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

were cheerful, it was whilst eating the joint, or " toad in
the hole," which had just come from the baker's. (Laugh-
ter.) The case rested entirely upon the evidence of the
father. His brother Allen had made a very eloquent
speech upon the position and the rights of women ; but
although it might suit the pride of man to call woman
the weaker vessel, they would bear in mind that Anthony
had succumbed to Cleopatra, and that in nine cases out
of ten the ladies were more than a match for them.
(Laughter.) His learned brother had, indeed, been very
eloquent ; and he had no doubt that the ladies in court
would go away with the impression that his brother
Allenkis e
nsmight, quite " a duck of a man. (Laughter.) It
was that this youfiglady had great personal charms,
an
d that being so, some little flirting had very likely
place between the plaintiff and defendant, and
ght, perhaps, have ripened into love and mar-
riage
but for the interference of that perfect extin-
guisher of all love—an attorney. (A. laugh.) The
learned counsel further contended that there was
nothing to show that the time for the marriage was
fixed for October, and that at all events the time between
the 12th and 15th January was not a reasonable time
for the performance of the promise. He, however,
believed the consideration of these matters would be
unnecessary, inasmuch as the jury would be' of opinion
that no promise. had been made by the defendant to
marry the plaintiff.
His Lordship direCted the jury that the two points
for their consideration were—first, whether the promise
had been made ; and, if so whether a reasonable time
for the performance of it had elapsed before the com-
mencement of the action.

The jury expressed their opinion that no promise hai
been proved, and a verdict was entered for the defer
dant.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT, OAKIIA3I, FEB. 22.
Mr. Baron Parke opened the commission for this
county yesterday evening, and this morning sat in the
Crown Court and disposed of the only two cases. In
one the grand jury ignored the bill ; in the other, which
was a charge of attempting to commit an abominable
offence, the prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to
one year's imprisonment.

NORTHAMPTON, FEB. 23.
The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common
Pleas arrived here yesterday afternoon, and opened the
commission for this county.
Mr. Baron Parke presided on the civil side ; but the
cause'list contained an entry of two causes only, and of
these one was undefended.

The calendar gives a list of 31 offenders, but the num-
ber of charges is only 21. These include one case of
murder, one shooting with intent, one of cutting and
wounding, one of child murder, two of attempting to
conceal the birth of a child, one of rape, one of bigamy,
one of arson, two of night poaching, three of burglary,
five of robbery with violence, and one of assault. In one
of the cases of the night poaching ten men are jointly
charged.

(Before Mr. Baron Parke and a common Jury.)
♦LLEN V. STEVENSON.

This was an action for a breach of promise of marriage.
Mr. Sergeant Miller and Mr. Hayes appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C.`, and Mr. Field for the
defendant.

The plaintiff is a comely widow of 30, who keeps the
Watts Arms at the village of Hanslop, in this county,
and the defendant a respectable farmer in the same
neighbourhood. It appeared that the defendant, who
had become a widower for the second time, and had four
or five children, was, during 1851 and 1852, in the habit
of frequenting the widow's house, that he was voted into
the landlord's chair, appeared to be on -very intimate
terms, used expressions as to his wish to marry her, and
had presented her to some friends as his intended wife.
But in June of last year he absented himself from Hans-
lop for a short time, and then informed the plaintiff that
he could,pot marry her, and in fact married a sister of
his deceased wife. One of the plaintiff's witnesses cre-
ated considerable amusement by the high terms in which
he spoke of the plaintiff's personal appearance. He
stated also that he had on one occasion said to the de-
fendant, " How comes it that you are paying your
addresses to that fine made, noble, high-inettled
woman ?" to which the defendant replied, " Nothing
venture nothing have. I have thousands on thousands,
and the settlement has done it." The same witness also
swore that in August, 1852, after the defendant had mar-
ned his present wife, he (the defendant) had stated to the
witness that the reason of his not marrying the plaintiff
was that she had been too intimate with Mr. Bull, and
three other men, whom be named, and all of whom were
now called as witnesses to repudiate that imputation.
On another occasion, in July, it was sworn that he had
said, " Mr. Bull's dog was lying one night outside the
widow's chamber door, but where was Mr. Bull ? I will
subpoena Mr. Bull and his dog." Bull and the defend-
ant were drinking together at time ; and the defend-
ant had previously said that there was not a more " var-
tuous" woman in the world than Mrs. Allen. The
defendant had a farm of about 200 acres well stocked,
and also some interest in a mill in Lincolnshire.
Mr. Macaulay, in his address to the jury, on behalf of
the defendant, denied that he had ever intended seri-
ously to cast the smallest imputation upon the plaintiff's
character, who was, no doubt, a very good-looking and
agreeable women. He could not deny that the defend-
ant had committed an imprudence and bound himself by
an engagement which he was unable to fulfil ; but, upon
the question of damages, he submitted that the buxom
landlady of, a thriving inn, justly popular among her
neighbours, who never appeared to have professed any
violent affection for the defendant, could not be sup-
posed to have sustained any very serious loss, because a
man who farmed under 200 acres of land, had had
two wives before, and had five children living, had failed
to perform his promise to marry her.
The learned Judge summed up, and
. . _

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages,
1501.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Feb. 23.

