The Express.
London, England, 1868-06-17 00:00:00

PATRICE O. WOOD-BIZACE 07_131103111111-0i WAIIMOIL

This was an action to recover damages for a breach of
promise to marry, and the defendant by his plea denied
tbe promise.
Mr. Daly and Mr. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. H. James for the defendant.
The defendant was an eatinghouse-keeper in Doctors'.
common., and some years ago the plaintiff was in his ser-
vice as an attendant on his child, In the year 1863 the
defendant's wife died, and soon after he sought out the
plaintiff, who was then in service, paid her attention, and
promised to marry her. As the parties to a
suit of this kind could not themselves be called
as wit:Dawes, the promise could not be proved
directly, but he should ask the jury to infer from
the defendant's words and actions that such a promise bad
been made. The defendant wrote many letters, but they
were written cautiously, for there was no direct allusion
in them to a promise of marriage. In July, 1863. he ad-
dressed her as "Dear Annie,' and said "I should be
pleased to see you on Tuesday week or whenever it is most
convenient to see me; so you must pick up and eat and
drink, and then the young ladies will soon see a change in
you. Keep up your pecker. (A laugh.) But never mmd ;
the time will soon shp away, so good night and God bless
you." In August he said " I received yours on Wednesday
evening and took your advice and kept quite sober.
I was rather dull at Beading, but I saw my brother
and a few other Oxford swells them. I re-
main, your loving, HY. WOOD." In September he
wrote asking her to meet him on Thursday, and in allu-
sion to the plaintiff's mistress, said, " Tell her you want
to come out very particularly, and must come out, and
never mind what the says, it won't be for much longer,
and I should not care what she says." The acquaintance
continued for some time, and a child was barn ; but the
defendant instead of marrying the plaintiff married
another woman. . . . .

Jane Beeeeley, of Greenwich, said that she was
sister to the plaintiff, who was 28. She was in service with
the defendant at Oxford, and afterwards de took a situa-
tion in London. In May, 1863, witness called upon her
sister, and found her with the defendant. Witness was
about to ask him how Mrs. Wood was, when he put •
"memory card" of her death into witness's hand. Wit-
ness said, " What, is Mrs. Wood dead r' and added,
' Are you married?" He said, " No, I am not,
but I shall be very soon—your sister's mine now
for ever." Three weeks after be spent the even-
ing with the plaintiff at witness's home. In Sep-
tember, 1863, the plaintiff left her situation, and went to
witness's house. The defendant called regularly twice a
week. She believed them to be married ; the defendant
requested the plaintiff to use his name, and
she was called Mrs. Wood by every one. In
January, 1864, the plaintiff was very unhappy,
and when witness questioned her she said that
she was not the defendant's wife. Witness wrote that
night to the defendant, and he came. He said, "If she is
not m wife I mean to marry her." He said that he did
not think that the plaintiff would have betrayed him
by saying that they were not married. He re-
peated that he would marry her ; but it was not
convenient to take her home in her present con-
dition. Witness said if he would marry her she should
stay with witness until after the child was born, and as
long after as he should think proper. He said he would
see, and let her know on Wednesday. On that day he
said he did not know how it could be done, but he wished
his right arm might perish if he did not marry her. The
child was born on the Bth March, 1864. The defendant
continued calling, and said ha would marry her directly
she was W . strong enough. He left off in 1865.
In that year witness called on him several times
hi Great Knight Rider-street, where he kept an eating-
house. He said he was sorry he had not married the
plaintiff, but he would put her or a way to get her hying,
and as long as he lived be would me to her. In 1866 he
again said he would marry her.
Cron-examined—The defendant was assistant cook at
St. John's College, Oxford, when he became acquainted
with the plaintiff. His wife died on the 18th of April,
1883, and the plaintiff's child was born on the Bth March,
1864. In September, 1867 an order of aflLliation was
made by consent upon the defendant, who was ordered M
pay 2a. 6d. a week for the child. The action was men-
menoed almost Immediately afterwards.
Mrs. Susannah Collins said that prior to witnem's
marriage the plaintiff lived with her. The defendant
visited her in 1164 once • week. Wittier never saw him
but once at the door, and then he asked for the plaintiff
by the same of Mrs. Wood.
Mr. James called no witnesses, but argued that the pro-
miss bad not been satidaotonly made out.
The 'my found for the plaintiff—damages, 201.
Mr. applied for a certificate, under the new
act, for coda.
Mr. Justice heating said that be thought that the cam
night wall have been tried in the County Court.
Mr. Daly reminded his lordship that the defendant had
made the case a special jury moat that he bad thee
delayed the trial for az month; and that he had never
summoned the spedal jury.
Mr. Justice Keating observed that, as the defendant had
said that the case was important enough to be tried by a
special jury, there would perhaps be no harm in adopt-
ing his view to the extent of saying that the cam wes
to be tried in a superior court.
A certificate for costs was then granted.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
TIES mummy= BAZONETin.
In the probate suit relating to the iNtchborne property,
the court granted a commission, returnable in six months,
to collect evidence in America and Australia.
Kr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Yr. Hayford, appeared for the
plaintiff, wbo claimed to be filr Roger Titehborse ;
fierjeant Ballantine and Dr. Tristram for the defendant, the
infant.