The Sun.
London, England, 1865-08-30 00:00:00

Action for Breach of Promise.

A jury was empannelled on Monday at York, before the
deputy-sheriff, to assess the damage in a case of breach of
promise of marriage. Isabella Boocock, the plaintiff, who
is 26 years of age, is the only daughter of Mr. John Boo-
cock, of Skipton-in-Craven, bootmaker. The defendant,
Mr. Joseph Cullingworth, is 29 years old, resides at Hol-
beck, near Leeds, and is the manager of the Co-operative
Flour Mill there. He had not pleaded to the action brought
against him by the plaintiff, and consequently the jury had
merely to assess the damages between the parties. Their
intimacy commenced in 1852, and they were both Wesleyan
Sunday-school teachers. The defendant, having seduced
the plaintiff, promised to marry her, and the licence for the
marriage was actually taken out, but, from some cause or
other, the defendant refused to carry out his contract of
marriage. In a letter from Deepcar Mills, near Sheffield,
dated the 4th of May, 1857, the defendant addressed the
plaintiff as "My dear Bell," and stated he certainly did not
think she was in " that situation," or he should have long
ago saved her and himself the disgrace in which they had
been so unfortunately plunged, but he urged her to keep
up her spirits, as she was not the first that this had befallen
by far." He could recompense her for all, and he suggested
she should leave Skipton and go to Bradford, get her cousin
to obtain a licence, and they would be married. He stated
he could not think of going to S , or he should be
mobbed or something worse. He also expressed the hope
that "thee and me may be as happy as the day is long."
A letter of the same date was sent to the plaintiff's father
by the defendant, who said that the contents of his (Mr.
Boocock's) note had thrown him into anawful fever, and
he was not fit for anything. He never thought it would
be his lot to bring such trouble and disgrace on any one,
but this was brought about by their Saturday gin drinking
and company. He them says—" lam wholly to blame."
Do not, for heaven's sake;-scold Bell, for I ought to have
taught her different, and not been her ruin ; but I do crave
your forgiveness, and hope sincerely to be forgiven from
another source. What you think it most expedient to
to be done I will at once do. I will promise you
sincerely that I will make amends for the injury done
to your daughter." Writing from Sheffield on May 7, 1857,
the defendant informed the plaintiff's father that ho could
make inquiries about the licence when he thought proper.
A marriage license was taken out by the plaintiff ; but on
May 13 the defendant, writing from the Pack Horse Inn,
Stockport, to plaintiff's father, said that he should not at
present be allied to his daughter. His sister had told him
that Mrs. B— said to her, when on a visit to Skipton,
that his daughter (the plaintiff) had not been right since
her return from Bradford the last time she was visiting
there, and he (Mr. Boocock) well knew she was "gadding"
up and down the country with a gentleman out of that
neighbourhood, and he could say that he (the defendant)
should not like the idea of having to stand father for some
one else. Ho well knew he (the father) could make him
pay, but he ratherhdeenwieodutldhat there do uncomfortable
for
life.
between them which had brought the plaintiff into disgrace,
hads obeen than
1) e
that
and he offered to pay the expenses in connection with the
licence, &c. In another letter, written at Stockport on May
15 to Mr. Boocock by the defendant, he said he would write
to him when ho landed, and if he found his daughter and
her child an encumbrance he was to send defendant word
to that effect, and he would keep them for him. Had he
married her he would not of (have) lived with her, because
this was a plot to ruin him, but it would bo a failure, for
he was innocent, and that was not what he (the father)
could of (have) said had he been tempted as ho had been.
However, he was not allied to any one, and he did not in-
tend to be. Mr. Granger addressed the jury in mitigation
of damages, and dwelt particularly on the fact that nearly
eight years had been allowed to elapse before any proceed-
ings were taken by the plaintiff. The last letter which had
been read, accusing the plaintiff of "gadding" about, was
the secret of the marriage with the defendant not taking
place ; and Mr. Granger submitted that the proper course
to have taken would have been to have applied to the ma-
gistrates for an order of affiliation. He had never heard of
a breach of promise case patched up as this had been after
eight years had been allowed to elapse, and he thought it
should be looked at suspiciously. The jury assessed the
damages at £45.

The subscription list of the Birmingham Vulcan
Foundry, Engineering, and Railway Plant Company
will doss on Saturday, 2nd September, for London,
and on Monday, the 4th, for the country.