(Before Mr. Sergeant Adams, Assistant-Judge.)

Frederick John Ilaselton surrendered to take his trial
on an indictment in which he was charged with having
obtained from the treasurer of the Haymarket Theatre
several sums of money, with intent to defraud Benjamin
Webster of the same.
Mr. Ballantine appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
Parry for the defendant.
The learned counsel, in opening the case, said the
prosecutor was Mr. Webster, the lessee of the Haymar-
ket Theatre, and the defendant was engaged by that
gentleman as master carpenter at that establishment, he
having previously been a working carpenter. The
situation of the defendant was a very confidential one ;
as he had the general superintendence of all the carpen-
ters' work at the theatre, a great deal of money passed
through his hands. He had the engaging of the subor-
dinate carpenters, and the regulation of their wages, and
he had to make out his account to the treasurer, who
paid it without inquiry, the greatest confidence being
reposed in him, and the utmost reliance placed in his
integrity. As was usual, the defendant at the close of
the last season left the theatre, under the impression that,
as formerly, he would return to his situation when the
theatre reopened, but from circumstances which came to the
knowledge of Mr. Webster in the interim, that gentle.
man declined to re-engage him, and appointed another
person in his place, but not from any circumstances con-
nected with the subject of the present inquiry. He
thought it right that he should mention that the defen-
dant brought an action against Mr. Webster on a claim
for which there was not the slightest shadow of founda-
tion, and it was abandoned by an order of Court. Sub-
sequently to this an inquiry was made into the accounts
sent in by the defendant to the treasurer, a task of some
little difficulty, in consequence of lapse of time ; but,
with the aid of the treasurer, Mr. Webster went through
with the investigation, and it was found from informa-
tion given by persons employed about the theatre that
the defendant had been guilty of that conduct which had
led to the present charge being preferred:
Mr. Benjamin Webster was then called. He deposed
that lie was lessee of the Theatre Royal Haymarket.
The defendant had been about five years in his employ
as head carpenter, his service in that capacity having
commenced in 1847, and continued to August, 1852.
The defendant's wages were 2/. 10s. per week. He (wit-
ness) did not take him on at the next season after August
last. It was the defendant's duty to superintend the
workmen, engage them, keep their time, ascertain what
they had earned, and report to the treasurer, who then
paid him the amount, and he paid the men. Witness
had nothing whatever to do with the details of those
payments—he gave cheques for gross amounts. He
owed the defendant nothing at all. The inquiry which
resulted in this case was commenced two, months ago.
Francis Cave deposed that he was a carpenter. He
was employed as such by the defendant to do some work
at Mr. Webster's residence, at Brompton, and also at
68, Regent-street, for Mr. Harrison. the singer. He
worked three days four hours at Mr. Harrison's, and
earned 18s. That was just after quarter-day, in Septem-
ber, 1851. The defendant paid him for what he did at
Mr. Harrison's. He received only 18s., not 1/. 16s. Bd.
He never received that sum from the defendant. He
never made seven days and a quarter in one week.
James Bumpas, a labourer, was employed at Bromp-
ton. He began his work on a'Saturday, and made a
full day, for which he was paid by the defendant 38. He
did not receive 18s. ' The day's work he was paid for
was the day that the work commenced at Mr. Webster's,
and the 3s. mentioned was the first payment he received.
Edward Cooper, another workman, proved that he
began work on a Thursday afternoon, and the amount
he earned that week was lls. 9d., which amount he re-
ceived on the Saturday from the defendant.
Samuel Ayton, a carpenter, gave evidence showing
with other evidence, that the defendant had charged more
time for him than he had worked, and that he had been
paid by the prisoner only for the time he really had
made.
William Lawton, another workman, proved that he
had been engaged by the defendant at 4s. per day, and
that he had received from him that rate of pay, with one
or two exceptions, when lie was paid at the rate of ss.
per day. On the first of these occasions, he returned
the shilling a day in excess, but on the others he kept it.
The treasurer to the theatre produced and proved the
accounts of the prisoner. It appeared that he had
charged 1/. 16s. 3d. in his account for the week when
Cave was at work at Mr. Harrison's, as his (Cave's) pay
for that week. He charged and received a full week's
pay for Bumpas when he had only worked one day, and
for Cooper, for the week in which he only earned lls. 9d.,
he charged and received a full week. He charged and
received 55. per day for Lawton.
Several witnesses gave the defendant an excellent cha-

meter.
The jury retired, and after some deliberation fqund
the prisoner gdilty.
In answer to an inquiry made by the Assistant-Judge,