The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-22 00:00:00

the Great Northern (Boston and Sleaford) Stock Act, 1864,
£200,000 be created entitling the holders thereof to a perpe-
tual preference dividend at the rate of £5 5s per cent. per
annum, and under the powers of the Great Northern (Lin-
coln to Bourn) Act 1864, £24,000 Great Northern Bourn
and Essendine stock be created entitling the holders thereof
to a perpetual dividend of 5 per cent. per annum from the
Ist Jan. last. It was stated that the £24,000 represented
£48,000 capital.

The resolutions were agreed to.
The proceedings terminated with a vote of thanks to
the chairman and directors.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LEEDS, August 20.

(Before Mr. Justice Blacklurn.)
LISTER V. WRAY.—A LADY CHARGED WITH BREACH 07
PROMISE.
In this case plaintiff, a waste dealer in Leeds, claimed
£l,OOO damages from Mrs. Patience Wray, who has already
been thrice married, and who is possessed of a jointure of
£704 per year. The action attracted considerable interest,
in consequence of the singularity of the case,
and the ad
vaneed age cf the parties. The court was a scene of
merriment during the whole course of the hearing.
Mr. Digby Seymourr, Q.C., and Mr. Middleton were
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Maule and Mr. V. Blackburn
represented the defendant (who occupied a seat in thew
gallery.)
Mr. Seymour, in opening the cause, stated that the pre-
-
liminaries with respect to the marriage had been so far
arranged that the wedding breakfast wes ordered, and the
Rev. Mr. Hudswell was the gentleman selected to perform,
the ceremony. On the day before that arranged for the
ceremony, a message came from the lady that she had
at the
changed her mind. Plaintiff had a carpet bag
house of the defendant at the time, containing his we,cl,:
ding suit, and when he went to accompany her, thereP"
thought to the altar, the door was Blamed in his face.
was no material disparity in point of years between the par
ties. Plaintiff lost a wife, and a benefit and a solace Whi
he
he sought in his declining years, and he had also lost tr
advantage of her handsome income of £6OO or £7OO
pe
year. This was certainly a case in which the lady bad
promised to marry and had not fulfiled that contract, ant
the question must therefore go to thejury as to the emQua.
of damages.
William West, tailor and draper, of Leeds—l was °amt.e
ing at Craigland's Hotel, Ilkley, in September, 1863.
defendant was staying at Ilkley, and occasionally I saw the
defendant
plaintiff coming to the place. I have seen them together as '
they were on terms of intimacy. They appeared te s___;je/
each other's company. Had never seen any act of feu'
liarity between them. The defendant (Mrs. Wra) is a
veCyr fresh looking lady for her years. about
ross-examined by Mr Maule—ls not Mrs Wray
75 ?
Witness—lt is hard to judge a lady's age. (Lalighter )
.
Were you staying at Ilkley at the same hotel ?-4 was.
Did you happen to be present in the garden when the plain_
wig was blown into a cherry tree ?
I was. s ?
Did you not make a remark that it would scare the croir
—I did not. Re?
Were you of opinion that they were about the same a-
-I should think the gentleman was the junior. ea
Mr Sedgwick, clerk in the Superintendent Reg,istra.
Office, East-parade, Leeds, stated that in Februarfmtne
plaintiff and defendant came into the office together. .112_':
seemed very happy. Mr Lister asked for a notice of lice
.eeci
Wane" 41sg.ez
and the lady waited until it was filled up. Laughtr.)---
plaintiff's name, and his residence, and whom he wa's
to marry ? The answer was "Patience Wray)" "d
abfe the
two guineas was paid by the plaintiff. The age given
lady was 69, and the " youthful bridegroom"
was 58 years of age. The lady looked fresh and sPrigh I
for her years. a note
te..
The Rev. Mr Hudswell said he had received
state that he was to be prepared to marry the plaintiffurs:
defendant on the 15th February. On that mornillg' defendant
ever, he received another note to the effect that the ...n
had been taken ill during the night, and that the We"' g_
The Marriage
would have to be postponed for a few days. stated that he
had not since been performed by him (witness).
Re-examined by Seymour—l understand plaintiff ga
up business just before the time fixed for the marriageo..
n.
do not know that the lady provided the money for Pnt
the plaintiff through the Bankruptcy Court. Did not think
that there was any great disparity in the ages of the partie
concerned.
Harriet Barker (who was for some time servant to 31115
Wray) stated that she had seen plaintiff and defendant to:
gether on several occasions. Witness heard from defending.
last February that she would not marry Mr Lister, and that
she did not intend to marry again. A carpet-bag contain'
ing plaintiff's clothes was handed to him, and he was told
to go, inasmuch as the defendant would not marry hire•
Cross-examined by Mr Maule—You say that Mrs Virreit
before she went, said she would not marry Mr Lister 2.--*
Yes, she did.
The Judge—The promise of marriage is proved, and both
of you gentlemen can address the jury, if you like, on the
point of damages.
Mr Seymour—l hope they will not insult him. (Laughter')
The Judge—l hope they will. (Increased merriment.)
The question was then left to the jury, who speedily
decided in favour of the plaintiff. Damages one farthing.