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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—LEwEs, Aug. 2.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Common Jury.)
THOMAS V. SHIRLEY-BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIA GE.
This was an action for breach of promise of mar-
riage. The plaintiff was a young lady named Anne
Thomas, and the defendant is Gen. Shirley. He
pleaded, in answer to the action, that he did not
promise to marry the plaintiff, as alleged in the
declaration, and upon this plea issue was joined.
The damages were laid at £2,000.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, and
Mr. F. H. Lewis were counsel for the plaintiff;
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C.,
appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, in his address to the jury,
said he was very sorry, on the part both of the
plaintiff and the defendant, that it had been neces-
sary to bring this action, and to endeavour by that
means to recover from the defendant, who was un-
doubtedly a man of high position and a general in
her Majesty's army, damages for the very serious
and cruel injury he had inflicted upon the plaintiff
in the cause. She was a young lady only 23 years
of age, and lost both her parents when she was
only two years old, and at that tender age was
left an orphan. She was adopted by her aunt.
a lady named Gibbs, who resided at Bicester,
and she remained with the family for seve-
ral years, and Mr. Gibbs, her uncle, at his
death provided her an annuity of £3O, until she
should be 21 years old,and, upon attaining that age,
a sum of £3OO absolutely. Her aunt married again,
and, there being a second family, the plaintiff felt
herself uncomfortable and left Mrs. Gibbs's house
with the intention of gaining her livelihood as a
governess, for which position she was well fitted by
her education and accomplishment. She was not
at this time more than 17 or 18 years old, but she
obtained two situations, one with a gentleman
named Atkinson, at Wallingford, and another in
the family of a gentleman named Few, at Wands-
worth, and her conduct while in the establishments
of both those gentlemen was most irreproachable.
The plaintiff, upon leaving Mr. Few's family, in
the year 1861, became acquainted with a lady
named Moon, who kept an establishment or institu-
tion called the Musical and Collegiate Agency, in
Newman-street, Oxford-street, the object of which
was to obtain situations for governesses, and she re-
quested this lady to endeavour to procure a situa-
tion for her in that capacity. It appeared that at
the moment she was unable to do so, and, by her
advice, the plaintiff went to Paris for a few months,
for the purpose of perfecting herself in French, and
she then returned to London. For a short time the
plaintiff, by the recommendation of Mrs. Moon, re-
mained in the house of Mrs. Moon's father, in Aber-
deen-terrace, St. John's-wood, where was engaged
in educating his children, in return for her board
and lodging, and she then again applied to Mrs.
Moon to procure a situation for her, and she ex-
pressed a desire rather to have a situation as lady
housekeeper than that of a governess, and at the
suggestion of Mrs. Moon an advertisement was
inserted in the limes for a situation of that de-
scription, and this led to an introduction to the
defendant, who, he was sorry to say, was a
man of position, of good family, and a general in
her Majesty's 'service, but who, he believed, he
should be able to prove, was as deliberate, un-
principled, and heartless a seducer as ever appeared
in a court of justice. Mrs. Moon herself, who was
a most respectable lady,allowed reference to be made
to her at the institution in Newman-street, and
two or three days after the advertisement appeared,
which was in the month of May last year, the
defendant introduced himself to Mrs. Moon as a
widower, and he represented that he required the
services of a lady such as was referred to in the
advertisement to superintend his household in the
country. Mrs. Moon told the defendant where he
could see the plaintiff, and he accordingly went to
her father's house and was introduced to her, and
there was no doubt that he immediately formed the
plan of seducing her. He stated that he was a man
of fortune and of high rank in the army, a widower,
and that he had a country house called Brookside
Lodge, near Rugby ; that he was in the habit of
seeing a great deal of company, and that it was
very important that his household affairs should
be superintended by an accomplished lady whom
he could introduce to his friends. He also said that
although at first it might appear to be rather an
equivocal position for a lady to be placed in, still in
point of fact it was not so, as there were a great many
servants who were always about, and he was con -
stantly watched by his female relations. The
plaintiff declined the offer made to her by the de-
fendant to enter his service in the capacity sug-
gested, and the defendant pressed her to consent,
but she still refused to do so. He called upon her
one day, and, knowing that she was a proficient
in music, he requested her to accompany him to
Messrs. Kirkman's to choose a piano, and on their
