The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-25 00:00:00

THE 813 N,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE•CHANCERY COURT, July 24.
(Before Sir J. WIGnAM.)
BROGDEN V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
(THE N, RTH-KENT BRANCH).
Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Malins, and Mr. J. Bailey ap-
peared this morning in support of a motion, at the in-
stance of the above 'company, to commit the plaintiff for
a contempt of the court, in violating an order, mg& on
the 16th inst., whereby he was required and undertook
to complete a portion of the North Kent Railway, ex-
tending about twelve miles, in the neighbourhood of
Woolwich and Eritb. The plaintiff, the contractor, had
moved, on the 16th inst., for an injunction restraining
the company from interfering with and removing his
plants, engines, barrows, &c., from that 'portion of the
line, and taking it into their own hands, it being admitted
that, by the contract between the parties, he was not
bound to complete the works before November next, al-
though the company had endeavoured to induce him to
complete it early this month, so as to be opened for the
visitors to the siege operations at Chatham. They had
offered him 5,0001. for expedition money. Upon this
motion coming on an order was made by which it was
arranged that the company undertaking to make
no material or substantial variations in, or addi-

tions to, the orders already issued by the engineer
in the construction of the line, and the plaintiff under-
taking to complete the double line of rail, fit for public
traffic to the satisfaction of the Government inspector,
on or before midnight on Friday, the 20th inst., the com-
pany undertaking on Saturday, the 21st, to pay him
5,0001. for such expedition, and paving within a fortnight
the balance of all sums certified by the engineer to be
due to the plaintiff in respect of the works done; and
that if the engineer should certify what was due to the
plaintiff in respect of the works done or to be done by
him within one week after the same was completed, the
company would pay the amount within 14 days after the
same was certified; but if the plaintiff failed, he was to
deliver possession of the line on Saturday, the 21st, at
noon, in whatever state it was, subject to the adjudica-
tion of his rights under the contract by the court. The
Learned Counsel stated that it was of course not the ob-
ject of the company to gratify any resentment against
Mr. Brogden, but to establish, by means of the process of
the court, the right of the company to the possession of
a line of railway on which they had expended millions,
so as to use it for the benefit of the shareholders and the
public. They complained that no one of the conditions
of the undertaking had been performed, and they re-
ferred to the report of Captain Wynne, the Govern-
ment inspector, and to the affidavits of Mr. Herbert,
the secretary, Mr. P. W. Barlow, the engineer-in-
chief, and of other persons connected with the company,
as evidence that the line had not been completed accord-
ing to the undertaking by Friday night. They stated
that the company considered that they were losing traffic
to the amount of 1,000 per diem during the present
season. They were willing to pay the 5,000 into court,
and any sum equivalent to the probable profits of Brog-
den's contract for repairing the railway for the next two
years upon obtaining possession, although they denied
that Mr. Brogden was entitled to the 5,000/, as he had
not performed the condition upon which it was payable.
It appeared that in consequence of two of the Govern-
ment inspectors being laid up with cholera, it was not
found praoticable to obtain the inspection by Capt. Wynne
before Friday evening. That gentleman had reported
to the Railway Board, who had prohibited the line from
being opened for one month, although it was
believed by the company that, if they could
obtain possession of the line, and discharge
Mr. Brogden, they might complete it satisfac-
torily to the Railway' Board, and open it without delay.
The evidence showed that the line was not finished even
by a late hour on Saturday, some of the rails being only
laid on Saturday morning. Captain Wynne, in his re-
port, stated that he had on Friday inspected the line;
that he found several chairs of the up-line remained to
be laid, and that through the town of Woolwich it was
so encumbered with rubbish and materials as to be im-
passible. He reported that, from the incompleteness of
the permanent line between Woolwich and Erith, this
portion of the line could not be opened with safety to the
public; that he had been unable to inspect the Green-
wich portion of the line, or the Bricklayers' Arms
branch. The company also could prove that such had
been the determination of the plaintiff to retain posses-
sion of the line that he had given orders, prior to the
motion of last week, for taking up portions of the line,
and causing obstruction to the company in their attempt
to obtain possession and complete it themselves.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Wood, and Mr. A. J.
Lewis on behalf of Mr. Brogden, opposed the motion,
which they insisted, both in point of form and upon the
merits, must be dismissed with costs. They complained
of the attack which had been made upon the character
of the plaintiff, who, as a man of business, felt that the
imputations might be injurious to him in future under-
takings. In the present case the plaintiff was still within
his original contract, which did not expiro until Novem-
ber. The company had endeavoured to urge the comple-
tion o lthis part of the line by July, in order to realise

