The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-24 00:00:00

ARRIVALS.

Wheat. Barley. I Oats. I Flour.
English 3,600 qrs. 10,550 qrs. if 11,010 qrs. 4,4o6s4cics.
Irish
Foreign

brl4,

HAY MARKETS.—(At per Load of 30 Trusses.)
SMITHFIELD.
Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay £2 5 to £2 15
New Meadow Hay 0 0 0 0
Useful Old Ditto

Fine Upland Meadow and Rye-grass Hay 4 0 5 0
Clover Hay (extra fine)....£s 10...0enerully
Ott Struw £2 4to £2 81 Wheat Straw 3 8 2 15
&limited supply, and trade tolerably brisk at yesterday's prices.

The neighbourhood of Baffle-bridge, at the
bottom of Gray's-inn-lane, is undergoing the very greatest
change. It has been, for many years, a filthy and dan-
gerous vicinity, and at one side of it the contents of the
dust-carts of the town used to be emptied. Mr. PEEL
gave directions for erecting a rendeevous for the new po-
lice at the point of junction of the six roads. This is to
be called the " St. George's Cross." It will be an octa-
gonal building, with pillars, and will supply all requisite
accommodation. A double-illuminated clock will show
the hour to the Paddington and Pentonville roads. All
the roads in the neighbourhood are brilliantly lighted up,
and an immense number of old houses are to be immedi-
ately levelled. Even within the last month several houses,
upon a large and elegant scale, have been raised. On
Monday afternoon, about two o'clock, one of thew edi-
fices, the newly-constructed and elegant little theatre in
Gray's-inn-lane-road, called the " Panharmonion," had
nearly been destroyed by fire. Signor LANZA had an-
nounced the opening of the theatre on Monday next; and
the wall and interior of the house generally being extremely
damp, large chafing dishes, or stoves filled with lighted
coal and coke, were placed in various situatious to air the
establishment. About the time above stated, the company
were on the stage rehearsing the opera of the Siege of
Belgrade, when it was found that the effluvia that arose
from one of these chafing-dishes, which was placed in the
pit, near the orchestra, most powerfully affected the voices
of the ladies in the rehearsal of their songs; the conse-
quence was, that Signor LANzA ordered it to be removed
to another station, and the men in the act of doing so up-
set the whole of the burning coal and coke amongst an
immense heap of shavings and wcod, and in one instant
they became ignited ; but the flaims were soon extinguished
without doing touch damage.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY).

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
lIREACII OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGF..--SINCLAIR V.

ROTIIERAM.

Mr. GURNEY, with whom was Mr. Atneasox, stated
that this was an action to recover compensation in damages
for a breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff was
a young lady between 19 and 20 years of age. She was
the daughter of a gentleman, who for a considerable time
carried on business with success in the public line, but had
now retired and lived on his property. The defendant,
he understood, was between 28 and 30 years of age. He
was a man of good address, lively in his (Exposition, and
carried on a moat extensive business as a linen-draper in
Shoreditch. He was in all respects well calculated
to win the affections of a female. The defendant first
became acquainted with the plaintiff's family in the latter
end of 1828. In February of last year he wrote her a
letter, which contained a most ardent declaration of love.
In that letter he said he had been much attached to her
for more than two years. In the most solicitous manner
he sought her affections, and begged to be received as her
lover. He hoped that his proposals would meet
with the approbation of the plaintiff's father.
Shortly after the receipt of that letter, the defendant
himself asked the consent of the plaintiff's father
to pay his addresses to Miss Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair said
he should not be able to give his daughter any fortun.,
and perhaps he might expect money. The defendant re-
plied he did not want money; all he wanted was the young
lady, for he was in a very prosperous busineae, in the first
year of which he returned nearly 50,0001., and it had
been every year increasing, so that he was able to
maintain a wife in the most respectable manner. Mr.
Sinclair did not refuse his assent, and an intimacy
ensued. The defendant used to write to the plaintiff,
and visit her two or three times a-week. He
paid her very great attention until June last year, when he
urgently requested that the marriage day might be ap-
pointed, and urged as a reason that his mother was then
in town, and he particularly wished her to be present at
the wedding. Accordingly the first week in August was
named for that ceremony to be performed, and every
preparation was made by the young lady for
that happy event. But all on a sudden this ardent lover,
he who professed such an utter disregard for money, be-
came cool. When he visited, he staid a shorter time, and
those visits were less frequent. Miss Sinclair naturally
felt uneasy, and remonstrated with him on the change of
his affection. He begged her to understand there was no
change whatever in his affection for her; and if she at-
tributed it to that cause, he could assure her she was quite
mistaken. But the real cause was an alteration in the
state of Lis affairs. What would the Jury think
when he shortly afterwards told her that if her
father would consent to settle two hundred a year on
her he would lulfil his promise. This was the real cause
why this disinterested lover broke off the acquaintance.
He knew that it was a proposition that Mr. Sinclair, in
justice to his other children, could not comply with, and
in consequence he dropped all further acquaintance.
Shortly after this the brother of the plaintiff called upon
the defendant for an explanation, when the latter said,
that he had broken off the connexion, by command of a
rich uncle. But he (Mr. Gurney) thought the rm►l
reason was, that he had formed an attachment elsewhere,
for a short time afterwards he was found courting another
young lady. This was the conduct of a man, who for
several months had kept the closest intimacy with the
young lady who, he understood, was a very prepossessing
person and accomplished. It would therefore be for the
Jury to say what damages she ought to receive for so
serious an injury. In such eases there was no telling
what an ill-natured world might say, but he was happy
that in this case not a word could be advanced against
her propriety of conduct. He would ask the Jury to feel
for her situation in the same manner as if a similar injury
had been inflicted on a sister or a daughter. He would
conclude by calling on them to render justice to his unfor-
tunate client.

