The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 24,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
VAIJI V. BUTTZEFIELD.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.

This was an action for breach of promise of marriage,
and the declaration set forth that the defendant had
agreed to marry the plaintiff and now refused to do so.
The defendant pleaded that he did not agree, and was
so drunk at the time he made it that he did not know
what he was doing.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Lush appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. J. Browne re-
presented the defendant.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, in stating the case on behalf of
the plaintiff. said he had not the honour of knowingrd but
the
defendant who had put such a plea on the ec
he would prove by witnesses whom he would call, that
if that plea were proved the defendant must have
been drunk for several years. His client was a
young woman twenty-six year! of age, who had
carried on the business of milliner at Bradford,
Yorkshire, and the defendant was a maltster re-
siding in the same neighbourhood. The defend.
ant's father had died some time ago, and the
defendant was now in possession of a considerable
property, realising no less a sum than 600/. a year.
In 1849 the plaintiff was barmaid at the Bishop Blaise
Inn, in Bradford, where the defendant first became ac•
quainted with her. The acquaintance ripened into in-
timacy owing to the frequent visits of the defendant, who
was in the habit of visiting her two or three times
weekly. He was unable to produce any affectionate
letters, from the fact of the parties residing so close
together and so often seeing each other, that the
usual mode of courtship, that of correspondence, was
fund unnecessary. Atter remaining five or six months
at the inn, the plaintiff joined a friend in the millinery
business, and in 1852 began business on her own ac-
count, and having taken apartments she was again con-
stantly visited by the defendant. She after this went
to reside with her mother, where the defendant con-
tinued to visit her, and in short he debauched this young
woman; the result was that she gave birth to a child en
the 7th of May, 1854. The defendant, up to the time
of her confinement, assured her that she should never
be brought to disgrace on his account, and continued
to promise her marriage. He eventually refused to
perform his promise. The learned counsel felt it his
duty to state that about six or seven years ago the
plaintiff gave birth to a child, but since that time she
had led a most proper life. If the defendant sought to
avail himself of this circumstance, and-to plead it as an
excuse for his heartless conduct, he added greatly to his
atrocity. The plaintiff was now compelled to sec* in a
court of law that compensation which the isjury she had
sustained so justly entitled her te.
Sarah Vaux—l am the mother of the plaintiff. She
is 26 years of age. I have known the defendant five or
six years. He is a gentleman and maltster at Apperly-
bridge, near Bradford. In 1849 my daughter was bar-
maid at the Bishop Blaise Inn, and while there she used
to come home occasionally. I have seen the plaintiff
and defendant frequently together at our house. They
went out walking together very often. While she was
at the inn he said several times he would marry her.
After she left the inn, she was a dressmaker in Victoria-
street. She often used to come home, and the defen-
dant with her. She did not live there long. She lived
at home for a short time, and then went to Longcroft, to
lodge with an old gentleman, Mr. Shackleton. I saw
the defendant with her there. After that she lived at
home, worked at the- business, and was my main sup-
port. He continued to visit her till she was confined, in
May last. Before May he said he would marry her
before her confinement several times. Easter Tuesday
was fixed ; he did net marry her, and gave no reason.
He promised marriage twice after her confinement. He
always called me mother. He said he had plenty of
money. He is about 28. He always called her his
wife. She had one child some years before, It died
when it was a very little one. The father would have
married her, but he died. The defendant knew all about
it before he promised her.
Cross-examined—My daughter knew the defendant in
1849. The Bishop Blaise was the first public-house she
lived at. She lives} there two months as barmaid and
chambermaid. Before she went to service at Dr.
Roberts's, and had not been away from home before. I
cannot say where she met the first young man. I did
not know of it till she was confined. She went off to be
confined two months before. The young man never let
her want for anything. Ide not know that the defen-
dant ever stayed at my house the whole night. He has
come at night-time. He was upstairs with the lads. My
daughter and I slept down stairs. If the defendant and
plaintiff went upstairs I used to call them down. They
only went up their for nonsense. I don't know whether
they have gone up in the evening or not. They used to go
with a candle. I don't know that they have ever been
there a quarter of au hour. The defendant sometimes
came there tipsy. We used to set him down on a chair and
let him sleep. We went to bed and took no notice of
him. He never gave her money to my knowledge. I
have heard her called Mrs. Vincent when she had her
first boy, six or seven years ago.
William Baraclough—l am a servant of the Lanca-
shire and Yorkshire Railway Company. My mother
kept the Bishop Blaise. The plaintiff lived there five or
six months. The defendant was in the habit of coming
there in 1849. I have seen them together several times
in different rooms of the house. I thought he was pay-
ing his addresses to her. She conducted herself with
propriety. I have teased him about it ; but he has ge-
nerally denied it.
Cross-examined—My mother's house is a pretty large
one ; about fourteen rooms. I have seen them in the
out-kitchen, the bar, and drarnshop. She was sometimes
scrubbing pots and pans when he was talking; with her.
He used often to come there, and was as often drunk as
sober.

