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

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 5.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco, at Westminster, before Lord
Chief justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice Wightman,
Mr. Justice Blackburn, add Mr. Justice Mellor.)
THOMAS V. GENERAL SHIRLEt-RREAGH OF PRO-

MIKE OF MARRIAGI.
In this ease, 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
painfdi 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. lie 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 ehe 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 I 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 man,
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.