The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-09 00:00:00

Ethel! was a widower of the age of 45, having a daughter
about 21, and the defendant, Mi., edith, was au
30. From this it would be seen that there was no great
or improper disparity of age. The defendant, as he had
stated, resided with her elder brother. After an ac-
quaintance of some iew weeks an attachment sprung up
between the parties, and Miss Meredith intimated to Mr.
Thomas Ethell, the nephew, that she contemplated a
marriage with Mr. Stephen, his uncle, and requested
that he would communicate with her brother upon the
subject. He did so. The brother of the defendant at
the time approved of the connexion, and it was subse-
quently arranged that the marriage should take place in
the month of October. The defendant provided her
marriage clothes, and the plaintiff proceeded to make the
necessary arrangements for the nuptials. A short time
afterwards Miss Meredith declined to fulfil her promise.
and when requested to state the grounds of her refusal,
she stated, in the first instance, that her brother would
not give his consent ; and, then again, that the plaintiff
was too old, and she did not like to marry a man of such
an age. With respect to the plaintiff's age, he (Mr.
Whitehurst) presumed she knew that at the time she
entered into the engagement, but it was evident there
was something behind. The plaintiff, in consequence
of the conduct of the defendant, had been the object of
derision and laughter; and thought that under the cir-
cumstances he could do no other than bring the subject
before a jury of his country. The defendant had
simply pleaded that she had not made any promise.
That would be seen by the evidence he (Mr. White-
hurst) should produce. Miss Meredith had secured the
assistance of his Learned Friend (Mr. Humfrey), whom
perhaps, they had frequently heard or read of in cases
of that description. His friend would, no doubt, attempt
to laugh the case out of court, and, if possible, he
would get the jury to laugh with him. He (Mr. White-
hurst) was fond of fun, and he had no doubt they
would have a great deal of fun on that occasion.—(Loud
laughter.) His Learned Friend would ask them what
wounded feelings a man of forty-five could possess ?
How it was possible that he could sustain damage by the
loss of a matrimonial connexion with a woman of
thirty? Every case must, however, be judged by its
own merits. The plaintiff did not ask for extravagant
damages; but, although a man's feelings were not so
strong as those of a woman, still he had his feelings;
and when injured and wounded, as they were in the in-
stance now before them, it was the duty of the jury to
award reasonable damages. There would, he believed,
be no dispute about the facts. The only consideration
would be the amount of damages to be awarded to the
plaintiff. The Learned Counsel proceeded to call the
following witnesses:—

Mr. Thomas Ethell, upholsterer, of Birmingham,
examined by Mr. MILLER.—IIe was acquainted with
Miss Meredith. She was on a visit at their house last
summer. Mr. Stephen Ethell visited there, and he and
Miss Meredith became acquainted. The plaintiff be-
came attatched to her, and Miss Meredith received his
addresses favourably. He continued his attentions.
At the Musical Festival, in August, Miss Meredith
was on visit to the plaintiff's daughter. She is 21.
The plaintiff is from 40 to 45, and the defendant full 30.
During the time the defendant was on a visit to the
plaintiff she told witness that she was about to marry
the plaintiff, and that there was only one obstacle, that
was her brother. She requested him to speak to her
brother upon the subject. Accordingly, one night at
supper, after they had been to a meeting of the Church
Pastoral Aid Society, the witness, addressing the defen-
dant's brother, who was present, and in reference to the
intimacy then existing between the plaintiff and defen-
dant, said, " You see how comfortable they are together
(Laughter)—now'sthe time to speak—(Continued laugh-
ter)—if you have any doubts now mention them." De-
fendant's brother said he had none, and that he was
quite willing if they were.
Mr. MILLER.—What did you do then ?
Witness—l got up and said, " God bless you both
together."—(Loud laughter.)
Mr. MlLLErt—What did his brother say? Witness—
"So say I."—(Roars of laughter.) It was afterwards
arranged that the marriage should take place in October,
on the plaintiff's birthday; as both birthday and marriage-
day might then be kept together.—(Great laughter.)
subsequently the defendant said it would be too soon,
and the day remained unfixed.

