The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-27 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTEL LIGEIV

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEwEs, March 26.
:Before Mr. Justice Wightman and a Common Jury.

CRISP V. CORDREY.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages
for the unlawful detention of certain articles of
wearing apparel, and a gold watch belonging to the
plaintiff, by the defendant.
Mr. B. Rigby appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C,, Sergeant Ballantine, and Mr.
Crawfurd, for the defendant.
This was rather a curious case. The plaintiff in
the action was a widow, and the defendant was
stated to be a gentleman of considerable property
residing in: this county. The parties became
acquainted in the commencement of the present
year, and were on very intimate terms, but
in consequence of something that came to the
knowledge of the defendant, on the 11th of February
he proceeded to the house of the mother of the
plaintiff, and forcibly took possession of certain
articles belonging to her. For this trespass the
mother brought an action against the defendant,
who paid 40s. into court. The cause was tried on
Tuesday, and the jury gave a verdict for the de-
fendant. The object of the present action was to
recover the value of the property that was removed
upon the occasion.
Mrs. Amelia Crisp, a very good-looking young
woman, deposed that she was a widow, and lived
with her mother in Warwick-street, Pimlico. She
knew the defendant, and on the 11th of February
she accompanied him and her mother to the Lyceum
Theatre. During the performance the defendant
went to her mother's residence and took away a
portmanteau, two silk dresses, a gold watch and
chain, and some articles of under clothing, and a
scarlet Garibaldi jacket. (A laugh.) The portman-
teau was worth three guineas ; the two silk dresses,
sixteen guineas; and she considered the watch and
chain to be worth fifteen guineas. The defendant
still had possession of all those articles.
Cross-examined—She did not know exactly what
the watch and chain were worth, but Mr. Cordrey
gave them to her, and she knew he was a rich man,
and therefore thought that he would not give her a
less price than she had mentioned for such articles.
(A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins—l believe you have brought an
action against the defendant for " wounded feel-
ings P"
Witness—Yes,
Mr. Hawkins—Were you very unhappy then ?
Witness--LI was. (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—l believe he was your suitor, was
he not ? Pray, how long did the courtship last ?
Witness—l cannot say.
Mr. Hawkins—Did it not begin in January and
end in February ?
Witness—l suppose it was about that time.
Mr. Hawkins—And then, I believe, he married
some one else (mentioning a name).
Witness—She died, you know ; and he could not
marry a dead woman. (A roar of laughter.)
The witness further stated that the defendant
bought her the portmanteau, and gave three gui-
neas for it, and it was bought for the wedding tour.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins asked the witness whether the writ
in the present action was not served upon the de-
fendant on Valentine's day ?
She replied she believed it was. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins--A very pretty valentine to send
to a man! (Renewed laughter.) He then asked
the witness whether she was not aware that when
engagements of this kind were broken off, it was
customary for the lady to return the gentleman's
presents ?
She relied that this might be so, but in the pre-
sent case lie took them by force. (A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins—Well, suppose he gives them to
you back again ?
Witness—Well, I would rather have the money.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins made a very humorous speech in
behalf of the defendant, and said that this was the
first time he had ever been called upon to tax a
milliner's bill, which was all he really had to do,
for the defendant admitted having taken the arti-
cles, and the only question was what was their
value. The defendant had no doubt acted foolishly,
but the thoughts of his former love induced him to
' desire to keep these articles in remembrance of the
' object of his affection ' • and it was not until, on
I 'Valentine's day, of all others in the year, he was
, served with no less than four valentines of the de-
. scription spoken to, all arising out of this one trans-
action, that he found what a very unpleasant posi-
tion he had placed himself in. (A laugh.)
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £4l, that being the full value claimed for
the property.