The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-17 00:00:00

/~

~/~ «-~li

i
~' ~

;LAM INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 16.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, after Term, before Lord Chief
Justice Jervis.)
This was the first day of the sittings after term. The
cause list contains an entry of 62 causes, 21 of which are
remanets, and 24 are marked for special juries.
DISDALE v. BUCKINGHAM.
This was an action brought by Mary Ann Disdale, the
plaintiff, far a breach of promise of marriage against Am-
brose Buckingham, the defendant. The damages were
laid at 2001.
Mr. Serjeant Shea and Mr. Joseph Brown appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff and the
defendant in 1847 had been fellow-servants at Sir Joseph
Bayley's, in Belgrave-square, the -plaintiff as house-
maid, and the defendant as footman, when, as the Lord
Chief Justice said in summing up, " being highly fed,
and jhaving little to do, courting was a natural conse-
quence." Ambrose proposed to Mary Ann, and became her
accepted lover. The interesting fact was made known in
the servants' hall, and "all the other servants" treated
them as an engaged couple. One of the plaintiff's fellow-
servants stated that in July, 1850, the plaintiff was in service
at Lord Alfords's, at Ashridge-park, near Berkhampstead,
when the defendant called to see her, anti was observed to
kiss her as she entered one of the rooms, and said " he
hoped it was the last time she would go into service." He
also, en one occasion, gave her some studs for a habitshirt,
took her to Cremorne, and introduced her sister to the
lady's maids as his sister-in-law. In May, 1852, he told
the sister the plaintiff was going to leave her place to be
married, and that ho had got a first-rate business in an
hotel, he having ceased to be a footman and become the
proprietor of the Lansdowne Hotel at Leamington, in con-
sequence of the death of his brother. In July of that year
the defendant wrote the following letter to the plaintiff :
" Leamington, July 17, 1862.
"My dear Polley,-1 tack the plesur of riten hopen to
find you quit well as thank God It leaves me at this time.
I Dear say you thought I must have been Ded as I have
not wrote to you before, but I have been so bissey that my.
time has been quit tacken up and when I have had any
seer time It slipt my memeary but I often think of you I
think that I shall be in London Next Week but Dont no
for sertin I want to get sum cerkelers for the Hotel, if I
should I shall send for you to meet me In London I hope
you got the Paper all right.
" This Is all at this time from your affecnt,
" A. BUOSINQUAIif.
" M. A. Disdell, Market Weston,
East Harling, Norfolk."
The plaintiff becoming tired of this long courtship, and
learning that the defendant's position .was much improved,
became, naturally enough, as the Lord Chief Justice said,
" anxious to be doing something," and wrote to the die•
fondant in September, inquiring the cause of his long delay
in the marriage, and stating her intention of going to
Leamington to see him unless he explained himself sativ
factorily by letter. The defendant then wrote to her the
following letter in answer
Leamington, Sept. 15, 1852.
"My dear Polley,—l send you with mutch plesur the
Soverring and If It wos ten I wold do so but wot yon
Aquse me of is quit rong but It is not the first time you
have don so and with hout any Corse wothever this is all
at this that I shall say Aney think of the Subject till I see
you If you had the Money that I menched to you it would
not Set me agenst you as the way that you Aquse me of
Munney Huntin never entered my Head but preps you
have Sum won Hels I yew you would Lick better wetch I
have not nor Did I heaver think of Heaney won heals but
you witch your one Sence mite of told you but this is all
that I Shall Say on the Subect now If you will send me
word wear you are I will mack it my Bisness to corn and
see you and put all strat as for the money that you have
had you are quit welcome and I remean your devoted
" A BUCKINGHAM.
" M. A. Disdell, 23, Queen-street, Brompton, London."
About this time tho defendant in one of his interviews
with the plaintiff wished her to take another situation, as
she was then at home, telling her he had 4001. to raise to
pay off his brother's share of the business, and that it
would be many years before he could be married. The
plaintiff then got another situation at St. Alban's, and
wrote several letters to the defendant complaining of his
neglect, and. his not marrying her because she had no
money, and the following letter in answer was put in and
read :
" Leamington, October 8, 1852.
" Dear Mary Ann—l tack the plesur of Tighten to you
as praps It may be the Last time but I wish you well with
all my Hart I Can Call god to Witness that all the time I
wos keep Company with you I neaver thought of aney won
eals but you and It wos alwies my Intenchion to have mar-
red you at sum time when I thought I could a done so and
as I Have alwiss told you to bring to my one house, but
wot you have aqusecl me of I think I neave could bo happy
with you nor you with me, for in the first place you rote
to me and said that you thought we had bean keep Company
Long auuf and that you wanted to be doing something for
Yor Self I told you when in London that as my brouther
and me wos in Pardnerships to gether that on Less you had
3 Hundred Pounds I could not marry you and when you
sod that you had not got that sum witch I noad that you
had not I then told you that I could not marry on Less I
could pay him to clear out not that I wos a Money Hunter.
" M. A. Disdell, Lamer Park, St. Alban's, Herta."
The effect of this communication, it was'said, so preyed on
the plaintiff's mind that she was unable to remain in ser-
vice, and had gone into lodgings, when she ascertained that
in October last the defendant had married Miss Edwards,
of Leamington, whose father was alleged to be a prosperous
butcher in that town. This having put it out of the de-
fendant's power to perform his promise to the plaintiff, the
present action was brought.