The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-20 00:00:00

TILE STIN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 20, 1853,

tricts'are now being introduced [into the composition of
some of the Staffordshire makes. The high character for-
merly enjoyed by our iron is justly losing ground, and its
trustworthiness is rapidly declining, so that unless our
first-rate houses will more decidedly discountenance such
qualities of pigs, the advantage which has been hitherto
enjoyed in the market will soon be lost. In ironstone,
limestone, and coals no corresponding reduction of price
has taken place, and the demand for each continues so
far beyond the supply, especially for the latter, that
when the winter country trade again sets in, which it
usually does about Michaelmas, there appears every rea-
son to anticipate an advance rather than a reduction in
that article. _ _ _

something which he had not said upon the subject of
Miss Hore.
Mrs. Florence said—l am the wife of the last witness.
I have been intimately acquainted with the plaintiff for
the last four years, and I remember the defendant com-
ing with her to our house at the close of last year. Miss
Here introduced him as her intended husband, and the
defendant afterwards said that the father of Miss Hore
objected at that time to their being married. I remem-
ber a young lady named Wright coming on a visit to
the plaintiff, and while they were both up stairs the de-
fendant said there had been a long courtship, and he
wished to get married soon, and he would be married in
the month of March, and wished my husband to give
Miss Hore away. I was one of the party who went to
see the defendant's house.
Cross-examined—It was very easy to tell when two
young people were engaged, by their blushing. (Laugh-
ter.) Mr. Duke had got beyond that. (Laughter.) I
heard of Miss Hore's father giving his consent in the
month of January.
Mr. John Wright said—l am a solicitor, and reside in
Bedford-row. I have been the plaintiff's solicitor since
1849. In January last the defendant and his brother
came to my office, and they said they were referred to
me to obtain information relating to Miss Hore's pro-
perty, and I told them she derived it from the will of
her mother, and that it consisted of a moiety between
9,0001. and 10,0001. in the Consols, and a moiety of her
freehold houses in Bognor, and a moiety of a farm in
Sussex, but I could not tell them the value of it. The
defendant said he knew the farm. I told them I had
not got the will, but I offered to lend them the draft of
it. They both appeared to be very disappointed.
Mr. Bramwell—When asked what they offered, what
did they say ?
Witness—They said the property was not half what
it had been represented to them. I showed them the
draft of the will, and Mr. W. Duke said he found that
Miss Hore could not make a settlement of her property,
and the defendant said that Mr. Hore had pressed him
for a settlement, but that Miss Fiore herself did not re-
quire it. I was aware Miss Hore could not make a
settlement because she only took an interest contingent
upon her surviving her mother for twenty-one years,
and if she did not,,do so it would go to her brother or
her issue.
By Mr. Bramwell—Miss Hore had an equal chance
of her mother's property that he would of hers. I
I have had a correspondence by writing with Mr. W.
Duke on the subject of this action. I know that an
action has been brought by the father of the plaintiff
against the brother of the defendant for libel. The
settlement upon the plaintiff was to have been made by
a bond.
The bond made by the defendant was put in. It re-
ferred to the plaintiff as his intended wife.
Mr. Wright re-called—l told Mr. Hore I did not
think the settlement was of any value, as it was not
made a charge upon any property.
Mr. George Peskett said—l am a surgeon at Bognor.
I have known Mr. Hore a great many years, and his
family also, and I was on very intimate terms with
them. I knew that the plaintiff and the defedant were
engaged to be married. On the 20th May, I went to
the defendant's house and he was asked by Mr. Hore,
who accompanied me, whether he was prepared to carry
out the engagement he had made with his daughter.
The defendant replied, "Certainly not." The question
was put a second time, and then the defendant said
" Decidedly not." He was asked the reason, and the
defendant said to Mr. Hore, "If you had acted dif-
ferently in the matter I should have been placed in a
different situation.
Cross-examined—l did not hear the defendant say
that Mr. Hore had been circulating reports about his
family. I don't believe anything of the kind was said.
There are at least 10 or 12 of the Duke family, brothers
and sisters. Mr. Hore is a man of property. One of
my nephews was the occasion of a difference arising
between me and the plaintiff's father. It was supposed
that he and Miss Hore were engaged to be married.
Mr. Hore did not consent to the match, and it was
broken off, but I don't know upon what grounds—
whether it was with the consent of the young lady, or
through the objection to the marriage entertained by
the father.
Re-examined—The offence with which my nephew
was convicted occurred in 1845, and since 1849 I have
been on the same terms with the family of Mr. Hore as
before.
Mr. W. Duick, a surveyor, at Chesterton, deposed
that in the beginning of the present year the defendant's
brother William called upon him and made some in-
quiry.
Mr. Florence re-called—l saw the defendant on the
14th January, and he shook hands with me, and said he
wanted to speak to me, and he took me into the church-
yard. Said he had something very particular to say to
me. He then said I have heard say that Miss Hore
drinks. I replied that she had been to my house fre-
quently, and I never saw a symptom of it. He then
said, "Well, I am very glad to hear you say so, it will
