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

NG, AUGUST 9, 1

s Ethell was a widower of the age of 45, having a daughter
about 21, and the defendant, Miss Meredith, was about
30. From this it would be seen that there was no grea;
or improper disparity of age. The defendant, as he had
stated, resided with her elder brother. After an ac.
quaintance of some few 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 requestee
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 woul-
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 f 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..--He 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 plain tiff'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's the 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. MILLER—What did his brother say? Witness—
"So say L"—(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 tfie defendant said it would be too soon,
and the day remained unfixed.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMIPREY—Why, you do
your respected uncle injustice, don't you? Was he not
the son of William and Mary Ethell? Witness—He was.
Mr. HUMFRET—Is he not near 50? Witness—No, I
believe not.
Mr. HUMPREY—Is it, then, the custom of your family
to be baptised before they are born?—(Laughter.) Wit-
ness—No, I believe not. How can they ?—(Laughter.)
Mr. HUMFRET—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. I.IIIMFREY—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. LIIIBIFREY—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 30L out of the poor girl for her wedding clothes. I
believe two other actions have been brought arising out
of this affair—No. 1, for an assault; No. 2, for slander;
and, now, No. 3, for a breach 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-
Hove, some property.
Mr. HUIIIFREY—I thought 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 no 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. lam 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 'a
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 grossly insulted 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. WHITELIURST-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. HUMFAEY 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—xn
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 wqs
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 possible 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 snaking his bed, on the 20th of June,
discovered no less than forty-three letters in his trousers
poekets which had not been delivered to the post-office.
Mrs. Cottle had a conversation with the prisoner, which
ended in her taking the letters to the Radstock post-
office. Further search was then made at the prisoner's
lodgings, and under the tiles of an outhouse 54 other
letters were discovered. All these letters had been
given to the prisoner to put into the post office, and he
had been paid a penny with each letter, but had not ac-
counted for the sums he had received. The prisoner was
only fifteen years of age, and had but 7s. a week.
The jury having found the prisoner Guilty,
The sentence was, that he should be transported for
seven years, but ho 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 cuee of ejectment,