Cross-examined by Mr. lIIIMFREY-Why, you do
your respected uncle injustice, don't you? Was he not
the son of William and Mary Ethell? Witness—lie was.
Mr. HumraEr —ls he not near .50? Witness—No, I
believe not.

Mr. HUMEREY—Is it, then, the custom of your family
to be baptised before they are barn?—(Laughter.) Wit-
ness—No, I believe not. How can they?—(Laughter.)
Mr. HIT3IFREY-Why, was not your respected uncle,
according to the registry I hold in my hand, baptised in
the year 1800? Witness—l don't know. I don't believe
him to be 48 or 49 years of age. I went to school with
him, and I am 40.

Mr. HUMFREY—This thoughtless young man became
acquainted with the young lady in July, and made this
proposal after the meeting of the Pastoral Aid Society?
Witness—Yes; that was on the Ist of Sept., and the mar-
riage was appointed for October. Ido not believe Miss
Meredith is more than 30, because my wife went to
school with her, and she is 29.
Mr. HUMFREY—Yes; but you know that is no cri-
terion. You went to school with your respected uncle.
—(Laughter.) Witness—l do not know that my uncle
got 301. out of the poor girl for her wedding clothes. I
believe two other actions have been brought arising out
or this affair—No. 1, - for an assault; No. 2, for slander;
and, now, No. 3, for a breath of promise of marriage. I
do not know that the girl is of weak intellect, or dif-
ferent in mind to other young women. She has, I be-
lieve, some property.
Mr. HuaintEy-1 •thouiht so:
Witness—My wife and Aunt are both here.
Mrs. Harriette Ethell was present at the meeting at
Mr. Stephen Ethell's, when. it was agreed that the mar-
riage should take place on. the. .23d of October; but
afterwards the defendant said, it.must be either a little
before or after. She•afterwards•told- witness she must
give it up, as she had 110* peace at home. This was a
week or two after the festival; it was before the time
fixed for the marriage.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMFREY—I went to school,
with the defendant. We are within a month or two of
the same age. I am. 29 years of age. I was one of a
party who went over in October to fetch the defendant
from Yardley. . •
Mr. HUMEREY—NOW you can tell us a little about
that. Who went with you? Witness—The plaintiff's
sister and daughter. I tried to persude her to come
over to Birmingham. Neither her brother nor her sister
were at home at the time.' She refused to go unless a
lady was with her. -On the Sunday Mr. S. Ethell said
he had been grossVinsulted at the brother's house. I
went to fetch her on a visit to me. Her aunt and uncle
were sent for to prevent us taking her away. There
was a crowd near. The defendant was prevented from
going with us. •
Re-examined by Mr. WITITEHURST—Mr. S. Ethell
told me some person from Birmingham had insulted him
at Yardley on the Sunday.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. HIIMPREY then addressed the jury in a most
humorous and effective speech. He was not surprised
that his Learned Friend should have anticipated the
ridicule which naturally and of necessity was attached to
the case—not from his (Mr. Humfrey's) representation
of it, but from the evidence as stated by the plaintiff
himself. There was, instead of a young, vigorous lover,
whose feelings were injured, wounded, and harrowed up
by the loss of an expected young and virtuous wife—an
old man, in indifferent circumstances, seeking to obtain
the pittance which her father had left to her. That he
had suffered much he (Mr. Humfrey) did not doubt; but
the suffering was occasioned by no other cause than the
loss of the young woman's cash.. The defendant was
the daughter of a respectable farmer. When the
acquaintance which was the foundation of the present
action became known, her brother, with whom she
resided, assented to it ; subsequently he with-
drew his consent, and his sister, like a good and
prudent girl, refused to ally herself to this old
man, who had a child almost as old as herself. Till the
end of July this old. fellow had never known the poor
girl. He (Mr. Humfrey) wondered that the old block.
head was not ashamed to parade his disgrace before
a court of justice. His nephew . was proud of his re-
spected uncle as a schoolfellow—how proud of him he
must be as a plaintiff in a case of breach of promise of
marriage.—(Laughter.) He never remembered, in his
practice or reading, a case in which a man brought an
action against a woman for a breach of promise of mar-
riage in which the action was not dictated by cupidity.
Was it likely that such a marriage would ever have been
a happy marriage ? He asked them, as fathers and
brothers, having wives and sisters, whether they would,
by their verdict, sanction such an action ? The plaintiff
had come there to get money out of the pocket of the
defendant, which he knew he could not get by marriage.
Her friends had interfered to prevent that abomination.
He (Mr. Humfrey) admitted that if a promise had been
made and broken there must be a verdict for the plaintiff,
but he hoped, for the credit of the country, it would be
of the smallest posiible coin known in the circulating
medium of the realm—that would be a hundred thousand
times more than he deserved.

