The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-28 00:00:00

CROWN COURT.

William Elvy, alias Foster, and George Butcher,
labourers, were indicted for feloniously and maliciously
destroying 30 hop-bines, growing on poles in a plan-
tation of hops, the property of Mr. John Mames, of
Selling.
Some witnesses were called, but the evidence against
the prisoners not being conclusive, they were acquitted.

MIL SIDE.
FARNCOMB V. DENTON.

This was an action by the plaintiff,who sued in forma
pauperis to recover compensation for an injury inflicted
upon him by the defendant.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Dowling were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Platt for the defendant.

It appeared that the plaintiff, who is an aged man,
had some pecuniary transactions with the defendant, and
the latter went to his house upon the subject of those
transactions, and an altercation taking place, the de-
fendant by some means got the plaintiff's arm jammed in
the door and broke it in two places, and it was to re-
cover compensation for the injury that the present
action was brought.
Mr. PLATT, in his address to the Jury, remarked
upon the fact of 'the plaintiff suing as a pauper, and said
that the effect of such a course was that he could not
lose anything, and the defendant was compelled to pay
heavy costs, although the Jury might think there was no
ground for action.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL, in summing up, said he did
not think there was any ground for complaining of
the plaintiff suing as a pauper. By the benignity of the
English law, if a person was able to make affidavit that
he was not worth five pounds, the law assigned him
attorney and counsel to assist his rights, and he thought
it was very proper it should be so, for, if it were not, a
poor man might be compelled to suffer grievous inju y
without hope of obtaining redress.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 201.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—Durham, July 26.
(Before Lord DENMAN.)
MUNTON V. SNAITH.

This was an action to recover damages for breach of
promise of marriage. Mr. Dundas and Mr. Watson ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Sir G. Lewin for the de-
fondant.

Mr. DUNDAp stated the plaintiff's case to the jury, and
in so doing said, the conduct of the defendant would be
shown, from tho evidence he should lay before the jury,
to have been most unhandsome and heartless, and she
was now obliged to adopt the present mode of obtaining
compensation from the man by whom she had been first
deceived, and then betrayed. The defendant pleaded that
he did not make the promise, and of that fact there would,
however, be ample proof—fulfil it he could not, as he
had since married another. He had won the affections
of this young woman ; she became pregnant and pro-
duced a child ; she was then deserted, ami another was
made his wife. The plaintiff is now about twenty-five
years old, the daughter of a grocer at Stockton,
a person yespectable, though in humble circumstances,
who, having several children, the plaintiff was under
the necessity of endeavouring to gain her livelihood at
service. She went in the capacity of housekeeper to an
uncle at Bradford, where she fulfilled the duties of that
station without reproach for several years. On his death
she returned to her father's house, and shortly after was
introduced by the mother of the defendant, who was her
aunt, to the house of the defendant. He had shortly be-
fore lost his wife, and stood in need of the services of a
housekeeper. In August last the plaintiff, with the
mother of the defendant, went to his residence at Bel-
tringham, near Hexham, in Northumberland, and it was
then arranged that she should remain there at least dur-
ing the coming harvest, and assist in his household affairs.
During that visit it did unfortunately happen that she be-
came
pregnant by him. She returned to her father's house
on the 22d of December. The defendant, before her de-
parture, had repeatedly promised her marriage. This cir-
cumstance she imparted to her friends, a wedding dress
was bought, and other preparations made for that event.
On the 14th of January he came to her father's house, appa-
rently for the purpose of fulfilling his promise, but in the
course of his arrangements with her father, it appeared
that the chief motive in his mind was the money he might
expect as her fortune, and upon this paltry considera-
tion it was that he openly violated his solemn engage-
ment. Her father informed him that he had a large
family, and would not be able to give any portion with
his daughter, though ho intended to divide his property
among them equally at his death. The defendant re-
mained at the house from the Friday when he arrived
till the Monday following, when he disappeared. In
the agitation consequent upon this event the pregnancy
of the plaintiff was discovered. In a moment of anger,
her father turned her from his door, and she took refuge
at Houghton, in the house of her aunt, the mother of
the defendant. There she was delivered. Several letters
had passed between the parties, in which the relation in
which th,f stood would be sufficiently manifest to the
Jury. One was directed to the plaintiff at her father's
house before the engagement was broken off, couched in
the usual terms on such occasions. Another she re•
ceived after she went to his mother's ; it said, " I have
sent you all your clothes that I could find, and am sorry
for you. Your father may blame himself. lam blame-
able ; but our union, which might have taken place, is
now hopeless." After some further expressions, he
added, "I do detest your father's obstinacy." This, there-
fore, was the paltry consideration which principally
weighed to induce the violation of his promise, and was no
doubt the object which he had in view in the engagement
which he subsequently contracted. A letter written to
his parents after his marriage, dated the 4th of February,
mentions that he had contracted matrimony, and says
that he supposes Margaret, the plaintiff, has left their
house, and intimates his intention to befriend her so far
as money was concerned, and adds in the exultation of
gratified avarice, " I am perfectly satisfied up to this
time, fortune a thousand." It would appear that besides
the property which he thus obtained, he had consider-
able possessions of his own, and he, the Learned Coun-
sel, hoped that out of this money, which he had made his
God, the Jury would award ample compensation to the
plaintiff. whom, he had so grievously wronged and so
basely deserted.

