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

principle on which he had voted for the measure for the
reduction of the Irish bishops, and said he should with-
out the smallest apprehension, after voting for the bill,
present himself before his constituents, to whom he owed
as much as any member of the house. The right hon.
gentleman then pointed out the grievances of the inha-
bitants of Edinburgh, which he divided into three
heads--first, that the State had laid on them the charge
of an enormously great Church Establishment ; secondly,
that it had exempted from that charge people who were
best able to bear it ; and thirdly, that it had taken
away those ancient Church lands which ought to
have formed part of the charge ; and said the
remedies which the bill proposed were, first, the
diminution of the number of the clergy ; next,
the abolition of the privileges of the College of
Justice, who were exempted from the tax ; and lastly,
the application of the whole or part of the revenues of
the deaneries of the Chapel Royal. This bill, like every
other, respected existing rights. Indeed, he trusted no
bill would ever be introduced into the house which would
interfere with the vested rights of property. (Cheers.)
The view of those who proposed the bill was that in no
case whatever should a single farthing pass out of the
consolidated fund into the pockets of the ministers
of Edinburgh, and be was ready in committee to
agree to any suggestion for securing that object.
Its principles had been affirmed by three successive
governments, and had been approved of by a committee
which had patiently and deliberately investigated into
the subject. The hon. member who moved the amend-
ment even himself distinctly agreed to all these prin-
ciples. Therefore, for the sake of peace in Edinburgh,
peace in Scotland, and for the sake of the Established
Church, he implored the house not to reject the bill.
It was unnecessary
.to remind the house what melan-
choly outrages and events had been the consequence of
the tax. Could anything be conceived more pain-
ful than a minister being compelled to call out
soldiers in order to protect himself in attending meetings ?
The unpopularity of the tax differed from that of any
other. There was a great distinction between an unpo-
pular Church and an unpopular army or preventive ser-
vice. A Church which was hated was worse than use-
less, for it existed only to inspire respect, and if it gave
rise to feelings opposite to respect, it had better not exist
at all. (Cheers.) In conclusion, he again implored the
house not to sanction the support of an useless and unne-
cessary institution by means which could only cause it
to be hated. (Cheers.)
Col. BLAIR opposed the bill, and recommended that
it should be amended so as to be acceptable to the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Lord SEYMOITR likewise opposed the measure.
He admitted the annuity tax was a grievance, and that
its abolition was desirable ; but the provisions in the
bill were so objectionable that he could not give them
his assent. He could not see any reason why the con-
solidated fund should be made liable to the support of
the Church of Edinburgh, which would be the result of
the bill. His other principal objection to the bill was
that it would take away the money which belonged to
the deans of the Chapel Royal. He conceived that the
real grievance was not the tax itself, which had existed
for 200 years, but that the churches of Edinburgh were
empty, and he recommended that, in order to get rid of
that evil, they should proceed in Edinburgh in the same
way that they did in London, where the useless churches
in the city were removed to neighbourhoods where they
were wanted. He warned the house that if it assented
to the bill, it would impose an annual 'charge on the
consolidated fund. _ _

Mr. BOUVERIE did not approve of some of the de-
tails of the bill, but should support the second reading,
considering that it presented the only reasonable chance
of obtaining a fair settlement of the question of the an-
nuity tax.

Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR opposed the bill, because
it would impose a charge on the consolidated fund, and
would occasion even greater discontent than now existed
in Edinburgh.
Mr. E. ELLICE, sen., objected to the second reading
of the bill on the same ground.
Here Sir J. FITZGERALD, the new member for Clare,
w,.s called to the table, and took the olths and his seat.
Mr. MIALL considered that the real principle of the
b 11 was to provide for the support of the religion of the
small minority of Edinburgh, by taxing the large ma-
jority which was directly opposed to those more enlight-
ened views with respect to what was right and just be-
tween men and men in affairs purely religious, which
distinguished the present day. The bill was not a set-
tlement of the matter, it would merely delay the incon-
venient pressure of the question from themselves to a
future Parliament, it would settle nothing, but in a dis-
guised form would commit a terrible injustice on the
people of Edinburgh.
Sir A. CAMPBELL stated that it was his intention
to vote against the bill. (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. COWAN hoped the house would at once come to
a division. (Divide.)

Mr. SCOTT rase to express his reasons for voting
against the bill, but bad only spoken five minutes when
four o'clock arrived, when the Speaker left the chair, and
the house stood adjourned until six o'clock.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair at six o'clock.
An HON. MEMBER moved that the house be counted,
and there being only 26 members present, the house
was adjourned until to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-.JULY 18.

