The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-24 00:00:00

MARCH 24, 1849.

~~: .

[PRICE OD.

dispatched to London, accompanied by the master of
workhouse, to Seek for the prisoner, and having found
her, she was asked what had become of the-baby. When
the question was put to her she became dreadfully agi-
tated ; but at length said she had left it in charge of one
of her sisters, which statement turned out to be utterly
false; and on her being further questioced, she refused"
to give any explanation, or to say what had become of
child. She was then taken into custody; and on her
room being searched, the clothes that were upon the
poor infant ss hen the prisoner took it away from the
workhouse were found tied up in a bundle. There were
other circumstances in the case which tended completely
to exclude the possibility of the prisoner's innocence, and
there appeared to be no doubt that in a moment of
desperation she had thrown the_ child into the well,
although it appeared in the course of the case that up to
that period the prisoner had treated her children in a
kind manner.

The Learned JUDGE having gone carefully through
all the material points in the case during his summing up,
The jury, after a very short deliberation, returned a
verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to
mercy, on the ground that her conduct to her children
had formerly been kind and affectionate.
His LORDSHIP then put on the black cap, and passed
sentence of death upon the prisoner, and he at the same
time told her not to place any reliance on the recommen-
tion of the jury, as. he was afraid, from the dreadful cha-
racter of the offence, the jaw mist' inevitably take its
course. He would; however, transmit the recommends=
tion to the"proper- quirter but be again entreated her
ndt to imagine that it would be of any avail in procuring
a mitigation of her sentence. Judgment was then-passed
in the usual form.

The wretched prisoner, who was almost in a fainting
state, was then_ carried away by the gaolers quite in-
sensible.

NORTHERN CIRCU IT.—Liverpool, March 20
NISI PRIUS COURT.-(Betore Justice COLERIDGE.)
KERSHAW V. CASS.—BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

In this case Mr. Wiesen, Q.C., and Mr. F. Robinson,
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and
Mr. Hugh Hill for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff; an elderly
widower, aged 67, to recover compensation in damages
from the defendant, an elderly widow of 57, for a breach
of promise of marriage. The defendant pleaded that she
did not promise in manner and form.
Mr. WATSON, in opening the case to the jury, said the
case seemed to excite some mirth, as being an action
brought for a breach of promise of marriage by a gentle,
man against a lady. Both the plaintiff and the defendant
were past that period of life when the sensibilities of youth
were wounded by such a contract being broken. The
plaintiff was a widower, and resided at Rochdale, where
he hal acquired considerable property; but in consequence
of having speculated in railways a gooddeal of it had been
wasted. The defendant lived at a place called Carr, near
Burton, which was near Bury. The plaintiff was a
little above sixty, the defendant was not quite so much.
In the course of the past year the parties had become
acquainted with each other, and an agreement of mar-
riage had been come to between them. The defendant
was possessed of some property—a few acres of land
and a house. In the month of September last year, the
plaintiff made advances to the defendant. He could not
prove what had taken place between the plaintiff and
the defendant when the marriage was agreed upon be-
tween them, as they were alone. But he should be able
to prove that overtures of marriage had been made by
the plaintiff to Mrs. Cass, which had been well received
by her, and that ultimately she had agreed to marry
him. On the 12th of October, 1848, a letter was writ-
ten by Mrs. Cass—or rather by her brother-in-law, Mr.
Rose, a local methodist preacher, as her agent, as he
should prove—to the plaintiff. That letter was as fol-
lows:

" Waterhead Mill, Oct. 12, 1848.
" Dear Sir,—l write to you to say I shall not be at
home till Monday next; and also I have considered the
question you mentioned in all its bearings.—(Langhter.)
I have come to the conclusion, :at least for the present,
not to enter into the solemn and important state of mar-
riage. I hope you may direct your attention to another
quarter. I think you may possibly find one who will
suit you much better. Wishing you the true enjoyment
of the things of this life—(Loud laughter)—but above
all, the meetness to enjoy the things in an eternal state,
and subscribe myself, " MARIA CASS."
This letter was obviously telling the plaintiff when the
defendant would be at home, and she was clearly also
taking time to consider the question, and that it was
open to her to change her mind, because she only
said that this was the conclusion she had come
to "at least for the present." The Learned Counsel
said he never saw a letter more calculated to
advance a man's suit. The plaintiff had accordingly
pressed his suit, and in due time it was agreed
upon between them that they should be married. It was
agreed that the marriage should be performed by li-
cense on the first market Monday of 1849, at Rochdale,
and a wedding ring was purchased, and the plaintiff 'a
son was to go to the 'defendant's house to take an in-
, ventory of her goods to be settled upon her. To his
surprise, however, on going for this purpose on the 15th
of December, the defendant said, "No • that something
had arisen between herself and his father, and she had
changed her mind." The plaintiff accordingly went
over to see what the change was about, when the de-
fendant told him she had heard he had been married
twice, and had treated both his wives with great cruelty,
and she would not, therefore, have him. This was not
true, and, for anything the Learned Counsel knew, was
the invention of some person who probably had an eye
to the widow himself.