The Learned Counsel then called several witnesses,
and adduced the evidence necessary to sustain his case.
The defendant had, it appeared, subsequently to the com-
mencement of the action, called on a distant connexion
of the family, and expressed a wish to settle the matter,
as it was a family affair, and he did not like the expo-
sure of the public press.
Sir G. LEWIN, for the defendant, contended that the
Jury had not sufficient evidence of any absolute promise
on the part of the defendant ; and the promise which he
made, if he made any at all, was rather conditional on
the father's advancing a portion with his daughter. He
would, however, adduce further evidence, to show that
the plaintiff had repeatedly admitted no such promise
had been made. If, however, the Jury should be of opi-
nion that it was made out, it would be his duty to lay
before them the character of the plaintiff, which was not
such as to entitle her to more than the smallest possible
damages that they could award. The Learned Counsel
then called the mother of the defendant to show that the
plaintiff had accompanied her uninvited on her visit to
Beltringham ; that a few days after her arrival she be-
came so intoxicated as not to know what she was about,
and that the witness on going down stairs after she sup-
posed all had retired to bed, found her upon the sofa with
the defendant. She refused to return to Houghton with
the witness, but insisted on remaining.
Other witnesses were called to prove admissions by
the plaintiff that the defendant had never promised her
marriage, as also to accuse her of levity of conduct with
other persons. One of these deposed to a flagrant act of
the kind in November last, but the witnesses sake only
of occurrences since she left the defendant's residence.

Mr. DUNDAS, in his reply, commented strongly upon
the course taken for the defence, and the improbability
of the statement laid before them.

The Learned JUDGE having summed up the case the
Jury, after a short retirement, returned with a verdict
for the plaintiff—damages, 2501.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT—Norwich, July 26.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
WILLIMONT V. READ.

This was an action for breach of promise of marriage,
to which the defendant pleaded that he made no such
promise ; and secondly, that after the making of the
promise the plaintiff conducted herself in an improper
manner, and became pregnant by some person to him
unknown.
Mr. Palmer and Mr. C. Cooper were counsel for the
plaintiff •, Mr. Andrews and Mr. W. Cooper for the de-
fendant.
The plaintiff is a young woman of the age of 24, and
carries on the business of a bonnet-maker at Dereham ;
the defendant is a farmer living near that town. The
defendant had been in habits of friendly intercourse
with the plaintiff's family for ten years, but no express
promise to marry her was shown previously to the time
of her coming, in a state of pregnancy, from London.
In March, 1840, she went to town, whence she returned
home pregnant. In September following, the defendant
went to the house of the lady's father, at a time when
she was not only pregnant, but visibly so. The father
asked him when he intended to marry his daughter, as
he thought it was high time he did something, and he
replied he would do so before Christmas. The father
wished to know, " why not then, to prevent accidents,"
and on the defendant saying it was not convenient,-his
father-in-law that wished to be said he would support
her for a year or two, to which the defendant made no
reply. The plaintiff's mother was at this time in much
distress, and the defendant told her not to be angry with
her daughter, for he was the first man that had be-
haved improperly with her : he then left the house,
Christmas came, but no marriage came with it, and be-
fore the arrival of that festival, the plaintiff gave birth to
a youthful " lord of the creation." In the February fol-
lowing, the plaintiff being ill and in hed, the defendant
went up stairs to see her, when she told him she was very
unwell, and asked ‘‘ what would become of her child if
she should die ?" He said he would take it home? it
:hould come to no harm, and desired her not to fret. The
plaintiff then wished to know what was to become of her
if she got better, and he replied he would take her home
and make her comfortable. " Ali !" said she " but in
what way ?" and he told her ho would marry her with-
out fail. He was much affected at this time and crying
and nursed the child for a quarter of an hour, observing
with something like paternal pride and partiality that it