Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-22 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTH WALES CIRCUIT.—NEwroNirs, JULY 17.

BEFORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COCRBURV
ROBERTS V. EVAtiS.—BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRTAGE.
—The only civil cause for trial at these assizes was the
above, in which the damages were laid at £2OO. Mr.
M'lntyre and Mr. Vaughan Williams were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Morgan Lloyd for the defendant. The
defendant was a small farmer and horse-dealer, living at
Cwmyrannel, near Carno. He courted the plaintiff for
seven years, and even went so far as to procure a marriage
license. She was the daughter of a small farmer, and her
brother had married one of the defendant's sisters. In
November, 1835, the defendant suggested that they should
be married in the ensuing December, and he went to a
mercer's shop in Newtown to buy thing 4 for the wedding,
which, however, did net take place. Unfortunately the
plaintiff had, in an unguarded moment, yielded to the soli-
citation of the defendant, and in the February following
she gave bii.th to a child. After this he did not marry her.
It was now contended by his counsel that only a condi-
tional promise was made, and that a reasonable time had
not elapsed. The promise was made upon the understand.
ing that they could agree as to the amount of dowry, but
the plaintiff's mother would give nothing. and would have
forced the defendant to marry her daughter. The judge
said the defendant himself had fixed the day, and it was
his place, having broken it off, to name arether day. It
was not a sufficient reason for breaking the promise to say
that they could not agree as to the dowry, unless it could
be shown that that was part of the original agreement. It
was alleged that the plaintiff alone was to blame that the
marriage had not taken place, inasmuch as she had said she
would not have him at all. Mr. M'lntyre, in replying on
the whole case, said the "reasonable time" might very
well be said to be the time before the child was born ; bat
the defendant knew that the license would expire in three
months, and that surely was a reasonable time. The
defendant had never said a word about the dowry until
after she was effectually in his power, and he believed he
could impose any conditions he pleased. The learned
judge then summed up. He sid the jury would consider
whether the defendant had insisted upon a dowry as a good
excuse to evade an engagement which he was bound in law,
honour, and morality to fulfil; or whether the plaintiff had
taken advantage of the position in which they were placed,
and endeavoured to extort money from the defendant
rather than marry him. If they found for the plaintiff,
they would of course look at the fall which she had incurred
by her intimacy with the defendant. and give her
damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages, £lOO. The plaintiff and defendant were bath in
court during the trial.

OXFORD CIRCUIT. -WORCIBTER, JULY 18.
BEFORE BARON BRAMWELL.

HAZZLDINIC v.--HAMPTON AND WIFE.—BREACH OF PRO-
WISE OF Mamma-E.—This cause presented the novelty of
an action brought by a disappointed man against a lady
and her husband for breach of a promise made by her to
marry him. Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Byrne, for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Phipsrn,
for defendan's. Mr. Huddleston stated the case. The
plaintiff was a farmer and butcher at Stonrbridge, and the
male defendant was a lime and coal merchant at Brettel-
lane. Mrs. Hampton (formerly Miss Darby) had been
sued successfully by plaintiff, and marriage had been
agreed upon ; but she afterwards jilted him for her present
husband. A letter to plaintiff from the lady was
read, dated September 14, 18,55, in which she said,
" I am sure I have been crying all the time I have
been doing this letter, for I have thought so much of you.
I love you far better than woman ever loved, and some-
thing makes me think you love me, so I may say there is
no love 10-t. I will not think any more of G.W., bat I
will think of you, so do not say anything about him to
me " There were two or three other letters, down to
February, 1556, written in terms of moderate affection,
but in one she asked plaintiff to lend her £lO or 20;£
in another she again desired him to " try and bring that
money," and said—" I am much surprised to think you
should put yourself so much about over that young man.
lam sure I was not with him the other Sunday. I was
up at Brierley-hill on Sunday week at night, but I am
sure I did not see him, for a married man brought me
home, because it was late. It was Mr. Grove, a grocer,
but if you like to believe other people you can. Ido not
care how I have written this, for I am so hurt in my mind
about things." Witnesses were called. Miss Parkes
proved that the wedding was twice fixed, but on both
occasions a death in the family put it off Mr. Haseldine,
father of the plaintiff, gave similar evidence, and said
he had arranged to give up his business to his son
upon the marriage of the latter. It appeared, however,
that the plaintiff tad got Miss Darby's watch as
security for the money she borrowed of him, and that
he had also brought an action against her for the
money, and received £3O or £4O of it. Mr. Vernon, draper,
proved that the plaintiff had engaged a house, brught
furniture, and given the lady presents for her marriage.
Mr Skinner, in addressing the jury for the defendants,
ridiculed the idea of bringing such an action as this. He
called the defendant's sister, Miss Sarah Hampton, Mr.
Hampton, the father, and Mr Isaac Hampton, the brother,
who proved that plaintiff called upon Miss Darby at their
house and bad an interview with her, after which he was
heard to swear at her, and say to her, " Now go to —,
I've got all I want from you ;" he then went away, taking
her watch with him, and leaving her with her month
bleeding. This was five weeks before the defendant, Mr.
Hampton, paid his addresses to her. Some property was
left her, and plaintiff's father had been heard to say,
" It'll be a good thing for our Harry ;" but when it was
known that the will secured the settlement of it upon
herself at her marriage, he was heard to say, " She's
worth nothing without her money." Plaintiff himself had
talked very coarsely, and said he never wanted her. His
lordship, in summing up, asked what on earth had been
the man's loss ? Why, he had lost a wife, and if there
was but one woman left in the world, there might be some
reason for complaint in this respect. There had been a
contract, but it had been broken. He concluded by saying
that he should not be disappointed if the jury did not find
a verdict for the plaintiff at all ; or if so, for more than the
lowest coin of the realm. The jury returned a verdict
for the defendant.

