The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE

IGENCE

IMPRISONMENT FOR REFUSING TO BE SWORN.

Immediately after the charge had been delivered to
the grand jury this afternoon, the officers of the court
complained to the judge that a pawnbroker, named Peter
Taylor, refused to take the oath. Taylor was an im-
portant witness, tne stolen property having been pledged
with him, and the following dialogue ensued :
Baron Alderson—Are you a member of the Society of
Friends or a separatist ?
Taylor—No.

Baron Alderson (persuasively)—You must take the
oath. I have no power to exempt you.
Witness—l cannot take it.
Baron Alderson—l must commit you, then.
Witness—Very well.
Baron Alderson—l am very sorry for it, but I have a
duty to perform as well as you. You ought not to ob-
struct public justice. I cannot participate in your
scruples. Our Lord did not refuse to be sworn accord-
ing to the Jewish laws, and why should you be wiser
than your Lord and Master ?
Witness—Our Lord said " swear not all."

Baron Alderson—lf you are to take that literally why
not take everything else in the same way. If I was to
slap you on one side the face, would you turn the other
also ?
Witness—Yes.

Baron Alderson—l don't believe it. It is not meant
that you should do so ; but the meaning of it is that you
should be a man of a peaceable disposition.

Witness—l cannot take the oath..

Baron Alderson—Then you stand committed. If you
are ambitious of becoming a martyr I cannot help but
make you one. I would recommend you to give up
keeping a pawn shop if you cannot take an oath. You
see you are open to the suspicion that you do it to evade
public justice.

NORTHERN CIRCIIIT.—Yong, JULY 23.

TWEEWLE V. RAMSHAY.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF MAR.

RIAGE.-HEAVY DAMAGES.

Miss Mary Tweddle, the plaintiff, is the daughter of
a respectable farmer in Cumberland ' • the defendant, Mr.
John Ramshay, is steward to the Earl of Carlisle at
Naworth Castle, and brother to the late judge of the
Liverpool County Court, and the action was brought
to recover compensation for a breach of promise of mar-
riage. Damages were laid at 5,0001.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Simpson appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Travis
for the defendant.

The learned serjeant stated the case. The defendant
was a gentleman of very large property, and had an
income of between 2,000/. and 3,000/. a year. The lady
could not boast of equal advantages as regards fortune,
but in point of education was everything which could
adorn a gentleman's house in the character of a wife.
CarlisleT he p a isnitnif f' s c
eh father
isfather's h abe d
death,e a a
ntde nant u
occupied
nde r o rd
af a
rtof
about 1,400 acres of land. The defendant had been
intimately acquainted with Miss Tweddle from child-
hood, he being now about 45 and she 25 years of age.
In 1848, he made known to her aunt that he had long
entertained the strongest affection for the plaintff, and
wished, if the young lady would accede, to make pro-
posals of marriage to her. She was sent for from her
father's house, and in the presence of the aunt the
defendant stated to Miss Tweddle that he was anxious
to make her his wife, and she answered that she was
younger than he considerably that he associated with
the first families of the country, and was considered, no
doubt, superior to her both in point of wealth and rank
and position of life, and she felt those circumstances pre-
sented obstacles which could not be well got ever. De-
fendant replied that he had considered those circum-
stances, and assured her that they were no obstacles.
His intentions were pure and honourable, and he pressed
her to receive him as her accepted suitor. She delayed
giving an answer until the following day, when she
would think it over. On the next day defendant called
upon her, and she consented to accept him. During the
remainder of the year, he visited the young lady almost
daily, and when Naworth Castle, which had been partly
burned down, was rebuilt, and was being refurnished,
he took her and her aunt to see the furniture, remarking
that if some of it accorded with the taste of the young
lady he should purchase some like it for his own drawing-
room. He made known to his friends
„his intention to
marry Miss Tweddle, and he requested her and her aunt
not to make any secrecy of the matter. He represented
and introduced her to all the most fashionable and
influential circles of the country as his intended wife.
So things went on up to the year 1850, when for
some reason or other the defendant thought proper all
at once to discontinue his visits, and avoided every
chance of meeting the young lady. The consequence
was that her health became seriously affected, at one
time so much so that apprehensions were entertained
for her life. She was often found weeping in the dead
of the night, and expressing sorrow on account of the
treatment she had received. Eventually she wrote to
bins requesting an explanation of his conduct, and the
following was the defendant's answer, dated April
5, 1850 :

"My dear Mary,---I have got your note from Mrs.
Tweddle, and you need not think you have given me the
slightest offence—nothing of the kind. It is only the
painful circumstances under which I am placed, of which
you are aware, that have prevented me coming as usual
'to Askerton. I have felt that had I done otherwise I
should have acted unfairly towards yourself. I shall
always entertain towards you the greatest regard, as well
as towards the whole of your family, hut the explanation
which I once gave you of previous occurrences, and which
still hang over my head, compels me to abandon the in-
tention I most seriously entertained. I have done all in
my power to avert this, but it has been in vain. Believe
mo very faithfully yours,

