The Express.
London, England, 1868-05-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN% BENCH.-MAY 12.

After Term Nisi Prins Sittings at Westminater.—(Before
Kr. Justice Mellor and a Common Jury.)
i AWOL V. MIG4I3IIII—ILIEACAI Or PROVII/12.

This wee ea action to recover oonspessation in demagog
for breach of proud*, of marriage.
Mr. Rlbton sad Mr. Whence were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. D. Seymour, Q. 0., end Mr. Pearce for the
Woodard.

The plaintiff, who is about 20 years of age, is en orphan;
her father was a Frenchman, and a currier by trade. The
learned counsel, in opening thecase,described the plaintiff as
• young person of considerable personal attractions ; but he
regretted to say he was unable to speak of her conduct per-
vious to her acquaintance with the defeudant in compli-
mentary terms. The defendant, who is about 26 year. of
age, is a builder, and when they were informed that be
first met the plaintiff in the Haymarket the jury would
easily be able to comprehend the sort of life she was
living. Ladies of her description were generally prepos-
sessing in appearance and engaging in manners ; and the
defendant being somewhat taken by the plaintiff's ap-
pearance accompanied her to her home in Stanley-street,
Pimlico. She unfortunately had been the victim of
a temptation that she was unable to resist, and the
defendant, after remaining with her some time,
liked her very much, and an attachment sprang
up between them. They left Stanley-street, and he took
other lodgings for her, where they lived for some time as
man and wife. Defendant then proposed to send the
plaintiff to school, with the view of eventually marrying
her, and he effete to a lady at Beth, but she bed no va-
cancy, and could not receive her. She then obtained •
situation at a draper's shop at Woodford, in Essex, where
he visited her, and when she came to London, he met her
at the omnibus or station, and they spent the day toge-
ther. At that time she had given up ber former course of
bad life, and had become a respectable young woman. In
the latter end of 1867 defendant's feelings began to alter
towards the plaintiff, and her aunt wrote to him, but she
received no reply from him, but from another person. The
learned counsel read three or four letters from the de-
fendant to the plaintiff. They did not contain the usual
extravagant language found in letters of this character.
They commenced My dear Emily," and concluded
" With fondest love. Ever yours, Alec," and with one
exception they did not refer to marriage. In that letter
he said, " I do hope, my darling, you will soon get better,
as I feel unhappy about you, and I am so dreadfully mi-
serable without you. I wish we were married, but I am
afraid to risk it for a time. I want to get a little more
settled, and then Isbell not fear any one. God bless you,
my dear. May you soon get well and happy is the wish of
your loving Alec. Good bye, my darling. Many kisses."
Mrs. Harriet Timmer, the aunt, wee called. She deposed
to the acquaintance between the ranks and that on
one °maroon when be visited the plaintiff be said, in a
conversation when witness was present, that he intended
to marry Emily as soon as his circumstances permitted.
She warned him against making a promise which he did
not intend to perform ; upon which he replied he was not
• boy and knew what he was saying. He also said to
the tlaintiff, " Dear Emily, I will marry you as soon ea I
can.

A letter was put in, written by the defendant's brother,
stating that he had defendant's authority for breaking off
the marriage. The brother was called for the plaintiff,
and be stated that he wrote it without his brother's
authority or knowledge ; but that when be in-
formed him of it be ratified it. In cross-exa-
mination, the brother deposed that defendant
Mat made the plaintiff's acquaintance in August,
I Stiii, at Salmon's capper-room, in the Haymarket.
He and his brother were taking supper there shout 12
o'clock at night. Plaintiff came to the table where they
were supping and asked them to treat her to a supper.
Defendant went home with her that night to her residence
in Stanley.street, and remained with her three or four
days. He left on account of some other gentleman visiting
her. She afterward, met the defendant, and then "stuck"
to him. Before she west to Woodford she said in a con-
versation with him that she wished the defendant would
marry her. He told her it was impossible; in the first
place, if be did so his father would disinherit him ; and, in
the second place, that if he did none of the family would
speak to him ; and thirdly, that he knew it was not his
brother's Intention to marry her. He also told her that
the defendant had informed him be could not keep her
any longer, and that he had made up his mind that they
mast part, and be had borrowed some money to put her
into a situation at Woodford. She said she did not like
to part from him. (Laughter.) He replied he dared say
not, but that his brother had made up his mind, and she
must go to Woodford or go back to her former course of
life. In his letter to the aunt he stated that the de-
fendant had been involved enough, and that the plaintiff
was well aware that he wee on the verge of bankruptcy.
He had in fact spent his own money and part of witness'o,
and they had to begin life again under great difficulties. He
told plaintiff that they bad come to London in August,
just when they met her, with 1,0001., and that when she
went to Woodford, a few months after, they had not
1801. left, which they required to finish four
Louses. She informed them when first they met her that
she was seduced by an officer in the army about fifteen or
' eighteen months before, and that she had had a child by
him, and that she was obliged to go on the streets in order
to support it, in consequence of his having deserted
her. Has brother paid for the maintenance of the child, as
be thought, for some time, but it afterwards turned out she
bad bad none. They had found out the deception, and
in one of her "melting moods" she told them that it was a
lie—that she had no child. On asking her what she had
done with the money she said she bad spent it in making
presents to persons who knew her when she was on the
town to keep them quiet, and that she had no child. His
brother was not in a position to marry ; he bad not the
means of keeping a wife ; he was served with a writ as he
none into court.

Reexamined—He never beard of his brother arranging
to send the plaintiff to school at Bath before that day.
Mr. Seymour submitted that the declaration alleged a
general promise to marry, but the proof was a conditional
one. The second point was that an infant could not sue
in her own name.

Mr. Justice Mellor said there was evidence for the jury,
and that • minor could sue on a contract for her own
benefit ; the extent of the benefit was another thing.
Mr. Seymour having addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages,
The jury were ultimately discharged, not being able to
agree to a verdict.
This was the last day of the sittings. The court will
sit to-morrow (this day) at nisi prius at Guildhall.