return he again pressed her to accept the proposi-
tion he had made to her, but finding that she would
not, he declared his attachment to her, and offered
her his hand and fortune, and said that he would
make her his wife. To a poor, young, friendless
girl such an offer from a man in the defendant's po-
sition, who was not more than 50 years old, and who
he was told was a handsome man, was of course
accepted, and in the confidence that the defendant
was actuated by honourable intentions, and his po-
sitive promise that in a short time he would make
her his wife, she consented to meet the defendant,
and a connection of an intimate nature no doubt
arose between them, and the defendant as the reauit
succeeded in effecting his object of seducing and de-
stroying the unhappy girl who had placed confi-
dence in his honour. In nine cases out of ten it was
impossible to prove an actual promise of marriage,
but when the jury had heard all the evidence he
should lay before them and the communications that
had taken place ',between the parties, it would be
for them to say whether it was not abundantly esta-
blished that such a promise had been made by the
defendant, and that he had succeeded in seducing
plaintiff by means of that promise. (The learned
sergeant here read some letters that had been writ-
ten by defendant to the plaintiff, in which ho ad-
dressed her as "Dearest Little Annie," and in the
most affectionate terms. None of them, however,
contained any allusion to marriage, but defendant
spoke of the pleasure he had experienced in clasp-
ing her to his bosom, and expressed a hope that he
should soon do so again.) He said thatthere was no
doubt the plaintiff felt the greatest confidence in the
man who intended to betray her, and she met him
repeatedly, and upon one occasion at his earnest re-
quest she accompanied him to Southend where they
dined, and upon his representation that the last train
had started, and having at the same time full confi-
dence in his honourable intentions she consented to
pass the night with defendant. After this occur-
rence it was of course impossible for plaintiff to go
among her own connections, and upon the positive
assurance of the defendant that he would make her
his wife she consented to go to reside at Brookside
Lodge, where she was installed as mistress of all the
servants, and had the charge of the entire establish-
ment. While she was at this place the plaintiff
discovered that she was in the family way, and
having become alarmed at her helpless position,
and at the same time, from circumstances that had
occurred, feeling some doubt of the intentions of
the defendant, she wrote him a letter which should
be produced, and which was placed on his dressing-
table by a young lady, a schoolfellow of the plain-
tiff's, who was at the time on a visit to her, and in a
conversation that subsequently took place the de-
fendant positively refused to fulfil the promises he
had made, and the plaintiff was shortly afterwards
compelled to leave Brookside Lodge, and was deli-
vered in London. Here the defendant still con-
tinued to visit her, and he professed a great deal of
affection for the child, and wished that it might be
christened by the name of Rosaline, but at length
he appeared resolved to break off the connection
entirely, and on the 27th of May of the present
year he wrote her the following letter:—

44 Tuesday Evening.
" My dear Anne—Recollect (if you please) that my pro-
mises to you of 12 months since have all been cut short and
annihilated by your own conduct, conduct which I must
again remind you was dishonourable, unworthy of you
in every way, and which completely and for ever de-
stroyed all confidence and the feelings of deep affection
which I had previously entertained for you. But for this
you might and would still have been the inmate of my
house and the idol of my heart. If the wide world stares
you in the face, ask yourself whose fault is it ? Do not for
one moment suppose that I shall make any settlement.
This you may be sure I never will. I will allow ten shil-
lings a week for your child, but more than this I will not
promise. I will come and see you on Thursday, but I must
see your book and how you expended the money I gave you
before I send you any more. Why did you not send me
your book as I requested, with your expenditure on one
tni
conduct
nf adcut
co
tr
in
side and your receipts from me on the other ? This would
not been so to me lately. Recollect your own conduct in
the past, and do not blame me. Recollect also your sly_
Y and straightforward, but you have
to writo me an annoying. and offensive letter. I will,
however, do all that is kind to you, and snore than you
ahnadvennbneenninsag
getting one of your lawyer friends
deserve, as in reality you have long since forfeited every
claim on my protection ; and a person who opens letters
and re-seals them as you did, without my knowledge and

consent, commits a crime against all social and moral laws,
even if it be not (as I think it is) a felony. I will say no
more on the hateful subject. lam ill and much dispirited,
and the more I think of your dishonesty the more sick at
heart it makes me. Adieu,—Your still sincere and kind
friend, "ARTHUR."