James Bolton=-I married the plaintiff's sister. I have
often seen the plaintiff and defendant together at the
Bishop Blaise. He has told me that he was paying
his addressee to Harriett, and he supposed I was to
her sister. About the time of the confinement I saw
him. I then kept a public-house. He then said,
"We shall be able to do a little business now ; we
shall he all akin." I said, " Indeed ! I wag not
aware of it." He said, " Yes ; lam going to marry
Harriett. I think we've got everything settled now."
Cross•exainined-- Sometimes he was half-and-half when
I have bad conversations with him. He was tipsy three
or four times a week, but is steadier now.
Re-examined—He was what I call sober when I had
that conversation with him. He had had a glass or two,
but knew perfectly what he was about.
Sarah Moore—l am the wife of a labourer, and know
the plaintiff. She has always conducted herself with
propriety. The defendant used to call her his wife, and
said he was going to marry her. In March last they
came to my house. She was plainly in the family-way.
I asked him what he was going to do. He said, if she
was iu the family-way they would be married before
that month was out. He would not have her disgraced
with having a child before she was married. I.le was
quite sober. I have heard him say often that he was
worth 20,0001., and that his cake was baked, and that
of his children.
Cross-examined—l bare often seen him tipsy.
William Wadsworth—l live in Bradford. In May
the plaintiff came to my house to be delivered of a child,
six weeks before it was born. The defendant came to
see her three times. One time he sent for her, and she
and I went to one of his own houses. Another time he
said to Mrs. Vaux, putting his arm round her waist,
" Lord love ye, old mother, she and I'll be married."
He has said, in the presence of Mr. B itty, that he would
be married. Mr. Batty said, " Well, you can't do
better." They were both sober. He said, " We'll be
married by license ; " and Batty said, " Well, if you're
short of money I'll lend you some." '
Cross-examined—l have heard bin say that he would
marry twice when he was sober, and ODO 3 when he was
tipsy. When the conversation took place with Batty,
they had sent for a shilling's worth of gin, and were
drinking it.
At this point of the case a conversation took place be-
tween the learned counsel, and it was ultimately agreed
that a verdict should be taken by consent for the plain-
tiff for 2001.
Verdict for thb plaintiff—Dam:intro, 2001.
WYCHE v. COTTON.
Mr. Ecfirin:-..Tames, with Mr. Bovill, conducted the
case for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Knowles, with Mr. Udall,
represented the defendant.
This was an action to recover the sum of 221. for
damage inflicted on a carriage by means of a collision
with a dogcart, which was driven at the time by the
defendant himself, and through whose negligence it was
alleged the accident had occurred.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a jobmaster and livery
stable keeper, carrying on his business in Swallow-street,
Regent-street, and that on the 13th of September he let
the carriage in question to a Mr. Rawlings, for the pur-
pose of taking a party of friends to Wanstead, in Essex.
After having disposed of their repast the party set out
on their return home soon after 7 o'clock in the evening,
and it was as they were proceeding on this return jour-
ney that the collision took place. All went on well
until shortly after they had passed the Eagle at Snares-
brook, at which house it was understood they pulled up
and had some refreshments, when they were driven
against by the defendant in his dogcart. The effect of
this collision was that the carriage was much damaged,
and the hinder wheel torn off. The defendant and his
groom were thrown out of the dogcart, which by the
violence of the concussion was thrown over. After the
defendant had recovered himself sufficiently from the
effects .of the fall, having picked up his groom and
placed him against the palings, he went up to the car-
riage and expressed a hope' that no one was hurt, re-
marking, " That it was the d—d lamps in a vehicle
which was following the carriage that had prevented his
seeing the latter."
The evidence in support of the plaintiff's case having
been given,
The jury consulted for a few minutes, and then re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—damage's, 131.

COTJIZT OF QUEEN,-,
BENCH
THE QUEEN V. THE JUDGE OF THEOUNTT COURT
OF
OXFORDSHIRE.
County
Mr. Cripps moved for a rule to show cause
hibition should not issue to the judge the"y a pro-
Court of Oxfordshire, to prohibit him from prc
hear an application for a new trial in the case ofc'e'engt°
I'. Smith.' The question turned on the construction
the 141st rule of practice of the County Courts of Eng-
land,o-
made under' the provisions of the 12th and 13th O
Victoria, chap. 101. The rule provided th-tt. ,
cation for a new trial might be made and aet.
on the day of hearing if both parties were present, or
it -might be made at the next court held after the
expiration of 12 clear days from the day of hearing, or
elven seven clear days' notice before the holding of
the court, and that the party intending- to make such
*TPlioetion should give a written notice, stating the