Lord DENMAN supposed the jury would agree with
him that there had been a .promise, and that it had been
broken. The only question, therefore, was as to the
amount of damages. •He need not trouble them with
any observations upon that point. The evidence they
had heard would direct them.
The jury found a verdict—Damages, one farthing.
The verdict was received"with applause.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Bridgwater, August 6.
(Before Chief Justice WILDE .)
James Gould was indicted for that he, being in the
service of her Majesty, did embezzle three penny pieces.
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Poulden were counsel for the
prosecution. •

•
From the.evidence it appeared that the prisoner was
employed as a letter-carrier between Timsbury and Rad-
stock, and was in the•habit of receiving letters, and with
them the postage, which he had to pay into the post-
office at Radstock. The prisoner lodged with a Mrs.
Cottle, who, upon making his bed, on the 20th of June,
discovered no less than forty4hree letters in his trousers
~caketa which had not been delivt red to the post-office.
Nfrs. Cottle had a conversation with the prisoner, which
' c-tided in her taking the letters to the Radstock post-
-ffice. Further search was then made at the prisoner's
lodgings, and under the tiles of an outhouse 54 other
:etters were discovered. All thesa letters had been
given to the prisoner to putinto the post office, and he
-;ad been paid a penny with each letter, but had not ac-
._!ounted for the SUMS .he had received. The prisoner was
only fifteen years of age, and had but 7s. 4 week.
The jury having found the prisoner Guilty,
The sentk nee was, that he should be transported for
sven years, but he would be taken where boys were
instructed, and taught a useful business.

August 7.
The Crown Court has been occupied all day in trying
cases unfit or publication; and Mr. Justice Williams, in
the Civil Court, has been trying cases of ejectment.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Croudon, August 7.
(Before Baron PARKE and a special Jury.)
JOCOBS V. TARLETON.

This was an action brought by Henry Jacobs against
the Rev. John Edward Tarleton, Rector of Chesfield and
Lamborough, in Kent, to recover the amount of his ac-
ceptance upon a bill of exchange for 100/. The defen-
dant pleaded that the bill had been obtained by fraud,
and that the plaintiff had not given any consideration
for the bill, and was not the bone fide owner of it.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Petersdoff were for the plain-
tiff, and Sergeant Shee and Mr. Ogle for the defendant.
The bill in question was put in ; it was drawn on the
21st of January, 1847, by one Snell, accepted by the
defendant, and then appeared to have been endorsed to
one Gadderer, and by him to Henry Jacobs, the present
plaintiff
Sergeant SHEE addressed the jury for the defendant,
and said that the defence he was instructed to offer was,
that the reverend gentleman had been made the victim
of a gang of swindlers ; and that all the persons whose
names appeared to the bill were parties to the
fraud. He proceeded to state that the defendant
being in some pecuniary difficulty in October last,
was incautious enough to answer an advertisement
that appeared in one of the public papers, offering
to lend money ; and eventually a person named Gadderer
called upon him, and at his suggestion he was induced
to accept two bills, one for 2001. and the other for 3001.,
to get discounted, which Gadderer took away with him;
and a few days afterwards he gave the defendant 1671.
in two payments, and this was all he ever received.
Gadderer afterwards called again upon him, and repre-
sented that there was some informality in the two bills,
which prevented him from getting them discounted, and
Dr. Tarleton gave him two other bills for the same
amount. He was eventually compelled to pay both the
2001. bills and the first 3001. one; and when the other
3001. bill became due, he was threatened with legal pro-
ceedings by Gadderer, and he was induced to give three
100/. bills in lieu of the one for 3001., and the present
was one of those bills, but as it was quite clear that the
transaction was one of a most fraudulent character he
felt it his duty to resist the payment.
Moses Jacob was called. In answer to questions he
said that the plaintiff was his father, and was living in
the Kent-road, with some members of his family, and
entirely dependent upon them for support. His father
was not worth a shilling, and utterly unable to have
given consideration for the bill in question. He was
seventy-five years 010, and was not able to write. He
then went on to say that his father was merely the no-
minal plaintiff, and that he lent his name to parties who
obtained bills, and was guaranteed from paying the costs.
He had had a conversation with his father upon the
subject of this action, and asked him how he could make
an affidavit that he had given consideration for the bill ;
and he said he was not aware that he swore that, but
thought it was merely an affidavit to postpone the trial,
which he was told it was. His father, he said, had ad-
mitted to him that twenty actions upon bills had been
brought in his name.

