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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT, OAKHAM, 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
offence, the prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to
one year's
srge
imprisonment.
ing to commit an abominable

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 givil 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.)
ALLEN 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 villacre 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 not 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-mettled
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-
ried 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 he 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
subpcena Mr. Bull and his dog." Bull and the defend-
ant were drinking together at the time ; and the defend-
ant had previously said that there was not a more " var-
tuoup" 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 hi.; address to the jury, on behalf of
the defendant, denied that he bad 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_ anclbound himself by
an engagement which he was unable to fulfil ;
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.