay him 6001., end that us the faith of such promise the
&Midi did teeny the defendaeVe daughter, and although a
reamnable time Ind elapeed, the defendant had not paid the
sum as promised, and Author, that the defendant ;Nomad
to place the plaintiff is • business, but had failed to do to.
The second count of the declaration alleged that the plaintiff
had left his situation as clerk to • timber merchant, with the
new of marrying the defeedant's daughter at his request, sad
on his promise to put him in • business, but the defendant
hod not put him into the business. The defendant pleaded
that be dad not make the rumba as alleged, and that the
plaintiff did not give up his situation.
Mr. Tiadel Atkinson and Mr. Jacobs were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Lextos represented the defendant.
The pleadings having been opened,
Mr. Tindal Atkinson mid that the parties to this mottos
stood in the relation of ion-in-law and father-in-law, end me
there mut be many painful family revelations if the mum
were to be tried, he would suggest that it should be reherred
to some gentleman at the bar.
Mr. Baron Bramwell thought this would be a very proper
course, and
. _ . .

A consultation took place, when Mr. Last= sold his client
objected.
Mr. Atkinson pressed the advisability of a reference, and
added, the defendant's attorney says It will oust from 4001.
to 5001.
Mr. Baron Bramwell said that wee all nonsense.
The defendant'. *teasel, however, would not apes, and
the case proceeded.
It appeared front theme for the plaintiff, es stated by his
counsel and by bireeelf in evidence, that he resides at 7,
Lenient place, New-croes, Garrey, midis the son of • timber
merchant. lie first became acquainted wittt the defendant,
having called upon him as collector dream for his father,
of whom the defendant rented • house. The defendant had
been • labouring man, earning about 3e. • day, and his
daughter contributed to his support by shirt-making. The
defeedant, however, came into some property, and it then
appeared that be was dreiroua of forming a me, ritnonial cou-
ncil= between the plaintiff and hie daughter. How the
introduction of the subject took place wee thug deacribed by
the plaintiff .—"At last the defendant was kind enough tote-
traduce Nee tar Ms daughter. I went down Gee day, and heisted
illuse liked his dauehter P I said, 'Yes.' 'Do you,' he
asked, ' like her well enough to make bow your wife?' I re-
plied,' Yes, I like her well enough so tar—(langliter)—if I
had mean* to support Per.' To which he replied., 'Oh, non-
sense ; I will pey 5604 into your banker's hands, and will
maks a gentleman of yea.' " (Laughter.) It appeared that
'lke defendant then celled his daughter into the room,
and asked her if she liked Mr. Butt well enough
to marry him P Toe young lady was nothing
loth, and her parent told her to go uptaire,
and fetch him down en 801. note to put up the bons and to
pay preliminary expenses. "No,' replied the daughter ;
" far if I do I shall ma him no more until it is all spelt ;"
" and that," sail the pleintitf, " ass the opinion "be bad
elms then." However, the defendant did give the plaintiff
51., with which he pald tor putting up the banns, Lavas a ring,
and " ribbons, and amen like, as ladies are loud of.' Aow-
telly, on the lath of October, 1858, the plaintiff, who had
lost his right hand through the bursticg of • gun, married
the young lady, one of wbose legs was • few inches shorter
than the other. According to the plaintiff a account, family
difference* arose between him and the defendant shortly afar
the marriage. The deteedent wanted to bay some Louise of
the plamtitra father, end the contracting parties pit drunk
together. 'Me defendant did not pay in toe 500/. to the
credit of the plaint itt, who "unfortunately het nu beaker,"
but the defendant did nut forget to pay in 601. on his own
account to the London and Westminster Bank on the same
day as that as which to was to lodge the money for the
plaintiff. The defendant and his eon-in-law quarrelled
much, and the fernier threatened to kick the latter out of
doors; " but," said the "be was so drunk that he
fell down, and I walked out." (Laughter.) The plaintiff
then wont back to hie father, and took the situation of car-
men—the vacant okrkeltip having in the interim been 81Ied
by Pis brother—and his wife contributed to their maintenance
by shirt-making. When the plaintiff Med been with his
father for about sic mouths, the defendant came to him with
overture' for a return, offering him free lodging; but the
plaintiff did not regard this ea "a great pull," as he had
free lodgings already. Then the defendant promised
that if he would return he would redeem his pro-
mise, and "make • gentleman of him," by giving
him 5001. as • capital in a fruit and green-groovy
bueloses. Acting on the faith of these representations the
plaintiff had given up hie situation as cumin to his father,
and returned to reside with his tuber-in-law. But
still there was no pesos. The defendant kicked the
plaintiff twice out of Lis house, the last occasion being in
September, when the plaintiff's wife was lliog in bed after
bee ounfiventent. The plaintiff's wile went beck to father,
and an the 13'b October bet be wait to claim her, end wee
sitting outside the defendant's how" on some bricks, when
the defendant returned and tested Moe what be wanted. He
replied, his wife, and the defendant said he shoeld not have
hoe. " Then," said the plaintiff, "ea you are mu ag atsp,
I will," whereupon the defendant etruck him in the fine,
and knocked him over twice, on which the plaintiff took up
hells brick and threw it through the oh) light of the dctend-
ant's beim.
. .

Mr. Leatms, ca behalf or the defendant, declined to croft-
ezmutoe the nlemtiff, but eubcaitied the ca. had Wed, dud,
no the ground that the promise es alleged wee not in wring;
and ea to the mooed mum, there we. no evidence is Me
tupare.
r. Baron Bramwell held the objection to be fatal, and
The/WM& wee latemaded.