The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH—June 29.
COPELAND V. CHILD.

Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Hawkins condu3ted the
case for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins ap-
peared. for the defendant.
This was an action for a breach of promise of mar-
riage. The defendant pleaded that there wa3 no such
agreement ; that at the time of making the agreement
the defendant was an infant ; and that the agreement
was rescinded. The plaintiff replied that the promise
was continued after the defendant came of age.
Mr. Chambers, in opening the case for the plaintiff,
said the action was brought by Maria Copeland, who
was only 20 years of age, to recover compensation in
damages from the defendant, who was, like herself, very
young, though not quite so young as she, for he had
now attained his majority. The circumstances of the
case were very short and simple. The conduct of the
defendant had been heartless and unkind, and such as
ought to lead the jury to give this young woman con-
siderable damages; because, without the least reason,
this young man had played with her feelings, gained her
affections, and then, without any cause, deserted her and
married' another woman. The plaintiff was the daughter
of a market-gardener, and the defendant was the son of
a grocer, both living at Norwood. In September last,
the parties having been for some time acquainted, the
defendant paid attention to the plaintiff, and told her
mother he wished to pay his addresses to her daugh-
ter. The mother assented to this, and they kept com-
pany, and he introduced her to his sister and other
members of his family. He pursued this course, calling
two or three times a day, until the 13th of February,
and led every one to believe that the marriage would
soon take place, for he said he was going to take a
house, and he would make the plaintiff his wife. He
left the plaintiff on Sunday evening, the 13th of Feb-
ruary,'saying he!wouldsall the'next day, but he did not do
so ; and in a short time the plaintiff heard he had married
another person, and was going to Australia. The de-
fendant was then arrested, and put in bail, anenad
since gone to Australia. What right had this young
man to promise marriage, gain the affections of the
young woman, and then suddenly and abruptly, with-
out any cause, and meanly break off the intended mar-
riageb and marry another person Under these circum-
star.ces the jurors were asked, as sensible and honour-
ab.ie men, to say what the plaintiff was fairly entitled to.
Mrs. Harriet Copeland—l am the mother of the plain-
tiff. We live at Norwood, and my husband is a mar-
ket-gardener. The plaintiff will be 21 in August. I
know the defendant, who is the son of Mr. Child, the
grocer, at Norwood. Before September last defendant
used to visit my daughter, walking in the garden with
her. On the 19th September he had tea and supper at
our house. He said he had a great regard for my
daughter, and should I have any objection to his com-
ing to visit her ? I said I had no objection, but not
to come to my house to deceive us, but if he came in
a respectable way I should have no objection. From
that time he came once or twice a-day, and always on
a Sunday afternoon. He continued this till the 12th
of February. He called me his mother. I have three
other daughters married. He called their husbands
his brother-in-law. My daughter received his atten-
tions favourably. He constantly talked of being mar-
ried ; he would make her his wife, and would have no
one else. On the 13th of February he came to my
house. My daughter went with him to a christening of
his cousin's child. When he went away he kissed her,
and said " Good night, my dear ; I shall see you hal the
morning." He did not come again to the house until
the 21st of March. I had previously heard that he was
going abroad: On the 21st of March, when he came,
my daughter said, "I hear, James you are going to be
married ?" He said, " How could anybody tell you
such lies ? lam not going to be married." He said he
was going abroad. My daughter said he had behaved
very ill to her. He said he could not help it. He said
he would call again and wish us good bye. He was
married on the 29th of March to another person. He
had told me that he was twenty-one on the 17th of last
December.

Cross-examined—He was a very respectable young
man. He drove his father's cart out for orders. I never
heard that his father had a strong objection to the
match. When he called, he sometimes had his cart
with him. He said he had got the Prayer-book, and
that they would learn the ceremony perfectly.
Elizabeth Copeland---I am the wife of the plaintiff's
brother. Plaintiff and defendant sometimes spent the
evening at our house. He said she was the only girl he
ever loved, and he should make her his wife. Her feel-
ings were very much hurt by the defendant's conduct.
When he said he was going abroad, he said it would
make no difference, as he should correspond with her,
and would make her his wife in two years.
Cross-examined—She was a dressmaker.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins then addressed the jury for the
defendant. This was not a case calling for heavy da-
mages. A hasty and not very well-considered promise
had been made and broken. Here was a young man in
his father's employ, driving his cart, and stopping at the
plaintiff's house when he was out soliciting orders. He
had begun to assume the man, and no doubt it was gra-
tifying to a young man's vanity to talk of taking a
house; hut he had no means of taking a house or putting
a stock into it. He was a stupid young booby, who
fancied himself in love with all the pretty girls he saw,
and he had in this instance summoned up courage to ask
the mamma ; but he had seen some one else, and then
he fell in love with that person, and married her. Ho
(Mr. Sergeant Wilkins) was not inclined to pay the
young lady the bad compliment of supposing that the
defendant was the only man who could obtain her affec-
tions, and he bad no doubt but that, in a short time, her
family would have to congratulate her upon being the
wife of some other and more deserving individual, and
and he thought the damages the jury would give would
be very small.