( Fi•ont the Votes and Proceedings of the House of
Commons. )

ASSISTANT-JUDGE (MIDDLESEX SESSIONS)
BILL.

Order for third reading read.—Motion made, and question
proposed, " That the bill be now read the third time."
Amendment proposed,—to leave out the word "now,"
and at the end of the question to add the words, "upon
this day three months." Question put, " That .lhe word
`now' stand part of the question." The house divided:
Ayes 42, Noes 53.

MINORITY—AYES, 42. ,
Bass, M. T. Ilerbert, Sidney Sad'eir, J.
Bonin+ m-Carter, J. Hervey, Lord Alfred Sandars, G.
RI um Lord E. Ingham, Robert Strutt, E.
Butler, Charles S. Langton, W. G. Vance. J.
Cardwell, lion. E. Lawley, F. C. Whalley, George H.
Cockburn, Sir A. Lowe, R. Waitbread, S.
Cowper, W. Ma,gregor, Jam es Wickham. 11. W
Esmoode, J. Molesworth, Sir W. Wilson, James
Fox, It. Moose% W. Wortley, Jas. Stuart
Freestun, Colonel 3lowbray, J. Young, Sir John
Galway. Viscount Mu'grave, Earl
Gladstone, William O'Connell, D. TELLER%
Goodman, Sir G. Palmerston, Viscount Hayter, Hon. W. •
Graham, Sir J. Polla-d-Urquhart, W. Berkeley Grenville
Grenfell, C. Pike, W.P.
Ileti:ey, Joseph W. KVssell, F. W.
MAJORITY—NOES, 53.
Ball, Edward Hadfield, G. Pellatt, Apsley
Ball, John. Hindley, Charles Percy, J.
Beaumont, W. B. Ilune, J. Peto, S.
Bell, J. Hu me, W.Eltzwilliam Pilkington, James
Biggs, William Kershaw; James Sawle, C. B. Graves
Bower, G. Killl', P. J. Scholetleid, W.
Cobden, Richard Kinnaird, A. F. Scobell, Captain
Craufurd, E. Lacon, Sir B. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Crook, J, Locke, Joseph Stuart, Lord Dudley
Crossley, Frank Maca: l:ney, G. Sullivan, M.
Duncan, G. M`Cann, James Taylor, Colonel
Dune, Col. Ma;uire, J. F. Thornely, T.
Frewen, C. H. Massey, W. Walmsley, Sir J.
Fuller, Augustus E. Mina, Edward Wilkinson, W. A.
Geacb, Charles Milligan, R. Willoughby, H. B
Godericb, Viscount Mills, T.
Goold, W. Mlcbeli, W. TILL7O 9.
Greene, John Moffatt, G. Alcock, Thomrs
Grogan, E. Murroush, J. F. Evans, Sir Da Lacy

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEWES, JULY 19.
(CIVIL SIDE.-13efore Mr. Justice Cresswell.)

