The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-26 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—LEwis, March 25.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman, and a Special Jury,)
HILLMAN V. BROWN.

This action was brought to recover damages for an assault.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Needham were for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Hance, for the defendant.
Mr. Lush, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff was
a young man about 21 years of age, who was very respec-
tably connected, and whose father was a merchant residing
in the town of Lewis. In the year 1861, the plaintiff was
residing near N ewhaven, where he was learning the farm -
ing business, and while so employed he became acquainted
with the defendant, who was a farmer living in the same
neighbourhood, and he was introduced to his family. Very
soon afterwards an intimacy sprang up between the plaintiff
and Miss Jane Brown, the daughter of the defendant, and
the plaintiff asked to be allowed to visit her upon the footing
of a suitor for her hand ; her father gave his consent, the
plaintiff was. admitted into the family circle, and was re-
garded as the future husband of the young lady. Things
went on in this way for some months, but at length, for
reasons which it was not at all necessary further to allude
to, the engagement was broken off, and on the 29th April of
last year, the plaintiff and the young lady mutually agreed
to release each other from the engagement that they had
entered into, and each returned the letters of the other.
From this period nothing occurred until Oct. 21, when upon
the occasion of the plaintiff and the defendant meeting at
the Corn Exchange in this town, the defendant committed a
most brutal assault upon the plaintiff, by kicking him, and
as he had not thought fit to give any explanation of his con-
duct, or offer any apology, the present action was brought
to recover damages for the insult the plaintiff had received
upon the occasion in question.
Mr. T. S. Hillman, the plaintiff, was then examined. He
said—l was introduced to the family of the defendant at the
latter end of the year 1861, and I was on intimate terms
with his daughter, and we were engaged to be married,
but the engagement was broken off by mutual consent on
the 29th April last year. I saw the defendant frequently
after this, but he had no conversation with me, and I was
not aware of any angry feeling on his part until the 21st of
October. On that day I was standing in the Corn Ex-
change at Lewis, and talking to a farmer named Noakes,
when I suddenly received a kick from behind, and when I
turned round I saw it was the defendant who had assaulted
me. When I faced him he kicked me a second time, and
he would have continued his violence if his son had not
laid hold of him and pinioned his arms.
Cross-examined—l had known Mr. Brown's family three
or four years before I was introduced to them. I myself
asked Mr. Brown's permission to pay my addresses to his
daughter, and after he gave his consent I was admitted into
the family, and regarded as her future husband,and treated
with the greatest kindness. Miss Brown used to visit my
mother, and she was one of the bridesmaids when my sister
was married. I gave her a ring, and myself placed it upon
her engaged finger, and we used to correspond with each
other in the most affectionate manner. From the letters
she wrote to me I have reason to believe that she enter-
tained great affection for me. The engagement between us
was broken off on the 29th of April, and I had made an
arrangement with Miss Brown a few days before to go with
her to church on the 27th, but I did not keep my promise,
and did not send her any explanation for my conduct. The
29th April was Lewis market day,and I knew that her father
' would be at market on that day, and I went to his house at a
time when I knew he would be out. The witness then ad-
mitted in the coolest possible manner, and in terms that
created an evide❑tly suppressed feeling of disgust in the
court, that he abruptly told the young lady that ho had
come to break off the engagement of marriage, and that he
had brought her letters with him to restore to her, and
wished her to give him those he had written. He then
asked her to take the ring off her engaged finger that he had
given to her, and she burst into tears, and said, "No,
Thomas, you put it on my finger, and I will not take it off;"
and he said that he did take off the ring, upon this, and
put it into his pocket. He admitted that only a very few
days before this he had parted with the young lady upon
the most affectionate terms, and that he did not give her
the slightest explanation for breaking off the en-
gagement that existed between them, and ho also admitted
that although the defendant's daughter earnestly entreated
him to see hfr mother, and give her some explanation of his
conduct, he refused to do so, and left the house the moment
he obtained possession of the ring and the letters.
Mr. Hawkins asked the plaintiff how he could possibly
be surprised, after such a proceeding on his part, that the
father of the young lady should kick him as he had done the
first time he saw him ? (A roar of laughter in the court.)
He made no reply.

in answer to further questions, the plaintiff said that
when he left the house Miss Brown was a little affected, and
he was also a little affected himself. (Laughter.)