Another witness was called to prove that he went to
the plaintiff to make some inquiries about the bills, and
he told him that he knew nothing about them, and that
he had not given Mr. Lewis any instructions to bring an
action.

Mr. CHAMBERS, in reply, urged upon the jury, that
in the absence of any positive proof that the plaintiff had
anything to do with any fraud that might have been
committe I he was entitled to their verdict.

Baron PARKE, in summing up, said he did not think
the plea of fraud had been made out by the evidence,
but the material question for the jury to consider was,
whether the plaintiff was a bona fide holder of this bill
in question, or whether he was merely put forward as
the nominal plaintiff.
The jury, after deliberating about five minutes, re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
On Saturday Mr. John Bull, who was some days ago
charged with having fraudulently obtained two bills of
exchange, each for 2001., under pretence of getting them
discounted for Mr. Alexander, a draper at Kelso, was
brought up by Payne, City policeman, for a third ex-
amination.
Mr. Woolf° attended for the prisoner. A good deal
of interest was occasioned by the investigation.
It will be recollected that upon the previous examina-
tion it was stated by Mr. Alexander that he was induced,
by the appearance of an advertisement in the Glasgow
Herald, to communicate with Mr. Bull on the subject of
obtaining, a sum of money, and that he transmitted a bill,
of which he was the acceptor (Mr. Bull to be the drawer),
to that gentleman to be negotiated ; and that Mr. Bull
soon afterwards wrote to him, stating such bill was not,
in consequence of some irregularity, available, and that
a second bill for the same amount was immediately sent
to Mr. Bull, who, however, neither cashed nor returned
either of the bills, the excuse offered by him being that
they were both destroyed, although common report
stated that they were both in existence and about the
town.