large profits by the Chatham siege, stiid had offered 5,000/.
as expedition money. They contended that the evidence
would satisfy the Court that if the Government inspector
were sent down at that moment he would certify that the
line was quite ready for working. It was stated that Cap-
tain Wynne himself had stated on the spot, on Friday,
that it might very easily be ready for travelling upon on
Saturday. It was a curious proceeding on the part of
the company to send for the Government inspector at
twelve on Friday noon, to report whether it would be
completed by the same day at midnight. The evidence
showed that carriages had been up and down the line on
Saturday, and since, at the rate of 25 miles per hour,
with perfect safety, and that between eleven and twelve
on Friday night the engine had run over every part of
the work for which the plaintiff was responsible. They
referred to the statements of witnesses as to delays
caused by a want of supply of chairs, it being stated that
the men had lost eight hours on Wednesday, and six
hours on Friday morning, from that cause. One of the
workmen, at the end of the line, in the company's
interest, was stated to have held up a portion of the
rail, refusing to place it until five on Saturday morning,
when he did so, exclaiming, •' Now Mr. Brogden shall
not have his 5,0001., for he has broken his contract."
They argued that there was no instance of a motion to
commit for the breach of an undertaking until an order
had been formally made. The words of the undertaking,
" deliver up the line," merely meant taking off the work-
men, and allowing the company to work it. As to the
charge which had been made against the plaintiff, of
taking up a portion of the line early last week, for the
purpose of obstructing the company in their attempt to take
possession, the Learned Counsel observed that their

Client had, previously to the motion on the 16th, given
an order to that effect, which he was justified ia doing,
in order to oppose force to force, but nothing of the kind
had taken place since the Court had interfered.
His HONOUR intimated, during the argument, that he
was of opinion the " possession" which was undertaken
to be delivered up, must be construed as meaning the use
of the line; but that the plaintiff was not thereby to be
precluded from using the line so far as was necessary for
carrying on the repairs for two years. He considered
that the present struggle could only have the effect of
depriving' both parties of what it was their interest to•
have, and he strongly recommended them to come to
some arrangement. The order, for a breach of which
the commitment was asked, was in effect: a contract;
but bow could the Court decide that a condition of it
had been broken upon a motion for commitment? He
was strongly inclined to think that, before moving to
commit, an order ought previously to have been ob-
tained, in the alternative for delivering up possession or
for commitment. . •

The case was not concluded when the Court rose, but
at this stage of the argument an offer was made by the
company to pay the plaintiff 5,0001. on account, instead
of paying it into court, upon being put in possession of
the line; but Mr. Wood and Mr. Lewis declined ac-
ceding to it until they had an opportunity of consulting
the Solicitor-General, who was at that time absent.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Exeter. July 23.
(Before Mr. Justice Vtimmems.)
William Ford was indicted for the manslaughter of
Andrew Morrison, on the 19th of June, on the high
seas.

Mr. Rowe prosecuted, and Mr. Cox defended.
The prisoner was the captain of a brig called the
Mersey, bound from Quebec to England, and the charge
against him was, that by blows and ill-treatment, or by
putting him to improper work when in a bad state of
health, he had caused the death of Morrison, who was
one of his crew. The ill-usage was so great that some
of the men complained to the prisoner about it ; but
his reply was that the deceased was a skulker, and was
dodging. The witnesses believed the deceased did his
best.

For the prisoner it was contended that the deceased
had imposed upon the prisoner by representing that he
was a seaman, whereas he was ignorant of has duties;
and that the prisoner had only done what was requisite
to maintain the discipline of the crew.
Some of the crew were then called to make out this
case; but, on the whole of the evidence,
The jury found a verdict of Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE deferred the sentence.

