The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-06 00:00:00

MISE OF MARRIAGE.

In this case, the facts and circumstances of which,
as elicited at the trial, excited much public indig-
nation, Mr. Sergeant Shee moved for a rule calling
on the defendant, Gen. Shirley, to show cause why
the verdict of the jury returned in his favour should
not be set aside, on the ground that it was against
the weight of evidence; and why a new trial
should not be had. The case was one of a peculiarly
painful nature. The plaintiff, Miss Anne Thomas,
a young lady 23 years of age, of varied accomplish-
ments, who had filled with credit the situation of
governess in several respectable families, and whose
character was unblemished, advertised in 1861 for
the situation of lady housekeeper to a respectable
single gentleman. The defendant, who is a man of
fortune and rank, replied to the advertisement, and
appointed an interview. He informed her of his
rank, said he was unmarried ; and he wanted such
a person ; and that she would find herself happy
and comfortable at his residence, Brookside Lodge,
near Rugby, where she should have the command of
the servants of his establishment, and entire direc-
tion of the house affairs. He took her to Richmond,
where she dined with him, and in a subsequent in-
terview he succeeded, under, according to her evi-
dence, a promise of marriage, in seducing her. She
proceeded to Brookside Lodge, and there passed as
Mrs. Shirley. She became enceinte; disagree-
ments arose between them respecting his promise to
marry her, and she ultimately returned to London,
where she gave birth, in March last, to a child, and
discovered that the general was a married min,
separated from his wife. She then brought an ac-
tion to recover compensation in damages against
him for breach of promise of marriage. The case
was tried at the last assizes at Lewes, before Mr.
Baron Bramwell and a common jury, and resulted
in a verdict for the defendant, who, in his defence,
denied the promise, The learned sergeant in his
application commented upon the terms in which the
learned judge summed up the evidence to the jury,
and expressed a hope, looking at all the circum-
stances, that the Court would be of opinion that he
was entitled to a rule.

The Lord Chief Justice (the other judges con-
curring) was of opinion that there ought not to
be a rule. With regard to the advertisement
put into the newspapers, the Court could not but
regard it as very imprudent, and the learned
judge who tried the cause did not express himself
dissatisfied with the verdict.

Mr. Sergeant Shee then, referring to a second
action brought by the plaintiff against General
Shirley for recovery of expenses incurred by her
for necessaries, and which was referred to arbitra-
tion, said he was prepared with an affidavit contain-
ing the plaintiff's evidence before the arbitrator—
evidence which she was precluded from giving at
the trial for breach of promise ; and as it would
place the case in a strong aspect before their lord-
ships, he hoped the Court would allow him to read
and put it in as additional ground why a rule for a
new trial ought to be granted.
The Lord Chief Justice said the Court could not
hear the affidavit, or admit anything but the facts
of the case as they appeared on the trial. With
respect to any new evidence, it could be brought
out in the other case. The rule must, therefore, be
refused.

Rule refused accordingly.
MARSHAL T. GOLBY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an
attorney at Cheltenham, to recover possession of
two race-horses from the defendant, the well-known
trainer, who had them in training for Mr. Talbot,
and refused to give them up to the plaintiff, who
claimed a right to them under the conditions of an
agreement entered into between him on the one
part and Mr. Talbot on the other. The action was
tried before Mr. Justice Mellor, and resulted in a
verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Hawkins. Q.C., now moved for a rule calling
on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside, as against evidence, and a
verdict entered for the defendant, or why there
should not be a nonsuit. The agreement recited
that the plaintiff lent Mr. Taibot £l,OOO on inte-
rest, and received from him, as security, a bill of
sale, authorising him to claim and obtain possession
of the horses if default of payment should occur. A
condition precedent was embodied in the document,
that in the event of default seven days' notice should
be given by plaintiff to Mr. Talbot, and that on the
expiration of such notice plaintiff would be at liberty
to enforce his bill of sale, and entitled to possession
of the horses ' • but until such default happened, and
notice agreed upon was duly served upon Mr. Tal-
bot, that gentleman was to retain possession of the
horses. Mr. Talbot was, at the time of default in
payment, stopping at an hotel in Cheltenham, bat
being in pecuniary difficulties, plaintiff was unable
to meet him, and make direct service of the seven
days' notice on him. Plaintiff was also unable to
see and serve the notice on Mrs. Talbot, and failing
in his efforts to serve either, he then applied to
Golby for possession of the horses. Golby refused
to give them up, saying they were entrusted to him
by Mr. Talbot for training, and that he would only
give them up to that gentleman. Notice in accord-
ance with the terms of the bill of sale was served
upon him, but he persisted in his refusal, and hence
the action against him.
The Lord Chief Justice—Golby had a sort of lien
on the horses.

Mr. Hawkins—Yes; and for the defence it was
submitted that Mr. Talbot was at his hotel in Chel-
tenham, and constantly in and out, and that service
of the notice might have been made upon him.
Mr. Justice Mellor—The evidence of the plaintiff
was that he had frequently called at the hotel, and
that he was never able to find Mr. Talbot at home,
that gentleman, because of his difficulties, finding it
convenient to be out of the way.
The Court having conferred, granted a rule nisi.