do me as much good as if you gave me a thousand
pounds," and he said he was very much obliged to me,
and we parted.
Cross-examined--The plaintiffand defendant appeared
on good terms for several weeks after this.
Mr. W. Thompson, a medical gentleman living at
Bognor, proved that he had attended Miss Hore and her
family for four years. He was then asked whether the
defendant's brother William had not called upon him
about six weeks ago and made some inquiry of him.
Mr. Bramwell objected to anything that was said by
the brother of the defendant being received as evidence,
and the question was not pressed.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Bramwell then addressed the jury for the defend-
ant. He said he could assure them that he had never
risen to address any jury under feelings of greater pain
and difficulty than he did on the present occasion, and
he believed that the defendant himself shared in those
feelings. His learned friend had made some strong
observations with regard to the pleas of the defendant,
but he felt called upon to declare, and he (lid so with the
entire concurrence of the defendant, that there never was
any intention to cast the slightest imputation upon the
character or conduct of the young lady, and if such an
impression prevailed upon the mind of any person, he
entirely and most emphatically denied that there was
any foundation for it. He admitted that he had no an-
swer whatever to the action ; and the only thing the jury
would be called upon to decide would be what amount
of damages the defendant ought to pay for breaking his
promise of marriage ; and upon this subject alone he
should make a few observations. He asked them first
to look at the circumstances of the case. Here was a
man pretty well advanced in life, a widower, with three
children, who had been twice married, and who, although
undoubtedly filling a respectable position in society,
was still clearly not in so good a position as the plain-
tiff; and the question for the jury was what was the in-
jury she had sustained, and what was the amount of the
loss she had incurred by the defendant failing to fulfil
his promise to marry her. They had it in evidence that
the plaintiff was a young woman of considerable personal
attractions, possessed of a fortune ; and, looking at these
facts, they would consider what damage she had suffered
by not being married to a man much older than herself,
who had three children. Everything was in favour of
the lady and against the gentleman, and it really ap-
peared to him that she would have actually thrown her-
self away by marrying such a man. He would not
attempt to justify the conduct of the defendent, but
although this was one of those cases in which the law,
very properly as it appeared to him, did not allow a man
to be called as a witness, and to give an explanation of
his conduct, he was sure the jury would feel that some
reasonable explanation might be given totally apart from
any consideration relating to the character of the young
lady, which would have been a justification for the de-
fendant, upon mature consideration, feeling it prudent
to decline to fulfil his promise. Upon this subject they
were now totally in the dark, and he could not help
observing that it appeared to him to be rather an injus-
tice towards the defendant that the father of the young
lady had not been called as a witness. Representations
had been made with regard to his refusing in the first
instance to give his consent to the marriage and other
matters, and he thought that in fairness he ought to
have been called, and he had no doubt that if he had
been he should have elicited from him in cross-examina-
tion some facts, not in any way, he admitted, tending to
the disparagement of the young lady, but which would
have had the effect of satisfying the jury that the defen-
dant really had some grounds for the course he pursued,
and that he had not acted in the heartless way that had
been suggested by the counsel for the plaintiff. The
learned counsel, in conclusion, admitted that the verdict
must pass against his client, but he called upon the jury
not to, punish the defendant by giving vindictive
damages, when it was clear that all the facts connected
with the case were not before them.
Mr. Justice Cresswell, in summing up the case to the
jury, said it was no part of their duty to punish a de-
fendant. All they had to do was to compensate the
plaintiff for the injury she had sustained ; and if in doing
so they punished the defendant, that they had nothing
to do with. The action was for a breach of promise of
marriage, and there was clearly no answer to it. Two
of the pleas of the defendant were most absurd, and for
the third there did not appear to be any pretence what-
ever ; and the jury would say what damages the plain-
tiff was entitled to for the annoyance and the injury to
her feelings that she had sustained. It might (appear
absurd to compensate a hurt to the feelings by a money
recompense ; but it was acknowledged by the law ; and
the amount of compensation was the only question the
jury had to decide. It had been said in the present
case the plaintiff had sustained no real injury; but
re woman
;
and
un-
doubtedly a proceeding of this description could not but
causethe
g great
factsof he
pain andr being
emortificationing
young
w
and to anye youngwealthy
thy
cal-
culated rather to increase those feelings when she con-
sidered that having such advantages, and having conde-
scended to agree to accept of a man much older than
herself, who had three children, as a husband, he should
refuse to have her. The jury would, however, take all
the circumstances into their consideration, and award
such fair and reasonable damages to the plaintiff as they
considered her entitled to.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdie
for the plaintiff—damages 4001.