Mr. Seej,:,'2nt Shee then proceeded to state that
these were the facts :2e should have to lay before
the jury, and he said it weit!d appear in the course
of the case that the defendant was .a married man,
although separated from his wife, and tha:he conse-
quently knew perfectly well that he could not
marry the plaintiff, and he repeated that there
could be very little doubt that he had carried out a
heartless plan of seduction. If he established that
fact he was quite sure the jury would know how to
deal with such a man, and that they would not con-
sider the sum of £2,000, which the plaintiff claimed
as damages, at all an exorbitant one for the injury
she had sustained. The learned serjeant concluded
by stating that the defendant, upon being applied
to by the solicitor for the plaintiff, offered to pro-
vide for the child, and to place the sum of £lOO in
the hands of the plaintiff to enable her to provide
for herself until she could obtain a situation, but
this offer, of course, could not be accepted, and it
then became necessary to bring the present action.
Mr. C. Few, a solicitor, carrying on business in
Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, proved that the
plaintiff was in his establishment at Wandsworth
in the year 1858 as governess for a year and a half,
and that she conducted herself very well during
that period, and was very accomplished.
Mrs. Fanny Moon deposed that she was the
principal of the Musical and Collegiate Institution
in Newman-street. She had previously managed
a similar institution in Berners-street, and the
plaintiff called upon her at the last mentioned piece
and had her name inserted in the list of persons
who wanted places as governesses. Witness got
the offer of one or two situations for her, but she
declined to accept them, and subsequently, at
witness's suggestion, she went to Paris to perfect
herself in French. Upon her return, the plaintiff,
at witness's suggestion, went to live at her father's
house in St. John's Wood, and after she had been
there a short time she told witness that she was
tired of teaching and should like to obtain a situa-
tion as housekeeper, and witness proposed that she
should insert an advertisement for a situation of
that description, and one was accordingly sent to
the Times, and appeared at the latter end of May.
Mr. Chambers suggested that the advertisement
should be read.
Mr. Serjeant Shee said he had already stated the
nature of the advertisement, and if his learned
friend wished the whole of it to be read he had
letter put it in as his evidence.
Mr. Chambers said he should certainly not do
that, and he submitted that he was entitled to in-
sist upon the advertisement being real.
Mr. Baron Bramwell said:it appeared to him that
this was so, and the advertisement was consequently
put in. It was in the following terms :
. "Lady Housekeeper,—A young Lady is desirous of ob-
taining an engagement as housekeper, with a widower or
single gentleman. She is highly accomplished, of ladylike
deportment, and y oung.--Address, Constance, care of the
Lady Principal, Collegiate Institution, Newman-street."
Examination continued—A day or two after this
advertisement appeared in the newspaper the de-
fendant called upon her, and she subsequently in-
troduced him to the plaintiff.
Cross-examined—Witnessfirstbecame acquainted
with the plaintiff about 18 months or two years ago,
and all she knew of her was that she wanted a
situation as governess and that she had good refer-
ences. When the plaintiff said that she should like
to get a situation as housekeeper, and she was tired
of teaching, witness proposed an advertisement, and
suggested that it should be addressed to widowers
or single gentlemen, and also that the plaintiff
should call herself donstance. She was unable to
say why she pitched upon that name in particular.
Witness had drawn up several similar advertise-
ments. Only two or three persons answered the
plaintiff's advertisement. They were all " middle-
aged " gentlemen. (A laugh.) She saw the gene-
ral herself, but she did not say anything about the
terms upon which the plaintiff was to enter his ser-
vice. She heard afterwards that the plaintiff went
to Greenwich and Southend with the general very
shortly after they were introduced to each other,
but shelenewnothing personally of the matter.
Mrs. Elizabeth Elsdon deposed that she -lived
with her husband at Stoke Newington, and she was
acquainted with the plaintiff before her marriage,
and the defendant accompanied her to witness's
house, and introduced her as Mrs. Shirley. Upon
one occasion he also said that he had no doubt she
was surprised to hear that they were married, and
she replied that she was not surprised to hear of the
marriage, but thought it would not have taken place
so suddenly. The general said he was very fond of
the plaintiff, and it should be the study of his life
to make her happy.