Mr, Noakes was called to corroborate the evidence of the
plaintiff with reward to the assault.
Mr. Justice Wightman sail he considered this was quite
unnecessary, as he understood that the assault was admitted.
Mr. Hawkins—Oh, certainly, my lord, we admit the as-
sault, but say it sened him right (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins then addressed the jury for the defendant,
and observed that he was surprised that Mr. Hillman
should have dared to bring such a case befote a jury of
English gentlemen, as he submitted that he had brought the
assault upon himself by his own brutal and unmanly con-
duct towards the daughter of the defendant, and that he
richly deserved the chastisement he had received at the
hands of her father. He had himself proposed the marriage
to the family, and had been treated by them with the utmost
kindness and hospitality, and he had repaid that hospitality
by wantonly breaking off the solemn engagement ho had
entered into, upon no other ground than his own will and
pleasure, and when the father of the young lady adminis-
tered to him the chastisement he so richly deserved for his
unmanly and unfeeling conduct, ho came into a court ofjus-
tice and asked for damages. He then said that although the
plaintiff must have a verdict it appeared to him that if the
jury were to give him a farthing damages that amount would
be amply sufficient compensation, and the plaintiff might
wear the coin as a "charm" suspended to his watoh chain.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Wightman, In summing up, said that the
assault was admitted, and the only question for the jury
was, what amount of compensation the plaintiff was entitled
to ? They had heard the circumstances, and it was for them
to say what damages ought to be awarded.

The jury returned a verdiot for the plaintiff—
damages, 20s.

Tho effect of this verdict will be that each party pays his
own costs.

RAY V. FOWLER.

This was a case of breach of promise of marriage, the
declaration alleging that the parties had agreed to marry each
ether, and that, though a reasonable time for performance
of the promise had elapsed, the defendant had not only
neglected and refused to marry the plaintiff, but had mar-
ried some one else. The defendant pleaded, first, that he
did not agree to marry her as alleged ; secondly, that she
was not ready and willing to marry him ; thirdly, that she
exonerated and discharged him from his promise to marry
her.

Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Merrifield were for the plaintiff;
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Pearce were for the defendant.
The parties were neither of them in an elevated position in
society, the defendant being in a position little above that
of the plaintiff. He was the son of a riding-master and
a livery stablekeeper at Brighton ; she was a barmaid, the
daughter of a small cabkeeper at Worthing. They were
about the same age, each being about 24 years old. They
became acquainted in September, 1861, when she was living
as barmaid at an hotel in Brighton. About 40 letters passed
between them, some of which—from the defendant—wero
read as the trial, and alluded to his hope that " she would
be his own," and that he should be able to secure her a
" better home." Tho acquaintance and correspondence
continued a year and a half, and they were, according to the
case for the plaintiff, mutually introduced as engaged to
each other. In February last, however, she saw the ad-
vertisement of his marriage in the Brighton papers, and
this action was brought.

Mr. Lush, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said this
was one of a class of cases exceedingly painful to the feelings
of the parties concerned, and he declared that he had rarely
heard a case of the kind which showed conduct more heart-
less on the part of defendant. Tho acquaintance and cor-
respondence had lasted a year and u half and ware continued
down to the very time when the announcement of his mar-
riage was published. And the letters which had passed
would show plainly not only the fact of the promise to
marry, but that there was no pretence of any mutual agree-
ment to dispense with performance.
The Registrar of Marriages, who proved the marriage of
the defendant and his signature to the registry, was also
called upon to prove two letters of the defendant, in which
the expressions already mentioned occurred, and did so.
Thereupon,
Mr. Lush, amid much laughter, handed in a whole bundle
of the defendant's letters.

The father of the plaintiff was called. Being called upon,
as usual, to say what he saw or heard which looked like an
engagement, he said he heard the defendant speak about a
profile, and say that it was "the persrn he was resolved to
marry," but, the matter having gone on at Brighton while
he lived at Worthing, he, of course, could not say much
about it. He had no idea, he said, that the engagement
was not going on up to the time of the marriage.
The mother, however, who had been at the hotel where
the defendant visited the plaintiff, proved his coming seve-
ral times a week to see her, and the proprietor objecting to
it and saying that he did not think that the defendant would
marry her. The witness spoke to the defendant and told
him this. upon which he said that his intentions were hon-
ourable "as to marrying her." She also stated that she said
to him that the girl had no money, and he said that ho was
well aware of that, and that he would work and keep her.

Another witness, a respectable woman (the plaintiff's
aunt), at whose house the parties visited, stated that they
conducted themselves towards each other, as she said, very
well ; and being asked whether they conducted themselves
towards each other as if they were courting, stated that they
did so, and "in a very nice sort of way." (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins thereupon pressed the witness a good deal
as to what this meant. She said she meant in a " very re.