"J. RA3iSHIY."
The painful circumstance referred to was a difficulty
in which he had involved himself by making a previous
promise to another young lady at Trentham. He had
hoped to get out of that difficulty by the payment of
2,0001., and repeatedly said he had no doubt he should
be able to do so. That however was a mere idle pretext,
as the defendant has since married a Miss Lacy, who
was not the young lady at Trentham. Shortly after this
the plaintiff, unfortunately, lost her father and uncle,
but she avoided pressing her claim until she found the
defendant had married Miss Lacy. The Rev. J. Bell,
of Boltslerstone, wrote to the defendant on behalf of the
plaintiff, and called upon him to state what reparation
he was prepared to make for the serious injury he had
inflicted upon Miss Tweddle--she was not actuated by
any feeling of revenge—and although she had suffered by
his conduct, she did not wish to lower him in the opinion
of those whose regard he had well earned. Defendant
replied he was quite prepared to meet any proceedings
that might be adopted towards him, and the action wsa
commenced.

Several witnesses, having been called in support of
the above,

Mr. Temple addressed the jury for the defendant, and
adverted to the great difference between the position in
life of the plaintiff and defendant. He admitted that it
was an imprudent act on the part of a man whose dis-
parity of age was so great, compared with that of the
plaintiff, but lie denied that she ever had any real affec-
tion for him, and therefore there were no wounds of the
heart. The defendant did not cast any imputation upon
the character of the plaintiff, but he did complain of the
way he had been treated. He ridiculed the idea of the
young lady's illness being caused by the breach of con-
tract, and informed the jury that the defendant had been
engaged to Miss Lacy long before he married her. But
there was one incident in the history which afforded a
key to the whole, viz., the discharge of the aunt from
the farm she had occupied for some time rent free. In
October, 1852, the defendant married his present wife,
and five months was allowed to elapse before any inti-
mation was given him of the commencement of proceed-
ings.
The learned counsel, therefore, implored the jury
to send Mr. Ramshay back to his own county with his
reputation unsullied by this conspiracy against him.
Mr. Justice Wightman then summed up, and left the
jury to determine whether, first, there was a contract of
marriage, and if so, to what damages the plaintiff was
fairly entitled.

The jury, after a short deliberation, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 3,0001.

HALUTEAD V. TOAD.- -ANOTHER BRENCII OF PROMISE.
Mr. Watson, in stating the case, said it was one of
great cruelty on the part of the defendant, who without
any reasonable cause in the. world, after promising mar-
riage to the plaintiff, broke off the engagement, and
committed other wrongs. The plaintiff, who was twenty-
nine years of age, was a milliner, and resided with her
father, an ironfounder at Bradford ; and the defendant
who. was between fifty and sixty, had retired from busi-
ness on an ample fortune, and resided near Harrogate.
The defendant used to visit the plaintiff's house, and
about three years ago an intimacy sprung up between
them. He promised her marriage, and she consented,
but she did not wish it to take place until the defendant's
daughter was joined in wedlock, the latter young lady-
being about to be married. At the latter end of last year
it was discovered that the plaintiff was in the family way.
This caused much grief to the parents. The defendant
was sent for, and was accused of being the cause of the
plaintiff's state. He did not confess to the circumstance,
and upon being questioned about marrying her, he,
for the first time, declined to fulfil the engagement.
Having brought lasting shame upon the plaintiff and
her family, the defendant, in the most heartless manner,
said that he was too old to marry, and that he would
consider about it. From that time, in December last,
the connexion was broken off.

Mr. Knowles tbeu addressed the jury. He commented
upon the great
T
disparity
hedefendant
had been on
of years
and defendant.
intimate
terms with the plaintiff's family. He had been in the
habit of visiting the house ; had smoked his pipe there ;
had joked with and kissed the plaintiff and her sisters,
not improperly, but in the manner in which some old
men were wont to do. It was one of the most singular
breaches of promise of marriage he had ever heard in his
life, There was not a single scrap of paper produced,
declaring in glowing terms the affection which existed
between the parties. What loss had the plaintiff sus •
tained by not marrying the defendant ? Why, she had
lost an old man, old enough to be her father. For his
own part, he (Mr. K.) believed that the defendant had
told the plaintiff he would marry her only by way of
joke, having no serious intention of fulfilling his pro-
mise.

Mr. Justice Wig,htnlan summed up, And the jury ;-,rave
a verdict for the plaintiff— Damages, 4eg.