Miss Emily Rosewell, a schoolfellow of the plain-
tiff deposed that in consequence of an invitation she
received from her she went to pay her a visit at
General Shirley's residence at Rugby, in December
1861, and found her living there as Mrs. Shirley,
and the wife of the general. Witness remained
there nearly a month, and during the greater part
of that time they appeared to be on very friendly
and affectionate terms. Witness remarked that on
one occasion she, by accident, nearly broke a chim-
ney ornament, and the defendant observed that he
was very glad he had not done so, as it belonged to
his poor dear first wife. (A laugh.) He also said
that when he was in the Crimea a-few years before
he was very miserable, and witness remarked that
he ought now to be very happy with Annie for his
wife. On the Sunday before Christmas-day plain-
tiff and the general had a quarrel, and at night the
plaintiff wrote a letter which witness, at her request,
placed on the general's dressing-table, and she saw
him go into the room, and shortly afterwards she
saw the letter referred to lying crumpled up on the
floor. Soon after this had taken place plaintiff went
into the room, and she heard her ask defendant
whether he was going to perform His promise to
marry her ? He appeared to be very angry, and
said in a loud tone— " My promise I cannot and
I will not perform." She also heard him say that
he might be led by kindness, but that he would
not be bullied.
The letter referred to by the witness was then
put in and read. It was as follows :
--I should have spoken to
" Dear Arthur, you this even-
ing, but as you so rudely accused me of being in a bad tem-
per I will not trouble you by mentioning that which I should
have done. I simply ask you to give me money, or allow
me to buy some warm clothing. I am, which you know,
wearing at the present time a summer bonnet and cloak,
setting aside my having no clothes to wear in
the house. Would you like one of your sisters to have
been deceived and treated as I have been the last few
months. When you are enjoying yourself on Christmas
Day think what happiness you have deprived me of. There
are two questions which I must beg of you to answer before
leaving to-morrow. First, do you intend to carry out your
promise in marrying me ? Is it your intention to send me
from here for my accouchement ? If you do I shall place
the whole affair in the hands of my solicitor, for I can no
longer go on in this uncertain !Jay. I shall be sorry to in-
jure you by an exposure, but I must do so and disclose all
unless there is a change very soon. Ido hope whatever
may happen you will remember_ your child, and never de-
ceive any other virtuous girl as you have me. lam sorry
all my efforts are in vain to please you. Good night, may
God forgive you as willingly as I would if honourable.—
Yours sincerely, ANNE."
Cross-examined—The plaintiff had told her
before this letter was written something about her
not being married to the defendant. Witness was
present when the plaintiff wrote this letter, and
after she had done so she read it to her. Her own
room adjoined the one in which the letter was
placed, and her dour was ajar and she could hear
what took place. Itwas not a planned affair, that
she was aware of; that she should hear all that took
place between the general and the plaintiff after
he had read the letter.
Mr. Hugh W ardrop, a gentleman holding an ap-
pointment in the War-office, was then called to
prove that the defendant was married to his sister
in July, 1840, and that they separated about six
or seven years years ago. He also proved that the
defendant was about 50 years old.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers then proceeded to address the
on behalf of the defeudant. said that jury
appeared on the present__
occasion for an honourable
officer, who undoubtedly, in a moment of passion,
had done that which was wrong,
,and who was
ready now, as he had ever been, to make compen-
sation for that wrong, but who would not submit
to be victimised, which was the sole object of the
present action,and he
be should certainly use his best exertions to do so
—to defeat that object. He wished
the jury to
understand that he should not tt a empt to deny that
the defendant was guilty of immorality, but the
question was whether the
plaintiff was to be per-
mitted to extort two thousand
pounds from him,
which was the sum claimed as dam ages on the pre-
sent occasion observations he t
. In the • nded to
e
address to them he should
do all lie could to spare
the feelings of the unhappy
the plaintiff in the cause, young woman who was
should
not shrink from stating butwhat heh certainlythought
of her
advisers—of those person
heed
advised her to
bring the action, endeavourmad s who ia
to obtain this large
sum of money from thedefendant. h
T ere could be
no doubt that the Whole
proceeding was an attempt
to trade Upon
the idea Shirley that General would
rather
pay any amount of money than have
an affair brought .
.such
oefore the public. H, e believed
that the plaintiff
was merely put forward by these
persona en the present occasion, and that she was
herself too •
wed aware of the real character of the
connection between
herself and the defendant ever
to have
adopted such step, and that it was an
illustration of the old story of the moukey and the
C A and the but chestnuts. He wished it to be
clearly understood that in these observations he did
not intend to refer to the respectable gentlemen who 1

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
Jill) 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
and 7hich had led to the plaintiff
by such an adVertisement as the one they had heard
of in this case,
and defendant 'being intro doted 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 could 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 silo
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
he 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 all 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 gay, looking at all the facts of
the case, whether it was probable that the defen-
dant ever made a promise Gf 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 is the box,
expressed a wish to retire. They returned into
court in about 20 minutes, and gave a verdict for
the defendant.