BORE V. DIIKE.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
This cause was set down to be tried by a special jury,
but only two special jurymen answered to their names,
and the learned judge fined the whole of the rest of the
panel, for whose non attendance no valid reason was as-
signed, 101., and he intimated his intention of doing the
same in every case in which they were summoned and
did not attend. A tales having been prayed the trial
proceeded.
The action was brought to recover damages for a
breach of promise of marriage.
The defendant pleaded that he had never made the
promise, that a reasonable time had not been allowed
him to perform it, and also that the plaintiff had exone-
rated him from it.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Bovill, and Mr. Ray-
mond were counsel for the plaintiff.; Mr. Bramwell,
Q.C., and Mr. Lush were for the defendant.
Mr. Chambers, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff, Miss Hannah Hore, had brought this action
against the defendant, Mr. George Duke, for a very
serious and he feared almost irreparable injury which
she had received at his hands. The nature of the action
was to recover damages for a breach of a promise of
marriage, and when the jury had heard the circumstances
he should lay before them he believed they would agree
with him, that the case was one of a singular and extra-
ordinary nature. The plaintiff was the daughter of a
gentleman of some fortune, who resided at Drayton,
near Bognor—he had only one daughter and a son, and
the plaintiff would be entitled, under the will of her
mother, tR the sum of 9,0001., and he believed the jury
would be of opinion when they heard the facts that
this circumstance had something to do with inducing
the defendant to pay his addresses to the plaintiff. The
defendant was a gentleman farmer living in the same
neighbourhood as the plaintiff's family, he was 45 years
of age, and he was reported to be a man of considerable
wealth. He had several brothers, all of whom were in
a respectable position and well off, and among them was
one named Witham, who was an attorney at Chichester,
and whose name would be mentioned in connection with
these proceedings. The defendant had been twice mar-
ried, and was a widower at the time he was paying his
addresses to the plaintiff, and he was sure they would
feel that a man arrived at his time of life, and who had
been twice married, was the last person who could have
any excuse for playing with the feelings of an unmarried
woman. Miss Hore, the plaintiff, was 28 years old, and
he was instructed that so long back as 9 years ago, and
before the defendant married his second wife, he had
paid her some attention ; but the intimacy at that time
was broken off, and the defendant married a second
wife, and in the beginning of the year 1852 she died,
leaving him a widower with three children. At the lat-
ter end of that year the defendant again renewed his
intercourse with Miss Hore, and made proposals of mar-
riage to her and to her father. Mr. Hore, her father,
was averse to the match, partly on account of the age of
the defendant, and partly on account of his having three
young children, and he gave his decided opposition to
it. The defendant, however, still continued his atten-
tions ; he met the plaintiff frequently at the house of
Mr. and Mrs. Florence, two old friends of the family.
He urged his suit very warmly to her, and told her that,
as she was of age, she need not have the consent of her
father to the union ; that she was quite competent to
judge for herself on such a matter ; and he pressed her
to marry him without the consent of her father. (The
learned counsel then read two letters written by the de-
fandant, one of which was dated in November, and the
other in December, 1852, in both of which the defendant
pressed the plaintiff to marry him, and stated that he
was aware that the chief objection of her father to the
match was his "three little dears;" but he said that all
he should expect from her was to be kind to them, and
he urged her to consent to their being united without
the consent of her father.) The plaintiff would not agree
to this proposal, but it appeared that in the course of the
following month of Jan., through the solicitation of the
plaintiff herself, and the intervention of some friends of
the family, the father of Miss Hore very reluctantly
gave his consent to the marriage, and from that time
the defendant was received as the acknowledged suitor
of the young lady, and he took her and some of her
friends over his house to look at it, and he made several
suggestions of alterations that were to be made after the

marriage took place, and he also agreed to settle a sum
of two thousand pounds upon the young lady. The
affair having proceeded to this stage it appeared that the
defendant and his brother, Mr. William Duke, the at-
torney, went up to London, to the office of Mr. Wright,
the family solicitor of Mr. Hore, for the purpose of
seeing the mother's will, and upon it being shown to
them it turned out that although by one of the clauses
contained in it the plaintiff would be entitled to a sum
of 9,0001. Consols, yet that it was rattler qualified, and
was to some extent contingent upon her surviving her
mother for a period of 21 years, and under certain cir-
cumstances her brother would be entitled to the money.
Whether or not this had any effect upon the subsequent
conduct of the defendant, the jury would have to con-
skier, but he should show them that both of the brothers
appeared very much surprised at the terms upon which
the money was left, and on the following day the de-
fendant went to the office alone a second time, and
asked to see the will again ; and read it most carefully,
and then went away without offering any remark.
Whatever might have been the effect of this upon the
mind of the defendant, however, it appeared that for
some time afterwards he still continued paying his at-
tentions as a lover to the plaintiff, and no difference
was observed to his conduct, and the plaintiff went to
London upon a visit, and while she was there she pur-
chased a rocking-horse for one of the defendant's chil-
dren, which she sent down into the country. Every-
thing went on as usual untilthe death of the defendant's
father, in March last, and although the defendant at
that time did not visit the plaintiff as often as usual, he
i made an excuse that it was owing to the bereavement
he had sustained, and no particular notice was taken
of the circumstance. Towards the latter end of the
month, he did call at the house of the plaintiff's father,
and upon that occasion the plaintiff was desirous to pre- I
sent him with her miniature which she had had painted
for the purpose. He, however, left without receiving
it, and upon a servant being sent after him with the
miniature he received it with coolness, and from that
day to the present time he had ceased all communication
with the plaintiff and her family. He thought it right
to inform the jury that some letters had subsequently
been written by the defendant's brother, who was an
attorney in the action, but as he believed the only object
was that they should be read in open court, he should
do what certainly had not been done by the defendant
himself—spare the feelings of others, and not put them
in as evidence. In consequence of the match being
broken off in this manner by the conduct of the de-
fendant, in the month of April an old friend of Mr.
Horen' family called upon him, and distinctly asked him
whether he intended to keep his engagement, and the
defendant upon that occasion, in the most cool and deli-
berate manner, replied " decidedly not." It was for the
defendant now to tell the jury why. He (the learned
counsel) was quite ignorant of any ground for such a
course of conduct ; and, if it was intended to cast any
imputation upon the character of the young lady, the
defendant ought to have had the manliness and the bold-
ness to put a plea to that effect upon the record, and
give her an opportunity of answering it, and not endea-
vour to whisper and slander away the character of the
plaintiff. He was not able to guess what the defence
was to be, but he felt it his duty to tell the jury that
there was reason to believe that the defendant and some
persons connected with him had been going about the
country making inquiries whether Miss Hore " did not
drink." He was not aware whether anything of this
sort was to be relied upon as a defence ; but he must say
that it was most cruel to take such a proceeding and en-
deavour to substantiate such an accusation, without
placing it upon the record, and stating boldly that the
reason why the defendant would not perform his promise
of marriage was, that he had discovered after it was
made that the plaintiff was a person addicted to drink.
If he had done so they would have known what course
to take, and he should hare been in a position to clear
the character of the plaintiff from such an imputation by
the most positive testimony. The defendant' or his ad-
visers, however, had not adopted that course, and the
jury would have to say, under all the circumstances,
what damages the plaintiff was entitled to receive for
the injury she had sustained.
The following evidence was then adduced :