The solicitor for the prosecution said, in answer to
Mr. Woolfe, who asked of what offence the prisoner was
accused, that the charge had assumed rather a different
shape since the first evidence was taken. It was that
the prisoner had obtained the second bill under false
pretences. The officer employed upon the occasion had
in his possession the first bill, which had been obtained
from the prosecutor, and which, it seemed, had been
placed by the prisoner in the hands of a person of whom
he had purchased 991. worth of attar of roses, as collateral
security for the payment of that amount. With regard
to the second bill, the prisoner had told the officer that
he was most anxious to give the party into custody who
had swindled him oat of that instrument.
The prosecutor called Alderman Gibbs' attention to
the fact that the prisoner had declared that both bills had
been destroyed.
Mr. Woolfe said, he had a few questions to put to the
person who brought the hitherto unintelligible charge.
Did the bill, which is dated, I see, the 17th of May, bear
the signature of Mr. Bull as the drawer when you re-
ceived it? Witness—lt did, and I accepted it, and sent
it back.
Mr. Woolfe—How does it happen that your name,
instead of being written across the bill, is merely
written underneath that of the drawer, and without
being preceded by the word " accepted?" Witness—lt
is quite usual to accept in that way in Scotland.
Mr. Woolfe—Have you had many bill transactions ?
Witness—Yes, lots of them, and to a very considerable
amount, but I do not see that there is any occasion for
saying how much.
Alderman GIBBS.—None at all.
Mr. Woolfe—Are you now in a state of solvency or
not ? Witness—l do not know that such a question can
at all be necessary in an examination like the present. I
believe the first bill I had transmitted to him was a good
bill, but he said there was an irregularity in it. I have
ascertained that there was no irregularity in it at all,
and have no doubt that the pretence was made to enable
him to avail himself of the two bills.
Here Mr. Alexander produced a letter from Mr. Ball,
dated the 21st of May, expressing gratification at the
punctuality of his correspondent, apologizing for being
so particular in his business transactions, and stating
that he would get a stamp at the Stamp-office in return
for that on which the irregular bill had been drawn, and
that Mr. Alexander should have the cash immediately
afterwards. The whole of the correspondence took place
within a week, but neither bill nor money had been ever
forthcoming.
Mr. Woolfe—Have you ever given 11 to the prisoner
in this transaction ? Witness—Certainly not ; it was
he who was to have given to me.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Woolfe—Did you not compromise or settle with
your creditors before you accepted either of the ;bills ?
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Woolfe—Was it not known in Scotland that you
were insolvent before you accepted either of these bills?
Witness—No ; nor for a long time after.
Mr. Woolfe—.Did you not tell the prisoner that if he
would give you up the bills you would do nothing more
against him? Witness—No doubt of it ; and he as-
sured me they were both destroyed. It is pretty evi-
dent that neither of them has been destroyed.
Payne, the officer, said, that the prisoner, in going
to the Compter from the Mansion-house, said he had
been regularly duped out of the second bill by a person
whom he should wish to place in the same position as
that in which he was placed himself. He then gave me
the name of a person who bad, as he stated, the bill ;
and he declared to me that all ho had got out of it him-
self was 111. worth of pictures ; that was all the benefit
he received.
Alderman Girms—Did you tell any parties who may
know anything of these transactions to come here and
give evidence ? Payne—l did; and they promised to
be in attendance.
Alderman Ginns—l shall remand this case in order
to have additional evidence.
Mr. Woolfe submitted that there was no legal evi-
dence to warrant the further detention of his client.
The Loan MAYOR said the case appeared to him to be
one of very gross fraud. In fact, there was not a tittle
of the whole transaction that did not show an intention
to cheat. What could be said of the intention of a man
who said that both bills were destroyed ? after which he
stated, upon being taken into custody, that he had re-
ceived a consideration for one of them, and the other
was produced to negative his veracity.
The prisoner was then remanded till Monday (this day).
GUILDHALL.
On Saturday Mr. Stevens, the surveyor of the western
district of the city of London, applied to the sitting
magistrate, Sir J. Pirie, for his directions under an emer-
gency not provided for by the New Building Act. He
stated that a stack of chimneys belonging to some ruin-
ous unoccupied premises in New-street-square, by the
Queen's printing-office, had fallen, and from the appear-
ance of the premises, there was reason to apprehend the
w hole would fall in a few hours, to the danger of the
public. He wanted, therefore, authority immediately to
shore up and take down the premises. The Alderman
of the ward, the overseers, and all the local authorities,
were out of town. He then resorted to the Mansion-
house, but was not so fortunate as to meet with the Lord
Mayor. lie had done what the law required him, as
district surveyor, to do, and from what he had put in
motion, he should obtain the necessary authority about
Wednesday ; but he wanted authority to do instantly
what was necessary for the protection of the public.
Sir J. PIRIE said he would take upon himself the re-
sponsibility of ordering him to do what the safety and
convenience of the public required.
The ALDF.RMAN gave the surveyor a written authority.
MAR L B 01?0 UGII-STREET.
On Saturday Robtrt Lacy, A young man of very re-
spectable connexions, was brought before Mr. Bingham,
charged a ith having robbed his employer, Mr. Perry,
hairdresser and perfumer, Burlington-arcade, of property
valued at between 2001. and 3001.
It appeared that the prisoner had come from the
country as an improver. He had placed himself with
Mr. Perry about eighteen months ago, and no suspicion
was entertained of his honesty until a few days since,
when, in consequence of the strong smell of perituaery