The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-21 00:00:00

AUSTRIA.

The letters from the seat of war in Hungary, which
appear in the Vienna papers of the 15th, are such as
to induce us to believe that the victory of Waitnu
was even more complete than it has been represented,
and that the Imperial army before Comorn is threat-
ened with destruction. The Ban of Croatia, whose
position was of late on the railroad line leading from
Pesth to Albert and Cz-gled, that is to say on the
left bank of the Danube, is now most suddenly
found to be on the right bank of that river. Nor is
it probable that he would have quitted his former
position and crossed the river, unless compelled
by a defeat. The Hungarian Generals Vetter and
Dembieski following in the wake of Baron Jella-
chich's corps, have likewise crossed the Danube, and
occupied Weissenburg ; in other words, the Hun-
garians had turned either wing of the Austrian army
by a flank march, and Buda-Pesth, which a few days
ago formed the centre operations of either army,
is now in the rear of the scene of war and of the
Magyar forces. The Imperial army besieging
Comorn, and which besides has been weakened by
the succour which its Commander, General Wohlge-
muth, was obliged to send to General Ramberg, who
endeavoured to oppose the approach of the Hunga-
rians from Waitzen to Gran, is now exposed to a
threefold attack from the north, the south, and from
the garrison of the fortress itself. The country sur-
rounding Comorn is all but in the hands of the 11Iag-
yars, and Comorn is but 20 leagues distant from
Vienna.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEIV'S BENCH, April2o.
DOE DEM. STEVENS V. STEVENS.

This was an action of ejectment brought by Nicholas
Stevens against his brother, John Stevens, to recover
possession of certain premises alleged to have been left
by the will of Nicholas Stevens (the father, a horse
dealer at Bodmin, who died at the age of seventy.
six), to the advantage of Nicholas, one of his
younger sons. John, the elder son, the heir-at-
law, had taken possession of the property in
question, The will was dated the 18th Sept., 1848.
On that day John, the elder son, was at Redruth, where
he was in partnership with his brother Joseph, as a
horse-dealer. William was also absent at Barnstaple.
Nicholas, in favour of whom the will was made, was at
home with the father; Jane, one of his daughters, living
with them. Mrs. Geek, another daughter, a widow,
lived at Bodmin, at some little distance,from her father's
residence. Old Stevens was taken ill some time before
the 18th of September, and got gradually much
worse. A letter was then written by Nicholas
to William on the 15th or 16th of September,
informing him that their father was ill, and ask-
ing him to come home immediately and see about
different things. It contained this passage: "I think he
cannot continue loag. We want to try and get him to
have a doctor, and see about a will, or we shall all be
&ate. Do not say anything about his being ill to any
body, or we shall hare a house full. We will send to
ltt druth when they (John and Joseph) are gone." The
letter was to be sent when they were gone to Barn-
staple fair. Old Mr. Stevens had a great objec-
tion to a doctor, and always said that brandy
was. the best medicine, but Mr. Ward, a
surgeon of Bodmin, was at last sent for, who, in his affi-
davit, after describing the symptoms of Mr. Stevens,
stated that at the time of the execution of his will it was
highly improbable that he was in a fit state of mind to
make one. The verdict was found for the defendant.
Mr. CROWDER now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict for the defendant should not be set aside
and a new trial had—first, on the ground of misdirection
on the part of the Learned Judge, Moro. JthuestgicreouloVdil
to evidence.
lya'nd thirdly, that the
olifame th
vrbeeecrf
eodpri
cot
owgohi
vooemfn iiwtmawps
racosoptnertrireaderv;yisdeecnocned;
t
The Court took time to consider the application.

AS,
U WCIOLD.(M TLE
V. HARRIBE. April 19.
This was OF
an action to recover compensation in
damages for a breach of promise of marriage, under
the following circumstances.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Needham were for
the plaintiff; Mr. Huddlestone conducted the defence.
The Learned SERGEANT, in stating the plaintiff's
case, said that his ;client was a widow, residing in
Birmingham, where she carried on the business of
gimblet- maker, which had been previously carried on
by her late husband. The defendant was a contrac-
tor under the Telegraphic Railway Company, earning
a salary of 3001. a year. In the year 1847 he came
to Birmingham for the purpose of erecting the tele-
graph for the London and North-western Railway,
and took lodgings in the house of the plaintiff. Al-
most immediately he began to pay her marked atten-
tion, representing himself as the employe of Govern-
ment with an income of 3001. a year. He after a few
days declared himself her lover, and proposed
marriage. Plaintiff accepted him, and he not only
made the promise to marry, but actually gave orders
about the wedding dresses, at the same time inviting
her sister to be bridesmaid, and planned the wedding
tour. He further said that as he would be settled in
Birmingham, he would take a house for her in Ashley-
grove or Vauxhall. All of a sudden he pretended he
received a message from Somerset-house, and would
be obliged to go to London, but would return within
a fortnight; that time had long elapsed, though plain-
tiff wrote defendant several letters reminding him of
his promise, but nevercovvu,lhdenobittaiwnaasraespcleyrt;aianteldastthaan
inquiry was set on foot,t
he was a married man with a wife and four children.
The Learned Counsel appealed to the jury, whether
the plaintiff was not entitled to heavy damages. The
defendant not only palmed himself on her as a single
man, but what was worse, unhappily insinuated him-
self into her embraces, and the fruit of such inter-
course was an illegitimate child. He was sure under
those circumstances his unfortunate client would
obtain justice at their hands.
Miss Jane Steer stated that she was the sister of
the plaintiff; who is a gimblet maker, in Birmingham.
In January, 1848, the defendant came to lodge in her
sister's house, who is a widow, about 28 years of age.
Heard defendant propose marriage to her sister, and
told witness she should be bridesmaid, and spoke of
the wedding dresses she should wear. He repre •
rented himself as employed by Government to lay
down rails for the public safety. He stated that for
the wedding trip he would take her to London, but
as he was to be stationed in Birmingham he would
take a house there. He lodged in her sister's house
from the 4th of January to the Ist of February.
Cross-examined—When he made the promise it
was on a Sunday evening, they were drinking gin
and water. Cannot remember the colour of the pro-
posed wedding dress for her as bridesmaid. There
are two apprentices in the house, one twenty-two
years of age, the other a mere boy. Her sister was
confined of a child in the September after the defendant
left.

Re-examined—Her sister had previously two chil-
dren by her husband.

Mr. Thomas Evans, clerk in the telegraph•office,
proved that the defendant was employed as a con-
tractor. Previously to the present year his profits
were about 3001. a year, but this year they would
not be more than 1001. or 1501. He believed him to
be a married man with four children.

Mr. HIIDDLENTONE addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and said that his client was represented to be
a large contractor for the Telegraphic Railway. Ile
was no more than a common carpenter, and the ques-
tion was, whether any promise was made, was there
any proof the recently born child was the defendant's.
Could she not have summoned him before a magis-
trate, and produced his conviction before them in evi-
dence to establish the fact, but his unfortunate client
had got into the widow's clutches. The Learned
Gentleman concluded by calling on the jury to give
the smallest possible damages.
His Lonnsuir told the jury that he thought the
promise was proved, and the question for them was
damages, which he thought should be moderate.
The jury having retired for half an hour, folpd a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 101.