The prisoners were identified, notwithstanding that
they had worn disguises; and they were all sentenced to
transportation for twenty years.
A fearful case of patricidal murder is appointed to be
taken at eight o'clock to morrow morning, one Thomas
Duxey, aged 25, standing charged with the perpetratica
of the crime on the 30th of Dicember last, at Glossop,
upon Job Doxy.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, July 21.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a Com-
_

mon Jury.)
LANGLEY V. PASTOW.-BREACE OF PROMISE OF MAR-

RIAGE.
Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Greaves were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Whate-
ley, Q C., for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN stated the case to the following
effect:—The plaintiff was a young lady, of good educa-
tion, great beauty, some accomplishments, and not with-
out respectability of birth. Her grandfather was for-
merly rector of Checkley, in this county, and her father
was formerly a veterinary surgeon of considerable skill
and eminence, but in 1845 ho took a farm of 300 acres
of land at Hednesford, and it was while moving in that
station that the defendant became acquainted with the
plaintiff. At the same time that he took the farm he
also took an inn, and during two or three years applied
his energies to rearing racehorses, the management of
the farm, and the conduct of the inn. The plain-
tiff was then about twenty years of age, and
the defendant twenty-nine; and from the time of his
first introduction down to the present, when he thought
proper, in the most unqualified and unfeeling terms, to
break off all connexion, he paid her every attention
which a man who inter eltd her for his wife could have
dot e. In 1845, in order that there might be no doubt
as to the nature of their intercourse, he, in her brother's
presence, made her a distinct promise of marriage, so that
it would not be in his power to say there was any inter-
course between them but such as was protected—nay, he
might almost say hallowed—by such a promise. With
such a promise, there was, of course, no restriction on
the intercourse of the parties. When one considers the
position of both parties, it was not surprising that the
plaintiff's friends should place great confidence in the
defendant. That brought them to the written evidence,
and as there was a voluminous correspondence, he would
not fatigue the jury by reading more than bore on the
issue ; if his Learned Friends on the other side thought
the other parts material to them they might read them.
The promise was made on Friday, the 22d of March,
1845, and in a letter addressed to hor, dated in April,
1845, he began thus:—
" My dear Keziah—You will think me negligent, but
you wrong me ; there is not a being under the canopy
of Heaven, in my estimation, so worthy of every atten-
tion. When I make a vow of constancy I esteem it as
an oath, and, wishing you may do the same, I remain
yours truly."
In a letter written on the sth of' May, 1845, he said—
" Remember, my beloved, that Will's happiness de-
pends upon you. Your last letter has given me great
pleasure for your sincere and candid avowal of mutual
love; but actions, not words, must testify my gra-
titude."
About that time she became unwell, and was recovering,
and it seems that he had gone to see her, and on the
25th of July, 1845, he sent a letter beginning—
" Kessie, my love (showing that he was then become
more familiar), it has given me great pleasure in seeing
you in sickness and in health; how happy shall I be if
ever it is my fortune to be possessed of such an amiable
companion. Kessie love, how kind it was of you to send
me home on Sunday. Yes, Kessie love, you little think
what future bliss is in store for us, but it cannot be ac-
complished till we are one for ever; thou art loved as
never was woman loved before."
In a letter of August 17, of the year—
" If you have half the pleasure in reading mine that
I have in reading yours, you will pardon the imperfec-
tions of this. You may trust yourself to my protection;
believe me, it is a sacred deposit."
In a letter of Sept. 11 this passage occurs—
The mutual attachment which now exists between
us shall never cease with me, but my pure and honour •
able motives, combined with the ardency of my love, will
go on increasing day by day. My heart yearns to see
thee ; but I cannot just now, as we are so busy in the
corn. Yes, Kessie, words are inadequate to express my
idea, and I know that we shall happily weather the
storm of life."
In a letter of the 12th of October he said—

" I look forward to that blissful life when we two shall
be one;"
and on the 4th of December he said—

" Your welfare is my welfare; our interests are bound
irrevocably together."
On the 30th of March, 1846, he said—
" Kessie love, did Friday, the 27th of March, bring
you any pleasing recollections? I thought I that day
had gained a true friend. I hope I shall have it in my
power to make you a due return. Nothing can be so
pure as my love to you. lam convinced that our for-
tunes are indissolubly linked together.
'Where'ere I roam, whatever realms I see,
My heart, unchanged, will fondly cling to thee ;'
For sooner than forsake one of so much beauty and
worth I would become the contempt of all human
creatures."
Again, on the 15th of April, 1847, he says—
"l am at a loss to express my thoughts on that aus-
picious day, the 27th of March."
On the sth of September, 1848,
" Rest assured, my dear girl, that no miserable convict
looks forward to the time of his release with half the
pleasure that I do for that happy time when I can fulfil
those sacred engagements and perform those faithful pro-
mises that I have so often made to you."
About that time the plaintiff's father came to live in the
neighbourhood of the defendant, and thenceforward
there was not much correspondence by letter; but he was
received by the family on the usual terms, sometimes
staying in the house for several days. Towards the
latter end of 1848 some rumours had reached some mem-
bers of the family that he had some notion of not per-
forming his promises; and in consequence it became de-
sirable that the term of the youthful couple's probation
should be shortened, and on this subject the mother of
the plaintiff frequently spoke to him, and he assured her
and the brother of the plaintiff that there was no indis-
position on his part to fulfil his promises, and he kept up
the delusion even to within a fortnight f his marriage.
In the month of May of this very year, about a fort-
night before that marriage, he assured her that there
was no alteration in his affections, and that she might
rely on his fulfilling his promises, and intreated her
mother to dissipate any doubt that might have arisen in
her mind. The first notice that the family received of
his altered intentions was conveyed in a letter, than
which a more heartless production never emanated from
the basest mind. This letter was received on the Bth of
May, on the very morning of his marriage with another
woman; it commenced—

