The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—HERTFORD, July 12.
The business of the assizes for Herta was com-
menced this morning at ten o'clock—Baron Martin
presiding on the civil side, and Mr Justice Willes
in the Crown Court. The cause list is a very light
one, only nine common jury cases being entered.,
(Before Air Justice Willes.)
CHARGE OF ASSAULT.
William Mullins surrendered to take his trial
upon an indictment charging him with assaulting
James Permewan, and causing him bodily injury,
and also with a common assault.

Mr Robinson and Mr Clark prosecuted ; Mr
Woollett and Mr Ludlow were counsel for the de-
fendant.

This case created some little interest on account
of the position of the parties, and the circumstances
under which the alleged assault took place. The
defendant is a farmer, occupying a farm belonging
to Sir Edward Lytton, M.P., at Bletchworth,. near
Stevenage; and it appeared that in March last he
received notice to quit this farm. The prosecutor,
at the time of this notice being given, occupied the
position of land steward to Sir Edward Lytton, and
there was no doubt that a good deal of ill-feeling
existed in the defendant's mind against him.
The prosecutor stated that ca May 18th he was
engaged in marking bark upon some trees near de-
fendant's farm, and on his return home with his
son, a boy nine years of age, he was met by the de-
fendant, who seemed very angry, and was" talking
at him ;" and though he tried to avoid him, the de-
fendant seizsd him by the collar and twisted his
head round, and nearly strang►ed him. In order
to release his neckerchief, as was stated, the prose-
cutor pulled out the knife he had been using, and
tried to cut it. The defendant then began kicking
him violently on the shins, and he fell to the ground
insensible, and very severely injured, according to
the testimony of Mr Marshall, a medical gentle-
man. The prosecutor was subjected to a severe
cross-examination by Mr Woollett, and admitted
that before the assault he had walked across
two of the defendant's fields ; but the main
facts, as previously stated, were not shaken. It
was further stated, in the course of the inquiry, that
the prosecutor had left the service of Sir Edward
Lytton since the transaction, and that the differences
between the defendant and his landlord had been
arranged, and he was to continue in his farm. The
magistrates also had declined to commit the defen•
dant for trial.

Mr. Woollett, for the defendant, strongly urged
that the prosecutor had brought all the inconve.
niences he had suffered upon himself, and that the
defendant had done no more than any other man
would have done under the same circumstances, the
prosecutor bring a trespasser upon the defendant's
land. All the defendant did was to remove him,
and when the prosecutor found he was getting the
worst of it, he reverted to the dastardly expedient
of drawing a knife and trying to make nee of it.
A number of respectable witnesses, most of whom
were in the same condition of life as the defendant,
were called to speak to his character, and they all
described him as a harmless, inoffensive man, and a
good, peaceable neighbour.
Mr. Justice Willes having summed up,
the jury
at once returned a verdict of " Not guilty ;" and the
defendant was ordered to be immediately discharged.

SACRILEGE.
Isaac Anderson, alias Jones, 30, described as a
draper, pleaded guilty to an indictment which
charged him with breaking into the parish church
of Bushey, and stealing a cloth and other articles,
the property of the parishioners.
Inspector Allison, of the K division of the metro-
politan police, informed the court that the prisoner
had been previously convicted of breaking into the
parish church of St. George's-in-the-East, and also
into that of St. Ann's, Limehouse. Under that con-
viction he was sentenced to eighteen months' hard
labour.
• The prisoner was sentenced to five years' penal
servitude.

The whole of the civil business was brought to a
conclusion by three o'clock, and Baron Martin was
engaged until the rising of the court in assisting to
dispose of the gaol calendar.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—WARWICK, July 12.
(Before M 7 Justice Keating.)
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

Miss Harriet Butler, daughter of the ex-Mayor
of Tamworth, brought an action against Mr Richd.
Edwin Ruffe, late surgeon at the Bradford lofir•
mart', to recover damages for breach of promise of
marriage, &c.

Mr Field, Q.C., and Mr Miller, appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr Digby Seymour, Q.C., was specially
retained on the other side.

Defendant pleaded that he never promised to
marry, but that if he did, at the time of doing so
plaintiff herself absolved him from fulfilment.
The facts of the case, as they came out in evidence,
are as follows—Defendant resided at Tamworth in
1852, while walking the Birmingham Hospital, and
there became acquainted with plaintiff, who had
recently lost her father, a gentleman occupying,
from his character and position, considerable influ-
nence in her native town. He engaged himself to
her, and continued, from that time up to very re-
cently, on the most affectionate terms, writing
'Tumorous letters, couched in terms of endearment.
After a voyage to New Zealand, defendant became
surgeon to the infirmary at Bradford, Yorkshire,
and, writing thence on the 30th of October, 1859,
to her a letter commencing, "My own dear darling
Harrie," he said—
This afternoon—that is to say, as soon as I have finished
this letter —I shall go to Biravngham to look about the
place. I mean to begin to work. I think I shall, as soon
as I conveniently can, love, go to Scotland and take the
M.D., since it would, of course, be better to call myself
" Dr." Ruffs than " Mr." (Laughter.) And then you will
be called Mrs Dr Ruffe. However, of all this you shall here
more anon. I trust, my own darling, I shall hear from you
when you get home, because I am always pleased to hear
from you. Do, love, write as you think; remember you are
my wife, and that I am in every way yours, and yours
only; therefore you ought not to have any ceremony or
doubt. With best love, and thousands of kisses for your
own dear self, 1 am, dearest Harrie, your own dear—TED.
Ho continued to write similar epistles, and in
1860 spoke of going into partnership with a Mr
Dryden, asking her Opinion, as his future wife on
the advisability of taking chat step, saying, "Do

you think we could live on £l5O a year for three
'pars? for if we can I have no fear after that time."
--tufeLn_t entered into negotiations with Mr
time holding out hopes to
Dryden, at the sh.—
;e e. In Januar 1862
plaintiff"
of a speedy mar._
y, ,
he said—
; love,Write to me as if you were my wife, You km 7
it is all nonsense talking about anything happening, an
not being married ; for, as far as I am concerned, nothing
can or shall hinder it. I am yours, and yours only, for
life. Concluding with fondest love from your own husband
—TED.
Further correspondence of this sort was kept up;
and in Nov., 1362, he addressed her still as his own
darling Harrie, but regretted, &c., that circum-
stances would not allow him to make her his wife
just then, but at the same time expressed a hope he
should be able to keep his promise hereafter. Dur-
ing all this time he had visited her, but in 1863 his
visits became less frequent by degrees until he
ceased to see her, and ultimately neglected to favour
her with his customary epistles. In April last her
brother-in-law wrote to him to demand an explana-
tion of this change in the course of love, and
received in reply a " cruel" letter, wherein defendant
first announced his intention of breaking the agree-
ment—firstly, because he could not love plaintiff;
and, secondly, because he was involved in legal
proceedings which would probably compel him to
leave England for ever. The present action was
then commenced, and he said he would marry her
if she would have him ; but she refused, on the
ground that he only wanted to stay proceedings.
Mr Digby Seymour addressed the jury in miti-
gation of damages, his chief point consisting in the
fact that plaintiff was rather past what was gene-
rally called " a marrying age."
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with
£3OO damages.