Lora Campbell having summed up,
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 751.

THE JURY.

Some of the jurymen were fined 5/. for non-atten-
dance.

The Court was kept waiting for a considerable time,
there being at three o'clock only four jurymen in the
box.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.—Mr. Hughes and Mr. Few, the
churchwardens of St. Paul's, Covent-garden, together
with several other respectable inhabitants of the parish,
waited upon Mr. Henry to prefer a complaint against
the police officers of the F division, for alleged neglect
of duty.

The applicants stated that fora considerable time past
a number of brothel-keepers had been permitted to carry
on their nefarious business in the most undisguised and
offensive manner, in some of the largest thoroughfares
of the district, but more especially in Brydges-street,
Covent-garden. Here at any hour of the day or night,
gaudily-dressed women were allowed to stand at the
doors of sham-cigar shops, beckoning to by-passers, and
often seizing them by the arm ; and when the police
were urged to interfere, with the view of checking or
altogether preventing this disgusting traffic, Superinten-
dent Pearce informed them that he had no power' to do
so, as the " soliciting" did not occur in the public streets.
Now his worship was aware that there was a clause in
the Police Act which directed the police to take all pros-
titutes into custody who were found soliciting in " any
street or public place of resort." Surely ample authority
was given under this clause to justify the apprehension
of the women alluded to, whenever caught in the act of
pestering the by-passers at their doors ' • and it was the
object of the, present application, to have that duty
enforced upon them.
Mr. Henry, while fully conscious of the extent of this
nuisance, and deploring it as much as any man, was
bound to admit that Superintendent Pearce had taken a
proper view of the law upon the subject. The effect of
the clause in question was to restrict the interference of
the police to offences of the kind occurring in the public
streets. The act gave them no power to enter people's
houses to take up prostitutes,
Mr. Hughes and Mr. Few (who are both solicitors)
contended that the obvious intention of the Legislature
was to prevent such occurrences anywhere within public
observation. There was no distinction, in point of de-
cency, between a solicitation just within the threshold
of a door and one an inch beyond it. Public feeling was
just as much outraged by the one as the other.
Mr. Henry said, although there may be no difference
in a moral sense, the distinction in point of law was un-
questionable, and to satisfy the applicants that they were
mistaken with regard to the intention of the Legislature,
his worship reminded them of the decision relative to the
interpretation of the Vagrant Act. It was held by the
superior courts that the clause which prohibited the ex-
hibition of obscene prints in any street or public place of
resort did not affect the exposure of such prints in a
shop window, and consequently the Vagrant A.gt was
amended, the prohibition being thereby made to extend
to shops, &c. No such amendment had been made in
the Police Act, and the construction to be put upon the
words "street or public place" was settled in the case
referred to. It was in the power of the parish authori-
ties, however, to indict these brothels at the sessions,
and he (Mr. Henry) thought that that was the proper
course to take. The remedy, after all, was in their own
hands.

After some further discussion to the same purport,
the deputation withdrew, apparently intending to adopt
the latter suggestion of his worship.
The adjourned hearing of the summons against the
churchwardens and overseers of St. Ann's, Soho, for
arrears of rates due to the board of guardians was fixed
for yesterday afternoon ; but the amount demanded
(4001.) having been paid in the morning, the summons
was withdrawn. One or two of the defendants ex-
pressed a strong opinion upon " the indignity of being
dragged into a criminal court," and another demanded
compensation for loss of time ; but Mr. Henry could not
admit that there were any just grounds for either the
one or the other.

In the course of the summons cases against cab-
drivers, an illustration was given of the inconvenience
occasioned by railway companies in causing a different
set of numbers to be painted upon cabs which ply for
hire at their stations. A gentleman who had been over-
charged took the railway number instead of the license
number, and consequently the wrong man was served
with the summons.

William, henry Woodhouse was charged with assault-
ing John Cochrane, a mechanic.
The complainant (whose face was sadly disfigured)
said, that about three months ago he had occasion to
give defendant's brother into custody for assaulting him
in the street, and knocking three of his teeth out. At
that time the defendant accompanied his brother to the
police station, and swore that he would take an early
opportunity of knocking out the remainder of witness's
teeth. They met accidentally bat ovei/ing when the