Dear Miss Langley,—l cannot possibly spare time
to seernoues
siyser
of
to-morrow.
"
andn,or
rmo
wa k. eyou
ll aa
turaeiandt eidn wt
hi teh ym
ep asrt teipc as
a rs
tfouKater. I
being shouldable have done dtoogneetbwehra.t promised
ised
tonot
ybtiuomusyie to say much. I will expect to hear from you as to
what I shall do with your letters, as some of them relate
to circumstances of your family which I shall never re-
veal unless you drive me to do it. Although we shall
not be so nearly connected as you expected, I may un-
affectedly say—l may truly say—it is not from any
offence on your part, for your behaviour has been always
most kind and deserving. I shall pledge my faith to-
morrow at the altar of another deserving object. I shall
not be at home until the beginning of next week, and if
you wish to take back your letters pleasantly you can
have them; but if you adopt the steps which I have
beard of your threatening to do, each must do the best
we can. I have one consolation—that is, I have nothing
to lose. Believe me, I have always had reason to re-
spect every member of your family; and whenever I
can do anything for them, I shall be the same as I
ever was."
That was the only communication from the defendant to
intimate his intention to break off his promise. With
regard to the means of the defendant, he should say that
he was the son of a gentleman who was approaching 80,
and farmed some land and had some more of his own,
and the whole of whose property was to be divided be•
tween the defendant and his two sisters, and that defen-
dant stated on his father's death he. would be possessed of
300/. for life, which he might dispose of as he pleased,
and 11. a week to be strictly settled on him, and which
he could not touch. These estatements were supported by
the evidence of the plaintiff's brother and mother. The
letters, of which the Learned Sergeant had read selected
extracts, were not read in detail, and nothing more ap-
peared of them than what the Learned Sergeant had read.
There was an attempt made to prove, on cross-examina-
tion, that the plaintiff's family knew that the defendant's
father was averse to the marriage, but it failed altogether.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD having addressed the jury
for the defendant,
Mr. Baron ROLFE summed up, and
The jury, after twenty minutes' deliberation, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, with 4001. damages.
July 24.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a Spa.
cial jury.)
NEWMAN V. DOWNING.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a
coal-master and publican, living at Wednesbury, against
the defendant, who is now a maltster, but was formerly
a butcher, living at Smethwick, for the seduction of his
daughter and servant, Mahala Newman. The defendant
pleaded the general issue, and that Mahala Newman was
not the servant of the plaintiff.
Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Gray were counsel for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Skin-
ner for the defendant.
The plaintiff's daughter, Mahala Newman, and the
defendant were schoolfellows. Soon after the defendant
left school, he commenced business as a butcher, and
was in the habit of calling at the plaintiff's house for
orders. The plaintiff had four daughters, and Mahala,
the eldest, acted as his housekeeper. The defendant
became her suitor, and continued so for four or five
years, until she became pregnant, when he deserted
her. She had previously evinced symptoms of consump-
tion, and after giving birth to a child on the Ist of
February last, she died of that disease about a month
afterwards. Previous to her death a commission was
issued to take her examination with a view to the pre-
sent action, and the examination being attended by the
defendant and his attorney and counsel, she deposed
(inter alia) as follows:---" I was twenty-three years
old last November. I have performed all the duties
of housekeeper for my father for the last
four or five years. I have known the defendant
many years. I went to school with him at West
Bromwich. I was then fourteen years old. It is seven or
eight years since the defendant came to court me, but
he came very strong towards the last. He has fre-
quently promised me marri ige. Two years ago he
told me to get my wedding clothes ready. I then
bought materials for dresses, but they were never made
up. No other person ever paid addresses to me besides
the defendant. He has had improper;intercourse