KING'S COUNTY-Jul.-1' 18.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.--MARY ROENDTR'TE
'2/. JOIN LEE. --In this case the plaintiff, who is a minor, ap-
peared by her next friend, M. Rounthree, her stepmother,
to recover damages from the defendant for breach of promise
of marriage. The issues for the jury to try were—firs,
the plaintiff, who is a Roman Catholic, promised the
defendant to become a Protestant; secondly, had her step-
mother released her from the obligation ? The father and
mother at the plaintiff are dead ; she is only 17 years of
age; the defendant is about 35 years old, and, according to
the statement of her counsel, in comfortable circumstances.
Mr. Hayes, Q.C., and Mr. Curran appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Ball, Q.C., and Mr. Maunsell for the defendant.
Margaret Roundtree examined by Mr. Curran—Carried on
the business of a butcher and provision merchant ; was a
widow ; her stepdaughter was 16 years of age in May last ;
the defendant paid attentions to her from the time she was 12
years of age ; she could not go on a message that he would
not be after her ; he proposed to her (witness l that she
(plaintiff) should be his wife; she replied that she was too
young; he said she was not ; she then asked him would
he interfere with her religion ; he said he would not ask
her to go to church to be married ; it was arranged
that they should be mar ied at Monasterevan upon the
14th of May ; he produced a letter from the Rev. Mr.
Warren, of Itanasterevan, informing him that he should
be a resident in the parish one week before the marriage ;
he (defendent) also said that they were to spend the
honeymoon in Dublin ; she prepared for the wedding,
purchased clothes, &c. ; the marriage was the talk of the
country and town ; the young girl was very much spoken
of; on the 10th May he came to break off the match ; he
said that his friends were very much dissatisfied about the
marriage, and that it should be broken off; she said it was
too late, as she had gone to expense, and the girl had been
talked about ; he replied that he had discovered from a will
of his father and other papers that he would lose £2OO a-
year if he married a Roman Catholic, but that if the yanng
girl went with him to church for a short time he would marry
bar ; she (plaintiff) refused to do so ; he then offered to give
£5O as compensation and to enable her to get a husband ;
she (plaintiff) said that husbands were not to be bought or
sold at Monasterevan. Cross-examined by Mr. Ball, QC. :
Was never told by the Rev. Mr. Healy and Mr. Molony
that Dr. Callen prohibited mixed marriages in the diocese;
uprn her solemn oath she never said that as there was a
difference about religion the matter should drop ; had a
conversation with Mr. Molony, and he said he would much
prefer that she married a person of har own religion ; she
(plaintiff) went to confession, and what she was told there
or what the said, she could not disclose ; he said if the
plaintiff went to church for a few days it would be only a
nine day's wonder, and she might go to chapel again when
she pleased ; did not bring to the court either of the cler-
gymen. Mr. Bail : Then you may go down, ma'am. A
witness named Moneypenny, who lived at Moore Abbey, was
produced-to give evidence in reference to the worldly con-
dition of the defendant. Ha said that he had about 30 acres
and was very well off; he had sheep and horses and a
good haggard ; witness was a Roman Catholic ; the
dt fondant told him that all he would ask the plaintiff to
do would be to go to the church to be married ; never
heard him speak about his father's will. Cross. examined
by Mr. Maunsell : His first wife was the sister of Mrs.
Roundtree. Robert L. Moore, Req., deposed that the
defendant had a farm of twelve acres, and £3O a year as