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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE

HUDDERSFIELD, JULY 19.—The state of our market
is much the same as last week's; we have no important
change to notice. Seasonable goods are inquired for ;
also the thicker makes of woollen goods, chiefly in blacks
and browns. We have had some few buyers in town,
who have bought for home consumption, but not to any
large amount. Shippers at present are quiet.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the com-
mittal of this bill explained that its object was to assi-
milate as much as possible the bankruptcy law of Scot-
land with that of England, and to make better provision
for the prevention of fraudulent bankrupts in Scotland.
Lord BROUGHAM did not think that the bill went
to the root of the evil which existed in the Scotch
bankruptcy law. It only applied little provisions to the
great defects in the law, and he was afraid it could not
prevent the practice which now prevailed amongst
Scotch traders, of giving one creditor an unjust prefer-
ence over others. He admitted, however, that the bill
was, on the whole, a step in the right direction, and he
was prepared to give it such attention and support as
the importance of the subject demanded. Then there
was omitted altogether the public examination of the
bankrupt, and he thought also that it was most desirable
that that the question of certificate should be left to the
decision of the court, and not to the creditors. Whilst
a commission was sitting and inquiring into the ex-
pediency of an assimilation of the bankruptcy law of
England and Scotland, he did not think that was the
proper time for carrying through a change in the law
which was not more urgent now than it was six or seven
years ago. He did not think that a delay of six or seven
months could make much difference to the people of
Scotland. This bill was not going in the right direction
in some respects. Petitions had been presented by the
mercantile community, in favour of his larger and more
comprehensive measure, and as that had been referred
to the commission, he did not see why this bill should
not also be referred to it. (Hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if he for a
moment supposed that the pushing on of this measure
could in the slightest degree interfere with or damage
the larger measure of his noble and learned friend for
improving the bankruptcy law of Scotland, or in any
manner interfere with:the inquiry before the commission,
he would yield to the suggestion of his noble and learned
friend for postponement. But he would appeal to his
noble and learned friend himself if he could say that this
bill interfered in the slightest degree with his bill. The
object of the present bill was to make better the provi-
efhia n ebe
but
l
provi-
sions of the ;existing bankruprtcg
this would not prevent the la
and learned friend from being considered at a future
ye
r measureaw of
Scotland,
time. (Hear.)
Thu bill then passed through committee.
BATTERSEA PARK BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
WESTMINSTER BRIDGE BILL.
The bill passed through committee.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 3) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
The Marquis of SALISBURY objected to some of
the provisions of the bill, and hoped that the Govern-
ment would give a pledge to alter it in committee.
The Duke of ARGYLL said that it would be impos-
sible fur him to give such a pledge at the present time
in the absence of the noble lord who had charge of the
bill.

The Marquis of SALISBURY repeated his objections
at great length.
The Duke of ARGYLL replied; and the bill was
then read a second time.
LAND REVENUES BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
COINAGE OFFENCES (COLONIES) BILL.
Lord STANLEY (of Alderley) moved the second
reading of this bill.
After a few remarks from Lord MONTEAGLE, the bill
was read a second time.
TRANSPORTATION BILL.
The amendments in this bill were reported and agreed
4-^

PUBLIC•HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The amendments in this bill were reported and agreed
to.

COLONIAL CHURCH REGULATION BILL.
The Bishop of OXFORD moved that this bill should
te committed pro forma, with a view to its being recom-
mitted on Thursday, and some amendments introduced,
when the discussion might be taken.
Lord REDESDALE took objection to some of the
provisions of the bill.
The Bishop of OXFORD gave a brief explanation ;
and the bill was then committed pro fo•-'ina.
METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT FURTHER
AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT IN IRE-
__

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEwEs, JULY 19.
(CIVIL SlDE.—Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.)
MORE V. DUKE.—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, to 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 William, 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. Hare, 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-
fendant, 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 rather 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-
sider, 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 until the 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
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-
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 bad 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.
Hores' 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 have 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 large house. He has
always lived in that style. I remember Mr. Duke's
father dying in March 1853. Miss Hare 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
toto b
seettmlearie
2r,00d0/i.o montahreoh. Someplaintiff,heaf
tseari said he h
thise wishedlh oa
rd
that Miss Hore's father had consented to the match, and
I went with Miss Hore to the defendant's house to look
time and
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. He is a widower with three "'little dears."
(Laughter.) Miss Hore's father had 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-
gaged to a gentleman named Oyler. Miss Hore is a
young lady of considerable personal attractions. I have
never said that her father had set about reports to pre-
vent her from getting married. Some one has said that
I have said so, but I never did. I do not know a beer-
house near the pound at Bognor. I know the pound,
and I remember meeting the defendant by there three or
four months ago. I swear I did not tell him that if there
were any reports that Miss Hare was addicted to drink-
• her father had set them about to prevent her from
getting married. Miss Hore and her father lived in the
the defendant.
town of Bognor, four or five mile from the residence of

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

aka..-~ ~.

(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 crisoner in the charge of