The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-27 00:00:00

COLLISION-THE HELEN.

This was an action entered on behalf of the barque
Princess Victoria. of 372 tons burden, against the Helen,
a ship of 860 tons, for damage by collision on the sth
of January last. The vessel proceeding was bound
from Liverpool to Maranham, with a cargo cf general
merchandise, and the Helen was on her voyage from
Liverpool to Havannah, laden. with salt. It appeared
that the collision took place shortly after 7 o'clock p.m.
on the day above-mentioned, off the coast between Holy-
head and Bardsey Island. On the part of the barque it
was alleged that the accident would not have occurred
if the Helen had kept her lull, instead of starboarding.
At the time she was descried she was on the port tack,
and, in consequence of her having put her helm to star-
board, she ran stein on into the other vessel. It was
submitted on behalf of the Helen that the collision took
place solely from the want of a good look-out on board
the barque.

Dr. Bayford and Dr. Twiss appeared for the Princess
Victoria ; Drs. Addanns and Robinson were heard for
the owners of the Helen.

The Trinity Masters were of opinion that the blame
rested solely with the Helen.
The Court pronounced for the damage.

BAIL COURT. ,
DUNLOP V. FERGUSON-BREACH OP PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.

Mr. Sergeant Thomas and Mr. Harcourt appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Pollock
for the defendant.

This was an action for an alleged breach of promise of
marriage. The defendant pleaded that he did not 'pro-
mise, and that, if he had promised, the plaintiff had ab-
solved him from that promise.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas, in opening the case, said that
the plaintiff was a young lady about 24 years of age, and
had never left the home of her parents, which was at
Greenock, Scotland. In 1849 the plaintiff and de-
fendant became acquainted, the mothers of both of
them having been known to each other for many years.
The plaintiff's father was formerly in the East India
service ; the defendant's father, as well as the plain-
tiffs brothers, and the defendant himself, being in
the same service. On the death of the plaintiff's
father, her mother took a house at Greenock, her native
place, and let apartments. Amongst other persons
the defendant and his brother went there in 1840 ; and
after living-there a short time, the defendant and the
plaintiff fell in love with each other, the plaintiff being
at that time 17, and the defendant 24 years of age, both
parties being highly respectable. They exchanged
several pledges of affection, such as their miniatures,
hair, and such things as young people do exchange under
similar circumstances. Soon after this the defendant
went on a voyage to CalcOtta, and during his absence he
wrote several letters to the plaintiff. After several
voyages h© was made a captain, and the day for their
marriage was fixed for the 24th day of January, 1854 ;
but, on the 14th of that month,, the defendant wrote a
letter to the plaintiff, stating that his mother was un-
well and wished him to make another voyage before his
marriage ; and on the 17th he went to the plaintiff's
house and said he should like to go another voyage
before he married, upon which her mother said that he
was acting as though he wished to deceive her daughter.
The defendant at once flew into a passion, and said they
had struck a fatal blow to his heart, and-rushed away.
He then wrote another letter to' the plaintiff's mother,
stating that he was sorry that he bad acted as he bad
done, and asked the plaintiff to forgive him, saying that
he was still devoted to her. That very day, or the day
following, he was seen walking with a Miss Fame, whom
he afterwards made his wife. It was for the jury, under
these circumstances, to say what damages the plaintiff
WAR entitled to. The defendant's income as captain was
about 2001. per annum, and the percentage on the
freight amounted to about another 2001.
Evidence was then adduced on the part of the plain-
tiff in support of this view of the case.

No witnesses were called on behalf of the defence.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas summed up the evidence of the
plaintiff.
Mr. Edwin James then addressed the jury on the
part of the defendant, and said that it was out of his
power to call witnesses, in con,equence of the defendant
being prevented by the Jaw from entering the witness-
box in cases of this nature. Tt was evident that the
defendant had intended to fulfil his engagement with the
plaintiff up to the last moment of the transaction, and
that it would have been completed if it bad not been for
the unwise haste of the mother, who would not listen
to the dictates of prudence, and put off the matriage
for,a short time. It was clear that the defendant bad
no dishonourable motive, and, therefore, a very small
amount of damages would sufficiently punish him for
his lcond uct.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, in summing up, said the jury
must consider the conduct and intentions of the-defend-
ant. If they took the plaintiff's view of the case; they
must find for such damages as they thought would suf-
ficiently punish the defendant ; but if they took the de-
fendant's view, a very small amount of damages would
meet the demands of the case._

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff--damages,
250/.

SHERIFF'S CO (MT.-Amu, 26.
ROUTLEDGE AND ANOTHER V. OURY.

This action was brought by Messrs. Routledge, the
booksellers, of London, against the defendant, who is
an assistant to a bookseller at Norwich, for goods gold
and delivered under the following extraordinary circum-
stances :

It.appeared that in 1850 the defendant asked Mr.
Warn, one of the plaintiffs, to -give him one of their
catalogues, as he wanted it for a friend that was about
starting in business in the country. He subsequently
called with Mr. John Crook, and introduced him as his
brother-in-law. An order was thereupon given and
ordered to he sent to Oury and Co., of Norwich. For
about five years the plaintiffs did business with the firm
of Oury and Co., and received cheques for the various
accounts signed by John Crook. The defendant, how-
ever, managed the business, and he was the only person
the plaintiffs knew by the name of Oury, and it w'as to
him that credit was given according to the plaintiffs'
statement.
an
pap..ysa,itshta;nint
otoneCyrdotiok:
hauntdntohta,tthtehecolsattsteorf wthaiss
For the defendant it was contended that Charles Oary
was only
pareteMip:rl3l.l Ced; AVM' Called, and he stated that 15 years ago he
n.ttoksiiscther: andwl who
she
.was
was a singing and
dancingmarr e d the d,
ernNrw
mistress well known
in the musical world by that Dame, He started- the
e