Mr. J. D. Florence said—l live at Portfield, near
Chichester, and I have known the plaintiff and her
family for many years. I also know the defendant very
well. He is an extensive farmer, and keeps a carriage
and several servants, and lives in a largo house. He has
always lived in that style. I remember Mr. Duke's
father dying in March 1853. Miss Hore has been in
the habit of visiting our family for many years, and the
defendant has frequently been there with her, and I was
aware that they desired to be married, and I was asked
to act as father and give her away. The reason I was
asked to do this was because her own father objected to
the marriage. The defendant told me that he intended
to settle 2,0001. on the plaintiff, and he said he wished
to be married in March. Some time after this I heard
that Miss Hore's father had consented to the match, and
I went with Miss Hore to the defendant's house to look
over it, and I remarked that it was a very nice house,
and fit for a duke and duchess. (A laugh.) My wife
and some other ladies accompanied us to see the house,
and some alterations were suggested. I saw them from
time to time frequently after this, and they conducted
themselves as persons about to be married.

Cross-examined—The defendant's carriage was such
as is usually employed by persons to go to market with.
I never heard what were to be the terms of the settle-
ment, but merely that 2,0001. was to be settled in some
way or other. Miss Hore is 28 years old. The defendant
is about 45. Heim a widower with three "little dears."
(Laughter.) Miss Hore's father hild a great objection
to the match in the first instance, and I believe did not
give his consent until January. I never heard that Mr.
Hore objected to his daughter being married at all. I
knew that he objected to two young gentlemen who paid
their addresses to her. I never heard that she was en-

;.aged to a gentleman named Oyler. Miss Hore is a
ynoeuvenrg
slaaiddyt ofh
that
considerable
fathererab l e
had
personal
setaboutattractions.
reports
vent her from getting married. • Some one has said that
.i have said so t.but I never did. I do not know a beer-
ho tIo have
p
u e near the pound at Bognor. I know the pound,
I remember meeting the defendant by there three or
1) it months ago. I swear Idid not tell him that if there
vere any reports that Miss Hore was addicted to drink-
ing her father had set them about to prevent her from
getting married. Miss Hore and her father lived in the
town of Bognor, four or five mile from the residence of
the defendant.

Re-examined—lt was Mr. William Duke, the brother
f the defendant, and who was now acting as his attor-
ey, who endeavoured to persuade him he had said

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
Hore 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—lt 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 Hore herself did not re-
quire it. I was aware Miss lore 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-examinedLl 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 tome, avid 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 lore
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 Here and her
family for four years. Ile 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 did 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 childre). 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 explanatiot 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 coment 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 my 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 un-
doubtedly a proceeding of this description could not but
cause great pain and mortification to any young woman ;
and the facts of her being young and wealthy were 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 verdict
for the plaintiff—damages 4001.

(CROWN COURT.-- (Before the Lord Chief Baron.)
Caroline Sherwood, 23, a good looking young woman,
was charged with the wilful murder of her child, Caro-
line Sherwood the younger.
Mr. Johnson conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner
was defended by Mr. Creasy.
This case stood over from the spring assizes. A good
many witnesses were examined on behalf of the prose-
cution, but the evidence in support of the charge lay in
a very small compass, and conclusively established the
dreadful crime of which the unhappy prisoner was ac-
cused. It appeared that she was cook in the service
of Mr. Turner, the judge of the county court at
Brighton, and that the child in question, which was an
illegitimate one, and between five and six years of
age, had been placed by the Drisoner in the 'charge of