The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-05 00:00:00

LEMAN V. BLACKMORE.

The MASTER of the ROLLS then proceeded to hear the
remainder of the exceptions in this case, which was part
heard yesterday.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The VICE-CHANCELLOR proceeded to-day with the re-
maining cause petitions, but nothing of any interest was
involved in them.

KING'S BENCII.-(THIS DAY.)

DENBIGH V. FULLER.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS moved in this case, by leave of
the Learned Judge, for a rule to show cause why a non-
suit should not be entered ; or, supposing the point of law
on which he moved was found insufficient, for a new trial,
on the ground of the damages being excessive. It was an
action for a breach of promise of marriage, tried at
Lewes, before Mr. Justice GASELEE, in which a verdict

• •-•• • v•
was had for the plaintiff, damages '2.50/. The declara-
tion was in the usual terms of a mutual promise to
marry, and the plea was, first the general issue, and
secondly, that the plaintiff did not promise to marry
the defendant. The parties were in a humble station
of life, the .father of the young woman being a la-
bouring farmer. Fuller, the defendant was the so❑ of a
small farmer, who had raised some money to put his son
into a farm for himself, and for which he had promised to
advance 5001. The young woman was known to the de-
fendant, from the circumstance of her sister being in his
service. The plaintiff was thirty-four years of age, and the
young man twenty-two ; and although he (Mr. Sergeant
Andrews) could not get out at the trial certain facts to
establish the point, there was good reason to believe that
the plaintiff had not behaved herself in the most correct
manner. The plaintiff's sister having left the defendant's
service, the plaintiff came there as servant in her stead,
and it was alleged that then the promise in question was
given. A paper signed by the defendant was put in at the
trial, which ran thus :—" I promise to marry Eliza Den-
bigh, or pay her 5001.—J. J. FULLER." The brother and
the sister of the plaintiff afterwards called upon the defend-
ant, to know why the promise had not been fulfilled, and
the reply was—" She knows why Ido not fulfill it." The
Learned Counsel contended that, inasmuch as the promise
to marry on the part of the plaintiff had not been proved,
the plea of a mutual promise could not be sustained, and
on that ground he was entitled to a nonsuit. If that was
insufficient, then, taking the humble station in life of the
parties into consideration, the damage must be admitted to
be excessive, and he was, on that ground, entitled to a
new trial.

Lord DENMAN—It appears to me that both the issues
have be©n proved, for it was proved that the defendant had
promised, and the conduct of the plaintiff's brother and
sister, and her own conduct, sufficiently led to the inference,
that that promise had been given in consideration of one on
.her part. There is, therefore, in my opinion, no ground
for a nonsuit. With regard to excessive damages, it is our
duty to see that the party does not recover more than they
are entitled to. Of that, however, the Jury ought to be
the best judge, as the situation in life of both parties is laid
before them. If the plaintiff is so much superior to the
defendant in point of age, then so much the greater is her
loss ; and, as she appears to have established her case, there
seems to me no ground for disturbing the verdict.
Mr. Justice PATTESON expressed himself of the same
opinion.—Rule refused.