The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-24 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-FEB. 23.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Mr. Justice
Talfourd and a Common Jury.)
WILLIAMS V. RODWAY..--BREACH OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.

This was an action to recover damages for a breach of
promise of marriage ; and the defendant in his pleas, de-
nied the making of the promise ; and denied that a rea-
sonable time for performing it had elapsed before action

brought.
Mr. Sergt. Allen, in opening the case to the jury, said
that the plaintiff, Miss Ann Williams, was the daughter
of a builder, carrying on business at Notting-hill ; she
was now about 24 years of age, and was possessed of con-
siderable personal charms. Some years ago she accepted ,
a situation as lady's maid to Lady Erskine, and lived
with her ladyship, in Wales, for about four or five years,
and whilst in that situation her conduct was in all re-
spects satisfactory to her ladyship. In the beginning of
Nov., 1851, her father, who is a widower, had fallen
into difficulties, and the plaintiff consequently left her
situation, and went home to manage his house and busi-
ness. The defendant, Jacob Rodway, a young man
about 30 years of age, was her cousin, and kept a
baker's shop, in Windmill-street, Tottenham-court-road,
and was a person of some substance. The plaintiff was
fearful that her father would be unable to meet some
engagements, and she left, home, and went to a relation
named Izzard, who advised her to go on a visit to
the defendant's sister, and she did so. When she had
been there about a month, the defendant's sister took
that opportunity of going to see her relations, in the
country, and the plaintiff during her absence occupied
her position, and managed the defendant's house, and
attended to his business. Durinc, this time, the offer
and promise of marriage, upon which the action was
founded, were made ; although in this case no letters
had passed between the parties, yet ho believed he should
be able to show, in the most positive manner, the prd-
mise made by the defendant, and that the understanding
that the marriage was to take place existed between
them for a considerable period of time. Of course
promise of this kind was not likely to be made in the
presence of third persons, and in the present state of the
law, he had not the power to call the plaintiff herself as
n witness. The jury therefore would not expect direct
testimony on this point, but they would find sufficient to
show that the defendant intended at that time to marry
the plaintiff. Her father called upon him, and he re-
ceived him in the kindest manner, and as a person under
such circumstances would do. It could not be shown
that the defendant, on any occasion, said "Yes, I will

marry your daughter;" b-ut he had made statements

which clearly showed that that was what he meant.
On one occasion he said he understood his father objected
to the marriage, but he should do as he liked. The
marriage was fixed to take place
in October, and, pre-
Nvvihoauts
partto that time, i
s fufurniture
i ttuhree plaintiff'stii e
wfather
eaibdethteer was
e
breaking up his establishment,
y anduthey had
like, and they, in
accordance with this, selected a number of articles. On
one occasion they all went to Windsor to see theplain-
a dress r,
d
afterwards
plain-
tiff's brother, who was assistant teosaiwllkeindeddnenridsg ras
pen
gave th
h
the plaintiff
sent. a
np patterna
sky - forh lu a
veil,
would,for the
under
tpurposehe ei
circumstances,
beingnistan worn
he
et
apprehended,the
hbe There
n no
difficulty or doubt as to the preoenise ;.and as to the second
plea, that sufficient and reasonable time had not elapsed
to perform the promise, he apprehended there would
likewise be no difficulty. Tahnedcotnhteract, he understood,
was to marry in October ; ,
and vrith was not issued
wunatsilcituhietemsidaddleeieonftJtiainneu.arTyh:e
this,question, he apprehended,
and for
foerarhended,
wmoisit in con-
would come to be one of damages,
they would look to see what the plaintiff had lull
ech She
hadsequ alnocs
te of thep a
rdefendanttieiption breaking hise
apnrso purpose
should think, upon the evidence, the defendant had :thbeY
this was not all. She had lost those feelings of affection'ut
which; in a man might be easily excited, but which when
aiaesui chosendeaside
s,
a ss h no
woai fs
lkeoenodgf,
etarhnfiedt de-
fendant, once crushed in a woman, could never return, She hade
also in her family and in her own little world, lost caste.
She
hd
iahsna
td,
wife
hbeennt; representedannodw fors
iie
allwatsh as e
casts
e t causes,
had no doubt she should receive, a, temperate, but ade-
quate compensation at the hands of the jury.
Mr. Robert Williams,. the father of the plaintiff,
stated that in November, 1851, the plaintiff came home,
and she kept his house until the end of the following.
July, when she became afraid that lie would not be
able to meet some engagement, and that his home would
be broken up ; and she removed her property, and went
to a relation named Izzard. This lady recommended
that she should go upon a visit to the defendant's sister,
and she went there about the end of July. In conse-
quence of a communication from his daughter, plaintiff
went, in company with his brother Emanuel, to the de-
fendant's. Nothing particular occurred on this occa-
sion, but when lie went again defendant said he saw, by
his uncle Emanuel's quizzical appearance,. that he
had
been telling him about his intended marriage. On an-
other occasion, the defendant said he had received
at his a let-
ter from his father, who did not seem pleased in-
tended marriage. He also said he wished the matter
had been kept quiet until his sister's return to London.
The plaintiff said she would decline the matter rather
than there should be any unpleasantness in the family ;
but he said he was his own master, and he would d'o as
be liked. lie said he had written to his friends to in-
form them of it, out of respect, but he should do as he
liked. When they went to Windsor, the
wa p at tern
not was
produced in defendant's presence, but it s said
that it was the pattern of the wedding dress. At the
beginning of September the plaintiff came home, but
she afterwards again keturne
the defendant ifd to the defendantthere's. About
the end of October he told
any part of his furniture he liked they might have it ;
and the plaintiff chose some tea things, tea trays, sauce-
pans, &c., and she and the defendantdefendant seemed
took them away.
There was an easy-chair, which the
to fancy, and witness said he would give it to him ; arid
the defendant said whenever witness came s
wato visit
home, them
he should sit in it. Whilst the plaintiff at
the defendant came to see her every Sunday,
and gene-
rally once a week besides, and she always let him ort,
and occupied 5 or 6 mit in so doing.
Cross-examined—The nu
plaintiff finally left the defen-
dant's' house on the 12th January, and on the 15th o
that month the writ was issued. H
before e never g
the gave instwrit.
of
tions to the attorney to write, issuin
Henry Williams, the plaintiff's brother, and Emanue n
l
Williams, her uncle, were also examined,
and they i
part confirmed the foregoing evidence.
As to the defendant's circumstances, Robert Izzard,
also a relation, was called, and he stated that the de-
fendant was, in his opinion, in "decent circumstances,"
and he offered, on a recent occasion, to lend witness
300/. or 4001.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins then addressed the „jury on
that
the speech of his learned brother, in opening the case,
reminded him of a conversation be had had i
wth that
celebrated cook, M. Soyer, who told him that le could
make a quart of good seep, fit for a meal for a labouring
man, for three farthings •; and he thought that when they
canie to analyse the speech of Mr. Sergt. Allen, although
they would find plenty of skill, they would find that the
materials were about as substantial as those which com-
posed M. Soyer's three-farthing soup. (A laugh.)
It was a rather strange circumstance, that although his
client was burning with affection yet he had not
written a single letter to ,the object in whom all
his affection was centred. The case stood thus :7--
d.
The plaintiff's brother had proved about nothing, and.
The of Emanuel,
the uncle, who rejoiced in the 113111
said that the plaintiff and defendant were cheerful
at dinner. Now, if there was one time at which people