The National Register.
London, England, 1821-06-11 00:00:00

another favour, that is by keep this letter to yourself as
the sentiments of my heart I am about to open. prompt
by the affection of nature for yin' alone. You will say
my affection is soup gained, as it fell on you alter knowing
you such a short time; but, dear Miss, believe me it is
not soon as you think ; furl know young ladies fur length
of time, and my affection has never fell on them as it has
on you ; fur your charms, dear Miss, is enough to gain the
love and affection of any young gititleinan ; for I do de-
clare, the first hour I saw you, you gained my strolige,t
love and affection, and was satisfied iu my own mind yon
would make me a happy- wife : • • •
After the case had been supported by evidence, Mr.
Serjeant Pell addressed the jury, as Counsel lor the de-
fendant ; and adverting to the eloquence ilisnlayed hy
Serjeant Vaughan, said his learned mother would smile
after the cause was decided, at the excellent impression
he had made on the jury. He then Al the match
had been broken off, in consequence of a de( larition
made by tile lady, that she had been married five mouths
previous to her knowledae of the defendant, with a mid-
shipman in the navy. Tnere were other CIICIIIIISIMICCS
respecting irregularity of conduct in the young lady, and
something said about a scorbutic habit which iialuced
his client to give up a promise he could not proileitily
observe. It however appeared, that the delenciant wrote
to the plainbtr in the most ardent ,t; le, after Ite heard
of the circumstances 011 witiCii it was alleged lie broke
MI the COMISIII I). On the whole the plaintiff's character
did not stiffer by the couliwt, and the pry after :ionic
deliberation ;2.as e her a I (Idle( for :001. damages.

SHERI IT'S couwr.
PIZZEY V. BOULTERAND WIPE.

BREACH UN PROMISE or MAKRIAGY......rhiII was
an action for a breach of protnise tit marriage. The
damages were laid in the declaration at 10101.
Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury on the part of the
plaintiff. This was, he said, an action for a breach of
promise of marriage. The plaintiff' was coachman in
the family of Mrs. Bowen, of Colnebrook, and the
female defendant war also a servant in the same family.
At first she entered the service from a charity school,
and on her first entering the service of Mrs. Bowen site
received 11:1 Wilkes; but as her industry and diligence
and diligence made her a better servant she had 14 and
then 18 guineas a year—a very handsome sum 1 At
tins period the courtship between the parties began.—
Aboot this time the defendant, Sarah Harebell (Mrs.
Honker) i,urchased the sixteenth share of a lottery ticket,
which unliappily for all parties, cattle up a prize of
:10,0001.—Sne got for het share 8331. At first when she
received the money, stir and the plaintiff thought It
would be best for them to enter into a public house,
such a stint as she had being considered enough to
inenee in that bile of business. A public house they
now discotered was 111)1 lit for them, and she wished the
plaintiff to apply to his father to give him tip a house,
with which he complied, and his fattier consented in let
hint have 11. Several letters weir then lead, and among
the rest a letter which at once put an end to all those
hopes and anticipations her previous conduct liail raised
in the plaintiff's mtud. The letter was concliisive as to
tile total almeation of her allectiiin from the man to
whom she had so lately been attached. lii a short
tittle after, the 7th of August, she conferred her pet sun
on the present defendant. Under :4101 Citellaistalicvs
she left the defendant no resource but to hrlog th 2 pre-
sent ac.ion. The %yenning ring was really, the banns
put up and published, and already out-asked—the banns
written In tile defendant's own writing. Witnesses
were then called.

S 1 r. Crebwell acktuesetl the Jury on the part of the
defewl,,tat.

Tile Jury retired, nul in a fcw minutes returned tt it')
..19)vbbing lila tlaut.iges at two hutalied
poultds.

DIIDDLF:SE.t. SESSIONS, JUNE 5.
TUE RINI v. EINGIIANI.

This was a prosecution at the in.tatiee of Mr. James
Brim ne, a representative in parliament for the county of
Mayo, for writing a threatening letter to the prosecutor,
and provoking lion to fight a duel. The defendant is a
young Mall Of leil)CClalltit COllllt ltiOlo ill the county of
Mayo.
To prove these facts, Mr. James Browne and Mr. Do.
mi ss ic Browne wrie called. The limitlw citing of the
delPladlllll WWI preyed, and the letter in question was pin
in and read.

Mr. Cons., the chairman, shortly rammed •ip the facts
of the Citl.P. and the jury fumid a vii dirt —tinnily.
•I'he defendant was then sentenced to pay a tine of 501.
Ansi to find angelica to keep the peace for two years, hon.
self in 50 I. and two others of 100 i. each.

The delendsnt pat.' the tine in court, and was allowed
to depart.

Co!ludic Essancipsdioti.—The report of the King
having written a letter to tha Duchess of Glouces-
ter, expressing his satisfaction at the Catholic Bill
havintr been thrown out, is a complete Motivation.
One of the Royal Family, who has lately spoke w
the Duchess of Gloucester on the subject of this re-
port, has authorised his friends to contradict it as a
malevolent fiction. So far from the King having
testified any unfavourable opinion of the Catholics,
every thing that has come to light respecting his
sentiments on this question, from the time it first
came betime Parliament this session, shows that his
Majesty is hell disposed towards it. Nu fewer than
three of the Lords of the Bedchamber voted fur tite
bill.

On Wednesday the parties interested attended at
the Crown Wice, Westminster, at eleven o'clock, it
being the homr appointed for striking the Juries in
the cases of th♦ prosecution instituted against Mes.rs.
Thel wall and Dolby by the Bradzu-street Association.
Some other prosecutions instituted by this Society
have been abautloned