The Counsel for the plaintiff then proceeded to call his
witnesses.

Joseph Andrew Kershaw, a young man of about 30
years of age, son of the plaintiff, examined—He lives at
Rochdale, and is a fruit dealer. His father had some
household property. Is a widower, and his mother had
been d• ad seven years. The defendant is a widow living
at Carr in Burton, near Bury, four miles from Rochdale.
At the end of last year his father used to visit at Mrs.Cass's.
Witness on the 17th of last Nov. went over with his
father to Bury, and saw the defendant. They took tea
with her. Witness told defendant that he was very
much grieved at his father's choice, but should like to
see them living comfortably. She thanked him, and
told him she would be an affectionate mother-in-law.
He replied he would endeavour to be a dutiful son.—
(Loud laughter.) In November last he drove Mrs.
_

Cass, the defendant, and her sister (Mrs. Rose),
from Bury to Rochdale in a gig. They dined at
his father's house, with him and his father. AI
conversation then took place respecting the marriage.
She made an inquiry about being married by banns of
the clerk of the parish church at Rochdale; and on
being informed that the banns must be published in the
parishes in which both resided, she objected to it, and
his father proposed that they should be married by
license, to which she agreed, and the marriage was
fixed to take place on the first market Monday in 1849. On
driving them home again through Rochdale, Mrs. Rose
desired him to stop at Mr. Williamson's, the jeweller's
shop, to obtain a wedding-ring for Mrs. Cass. He was
also requested to take an inventory of her goods to be
placed in her marriage settlement. On the Friday fol-
lowing he went accordingly to take the inventory, when
Mrs. Cass told him she was very sorry to disappoint
him, but something had happened between her and
his father, and she had changed her mind and wished
to see her father. He was afterwards present when his
father saw Mrs. Cass. His father said, " I hope you
have changed your mind, Mrs. Cass:" she said, " No, I
have not." His father then pulled a ring out of his
pocket and tendered it to her, and hoped she would per.
form her promise. She said, " No, she had heard he
had had two wives, and had been a cruel man to both."
He said it was false. She said, she had heard it front
two parties. Ho then said, " Then why, Mrs. Cass,
did you promise me marriage, and induce me to buy the
ring if you did not intend to fulfil your promise?" His
father then said—" Mrs. Cass, I have conducted myself
like a gentleman since first I proposed to you. I have
never deceived you." She said—" You did, air."
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—Was
your father in tears when he came away from Mrs.
Cass's?—(Loud laughter.) Witness—No; I don't
think he was.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—What age is your father ?
Witness—Sixty-seven.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—Your father first saw the
defendant in September, and all was arranged in Decem-
ber—was it? Witness—Yes.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—Did not your father dress
himself up and pull the hairs out of his nose before he
went to see Mrs. Cass?—(Roars of laughter.) Witness
—I am not aware that he did.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—What had you for dinner
the day Mrs. Cass and Mrs. Rose came to your father'shouse? Witness—Mutton, potatoes, and pies.—(Re-
newed laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—Don't
you know that your
father was paying his addresses to Mrs. Holden, the land-
ladytime be-
of the White Bear, in Manchester, a
short
fore the time you have spoken of?
not aware that he was. Witness—No; lam
Mr. Sergeant Waartes
go to the White Bear,
uandlad Manchester, disguised in a
—Didn't you, some time ago,
smock frock, to make the y believe your father
was poor. Witness—No.
D.d
landlady da lhadd, y a t
der tht White
üßne
tarry,
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—. n you, in order to break
go to the house off the courhtshsipe
say, " Has m fey bin here u? rtehsese
I don't recollect that I ever did.
Witness—
In answer to somefurther
questions, the witness said
( farmer'sLa gh t e rl .a)d
that some time ago the sheriff sold his father's furniture,
and that he (witness) was now the tenant of the house
in which his father lived. Was not aware that there
were now two executions out against his father. His
father had lost a deal of money in railway speculations.
Nuttall did not lend plaintiff his slippers.
Joseph Williamson, a jeweller and watchmaker, in
Yorkshire-street, Rochdale, proved the purchase of the
ring.
Mary Shepherd deposed to having provided the dinner
at plaintiff's house on the 13th December, when Mrs.
Cass and Mrs. Rose were present.
Cross-examined by Sergeant WILKINS—Did not bor-
row any farniture on that occasion. Saw Mr. Nuttall
bring in three chairs and a glass, and two or three spit-
toons.—(Laughter.) Had never called the plaintiff " Old
Flockey."
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—No; you are too much of a