a person named Delves, at Brighton, to whom she paid
2s. eu. per week for taking care of it. A day or two be-
fore the 6th of March the prisoner called upon Mrs.
Delves, and stated that she should want the child got
ready on that day, as she was going to take it to Shore-
ham, and Mrs. Delves accordingly dressed the child early
in the day, in order that it might ready to go out. The
prisoner did not come for the child until the evening,
and as it was very wet and foggy, Mrs. Delves observed
that it was not a proper night to have the child out ;
but the prisoner persisted in doing so, and said that if
she left the child at Shoreham, as she expected, she
should not call upon her when she came back, and in
that case she directed her to give a bedstead, which she
had provided for the use of the child, to her bro-
ther, who she said would call for it. Mrs. Delves then
gave the child some bull's eyes and some nuts, and the
prisoner went away with it, and they were both seen
shortly afterwards going in the direction of Hove. About
eight o'clock the same night the prisoner arrived at her
master's, and at this time nothing was seen of her child,
but on the following day the dead body was found at a
place called Hove Drove, between the railway terminus
and the sea. A portion of its clothes had been removed,
and, upon an examination of the body, it became mani-
fest that death was the result of suffocation, occasioned by
a ligature which was found tied tightly round the
throat. It appeared that the child was very speedily
recognised as that of the prisoner, and the officers
of Brighton at once proceeded to the house of her
master, and took her into custody ; and upon her
being told that she was charged with the murder
of her child she became dreadfully agitated, and ex-
claimed, "Oh, what shall I do ? Oh, dear, hew
could Idoit ? Do tell me what to do Oh, save me
Let me go !" Her boxes were then searched, when the
child's frock, very wet and muddy, and in the pocket of
which were the bull's eyes and nuts given to her by Mrs.
Delves, was found, and upon further examination the
boots of the prisoner, and also some of her own clothes,
all of which were very wet and muddy, were discovered.
Mr. Creasy, on behalf of the prisoner, made a forcible
appeal to the feelings of the jury on account of her youth
and her unfortunate position, and he urged them to re-
turn a verdict that would have the effect of saving the
life of his wretched client.
The Lord Chief Baron having summed up, the jury,
after being a short time in deliberation, returned a ver-
dict of guilty.
The unhappy woman was immediately called up for
judgment, and the Lord Chief Baron, in a most impres-
sive manner, passed upon her the awful sentence of
death.

When the learned judge concluded his address, the
prisoner fainted, and was carried from the dock in a state
of insensibility.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE of YESTERDAY.

DIVIDEND.
In the Country.
E. Smith, South Shields, linen and woollen draper,
August 10, at half-past eleven, at the Court, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne.

PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.
S. M. Latham, Dover, banker, 61d., any Wednesday,
between eleven and three, at the office of Mr. Whitmore,
Basinghall-street, or the New Sessions House, Dover.
W. Royston, Manchester, builder, 9s. 6d., on Tuesday,
July 26, and every following Tuesday, btween ten and
one, at the office of Mr. Lee, Manchester.
• J. Law and Eli Hudson, Ramsden Wood, Lancashire,
cotton-spinners, first dividend of 12s. 11d. between ten
and one, on Tuesday, July 26, and every following Tues-
day, at the office of Mr. Lee, Manchester.
R. H. Bell and E. Bell, South Shields, paper manufac-
tures, 2 2-7 d., between ten and three, on Saturday, July
23, and every following Saturday, at the office of Mr.
Wakley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
W. W. King, Liverpool, chemist and druggist, 35., on
Thursday, July 13, or any following Thursday, between
eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Cazenove, Liverpool.
NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-street

C. Clark, Cambridge, gun-tuaker, August 9, at one.
In the Country.
W. Nicholson, Shotley-bridge, Durham, timber mer•
chant, August 10, at eleven, at the Court, Newcastle-upon•
Tyne.