John Sinclair—l am brother to the plaintiff, she is in her
20th year, and lives with her father in Lambeth. At the
time the defendant was paying his addresses to the plaintiff,
she lived in the new North-road ; my father is a retired
publican ; it has been about four years since defendant
first became acquainted with my sister, he is a linen-
draper, in a very large business, and employed between
thirty and forty young men. He had told witness that he
returned 50,0001. a year, and got a profit of li per cent.
In the year 1829, he said his business bad considerably
increased. The defendant used to visit my sister three or
fear times a week; he made a proposal of marriage to her,
and asked for my father's approbation; my father said, per-
haps you will expect money with her, and I have none to
give. He replied, Ido not want money, " all I want is
your daughter." This conversation took place in Fe-
bruary, 1829. My sister encouraged his addresses ; she
used frequently to walk out with him, and they always
went to church together on a Sunday; this intimacy
existed until July; and the first week in August was ap-
pointed for the marriage. My sister and other parts of
the family had provided part of the wedding-clothes. The
latter end of July the defendant's visits became less fre-
quent, and witness called upon him for an explanation,
when he said his uncle, who was rich, had found out that
he was courting the plaintiff, and had told him that if he
married her, he (the uncle) would " clip his wings." Ile
also said his sisters, who were very fond of his uncle, had
been the principal cause. He afterwards refused to marry
my sister, or any one else that had not got money. The
defendant is about 28 years of age. The breaking off of
this connection much affected my sister's health and
spirits.

Cross-examined by the ATTonNET-GENIZRAL---My fa-
ther kept a wine-vaults, my sister used to live with him.
Ile kept the Baker and Basket public-house, in Worship-
street, for 19 years. The plaintiff used to assist in the
business, but my father never would allow her to go into
the tap-room. There was no gin-shop. My father has
now taken the Windmill, in the New Cut. My sister
does not now assist him. The intimacy of the parties
first counuenced at the Baker and Basket.--(A laugh.)—
The defendant first gave witness an account of the profits
of his business before he " discovered" himself to the
plaintiff. Witness did not attend a meeting at the Man-
sion-house, on Monday, relating to the distress of the
country.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Is your sister very much
affected now, Sir? Witness—Time will wear every thing
off.—(A laugh.)
A letter from the defendant, dated Feb. 14, 1829, was
here put in and read. It was written in a very passion-
ate strain, and declared thy most sincere love. About
twenty other letters in a similar strain were also put in
and real. All of them began with "My deur Polly."
Miss Wrightson examined—l know defendant ;he is
at the present time paying his addresses to my sister.
Cross•examined—l cannot exactly say when the inti-
macy commenced ; I think it was in December.

This witness, a young lady fashionably attired, and of
very prepossessing appearance, immediately after leaving
the box, went off into violent hysterics. Her screams
were dreadful, and might have been heard at a consider-
able distance. She was carried out of Court in the arm s
of the officers in attendance.

This was the plaintiff's case.
The AITORNEY-GUNERAL, for the defendant, sub-
mitted that this action could not be sustained, as there was
no evidence to prove that Mr. Rotheram was paying his
addresses to any other lady at the time it commenced.
Lord TENT/Min( overruled the objection.
The ATIORNEY-GENEKAL (with whom was Mr.
Brougham) then argued at great length, for the defendant,
in mitigation of damages, in the course of which he com-
mented on the evidence adduced for the plaintiff, particu-
larly on the letter which defendant had written to the
plaintiff's daughter, declining the marriage.
Lord TENTERDEN then charged the Jury, who, after a
short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages 400/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
BARCH V. ILACKBICAN.

This was an action for the recovery of damages against
the defendant for injury sustained by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff in last July was passing by the defendant's resi-
dence, in Whitechapel, at twelve o'clock in the day, when a
large dog ran out of his yard and bit the plaintiff very
severely in the leg, so that he was obliged to go to the
workhouse, where he was confined for a length of time
from the effects of the accident, and has now only just re-
covered from the effects of the bite. This action was,
therefore, brought for compensation, which, it was alleged,
the plaintiff was entitled to from the very grievous injury
he sustained, and alio the great loss of time he suffered
from the great length of time it was thought necessary to
confine him in order to effect a perfect cure.

The evidence adduced on the trial went to show that
the df fendant was guilty of great negligence and incaution
i❑ not having his dog better secured, for want of which
such accidents as these might be of very frequent occurrence.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 701.

His Grace the Duke of WELLINGTON left
Apsley House this morning at ten o'clock, on a visit to
his MAJESTY at Windsor.