The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-04 00:00:00

acted as the plaintiff's solicitors (Messrs. Lewis
and Lewis), but to other parties more immediately
connected with her, but who did not care at all
for her feelings or for the defendant's, or what
exposure took place, so long as they effected their
object of obtaining money. The learned counsel
then proceeded to refer to the facts of the case, and
submitted that even upon the evidence as it stood
it was ridiculous to suppose that General Shirley
had ever made a promise of marriage to the plain-
tiff. The fact was that the whole proceeding was
one that might be classed among the tricks of Lon-
don, of which the Jury, no doubt, had frequently
heard. What could possibly have been intended
by such an advertisement as the one they had heard
of in this case, and which had led to the plaintiff
and defendant being introduced to each other. Had
any one ever heard of a respectable young woman,
or any young woman who had respectable connec-
tions, causing such an advertisement to be published
—an advertisement describing herself as young and
accomplished, and requiring an engagement with,
of all other persons in the world, single gentlemen
or widowers. Why, the object was perfectly plain.
She could not have expected that any person with
honourable intentions, or who really wanted the
services of a respectable young woman to superin-
tend his household affairs, would have answered
such an advertisement. Then, again, there was the
name of the party to whom the application was to
be made—" Constance." Did any one ever hear of
a housekeeper of such a name ? Why, it was per-
fectly ridiculous. There flould be no doubt as to
the real object and intention of inserting such an
advertisement, and it had that effect. The defen-
dant answered that advertisement, and he was not
going to attempt to justify his conduct on the score
of morality; but the question now before them was
whether he had made a promise of marriage to
the plaintiff, and whether he ought to pay her a
large amount of money as damages for breaking
that promise. What were the facts of the case ?
Why, within a very few days of the first- inter-
view that took place between the parties the plaintiff
accompanied the defendant to Greenwich, and then
to Southend, where she remained with him all
night. As to the letters that had been put in, they
showed clearly the nature of the intimacy that ex-
isted between the plaintiff and the defendant almost
immediately after they became acquainted, and
they were no doubt couched in terms of great affec-
tion. The defendant did entertain great affection
for this young lady, and but for her own conduct,
to which he alluded in one of the letters which had
been read to them, he would have continued to pro-
tect her; and he was still desirous of making pro-
vision for his child and also for the plaintiff herself,
but he would not submit to an attempt like the pre-
sent. He then went on to comment upon the other
facts of the case, and said that it was ridiculous to
imagine that the defendant could ever have made a
promise of marriage to the plaintiff, or that she
could have been deceived by such a promise, even
if it had been made, because the condition of a man
in the position of General Shirley, and the fact that
be was separated from his wife, must have been
known to all the world. The learned counsel con-
cluded a powerful address by repeating that he did
not desire at ail to defend General Shirley from the
charge of immoral conduct, but he did desire to con-
vince the jury that he was not the base and delibe-
rate seducer he had been represented to be by his
learned friend, and that the plaintiff had no right
to recover in the present action.

Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up the case
to the jury, said they had nothing to do with
punishing the defendant for any immorality
of which he might have been guilty, or
with giving compensation to the plaintiff, or
providing for the child ; and the only questions
for them to consider were whether the defen-
dant had promised to marry the plaintiff,
whether he had broken that promise, and if so
what amount of damages she was entitled
to by reason of his so doing. He then called their
attention to the facts that had been disclosed, and
said that the advertisement which had led to the
parties being introduced to each other was certainly
a very singular one, and there appeared to be
no ;doubt that within a very few days after the
parties were first introduced to each other they
went out together, and the nature of the connec-
tion between them was perfectly clear. It was for
the jury therefore to say, looking at all the facts of
the case, whether it was probable that the defen-
dant
,ever made a promise of marriage, or whether
a young woman, not only 21 years of age, but even
one of 15, could have been deceived as to the real
character of the connection which the defendant
was desirous to form with her.

The jury, after consulting a short time in the box,
expressed a wish to retire. They returned into
court in about 20 minutes, and gave a verdict for
the defendant.