CERTIFICATES GRANTED.
T. M. Bowden, Old Brentford, basket-maker, certificate
of the first class.—W. Martin, Hertford-bridge, Hamp-
shire, smith and ironmonger, certificate of the first class.
W. Reading, Charles-street West, Paddington, builder,
certificate of the second class.--R. Willmott, Peterborough,
tailor, certificate of the second class.—C. Larkin, Green-
wich, coffee-house-keeper, certificate of the second class—
W. S. Oake, Poole, painter, plumber, and glazier, certifi-
cate of the second class--A. B. Fraser, Lime-street, City,
merchant, certificate of the second class twelve months
from July B—E. J. Burford, Bermondsey-square, salt
merchant and drysalter, certificate of the second
class —F. Rolfe, Great Marlborough-street, tailor,
certificate of the third class —B. Bunting, senior,
B. Bunting, junior, and R. Durrant, Norwich,
tallow chandlers and soap manufacturers, certificates of the
third class—R. Milner, Darlington, timber merchant, cer-
tificate of the third class—J. J. Smith, Stockton-upon-
Tees, shipowner, certificate of the third class—H. Carring-
ton, Stockport, nurseryman and seedsman, certificate of
the second class.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. Whewell and E. Bickerstaff, Freston, brickmakers—
J. Moorhouse, W. Price, and J. Price, Stockport, Che-
shire, cotton thread doublers—H. Montgomery and J.
Montgomery, Beverley, Yorkshire, joiners —J. Wil-
liams and W. Williams, Cardiff, ens neers—J. Harvey,
B. Sherwood, N. Sherwood, and T.'Rolinson, Dolgally,
Vigra and Clogan Copper Mining Company—T. Janes and
J. Elvey, Strood, Kent, coal merchants—H. J. Stewart
and J. Slocombe, Ramsgate—S. Allen and W. Cox, Leices-
ter, coal merchants—MaryHutchinson and A. Hutchinson,
Horsforth, Yorkshire, farmers—Maria Sparkes, Priscilla
Sparkes, and Eliza Rebecca Pumphrey, Houndsditch, silk
mercers—H. Ashton and R. Ashton, at Bryn, Cheshire,
brick makers—J. Forrester and J. Wallace, Liverpool, ship
bread bakers—M. W. Yates, W. Taylor, and W. H. Night-
ingale, Gutter-lane, City, and Mitcham Surrey, manufac-
turers of table covers, so far as regards W. Taylor—G. Rust,
D. Veasy, C. Veasey, and A. D, Veasey, Huntingdon, St.
Ives, St. Neot's, and Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, bankers, so
far as regards J. Rust—J. Winkfield and A. Bell, East Green-
wich, Kent, cement manufacturers—W. Penkeyman and
R. Parry, Liverpool, coal merchants—W. Barnley and C.
T. Faulkner, Kingston-upon-Hull, Sheffield, Manchester,
Liverpool, &c., general carriers—W. Roberts and E. D.
Wilmot, Birmingham, jewellers—Anne Trotter and Esther
Jones, Manchester' milliners—W. J. Seagrove, E. A. Sea-
grove, aftd W. A. Seagrove, Portsea, naval and military
tailors—W. Davis and G. Haynes, Worcester, drapers.
INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
Daniel Rodway, Cheltenham, shoemaker.
James Lane, Cheltenham, general dealer.
William Savage, Iggulden, Marden, Kent, butcher.
William Parker, Bletchington, Oxfordshire.
John Parsons, Melcombe Regis, Dorsetshire, slater.
William Horsfield, Bishop Burton, Yorkshire, tailor.
John Patrick Ferguson, Gravesend, waterman.
John Chapman, Bishop's Hatfield, Hertfordshire,
builder.
Thomas Istance, Tangiers, Pembrokeshire, clogmaker.
Henry Abbott, Wisbech St. Mary, Cambridgeshire,
farmer.