The Sun.
London, England, 1823-06-03 00:00:00

DALE V. MEADOWCROFT.

This was an action for a breach of promise of marrive. At
the trial before the Lord CHIEF-JUSTICIg, at the Middlesex
Sittings after last Hilary term, it will be recollected that the
Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff—damages 500/. The
particulars of the case were then fully detailed, In Easter
Term, Mr. HENRY COOPER obtained a rule to shew cause
why there should not be a new trial, on the ground that the
daturg:..s, under the circumstances of the case, were excessive.
On a former day, in last term, the case was enllftl on, when it
was postponed until this term, upon a suggestion that there
was a prospect of some arrangement satisfactory to the parties.
It was now stated that in offer had been made on behalf of the
plaintiff, to take 3001. instead of 5001. upon security being given
for the payment of the money._ This had been declined on the
part of the defendant, who offered to'pay all costs and give the
plaintiff 201. in pursuance of ax agreement which she had pre-
viously entered into, to be content with that sum before action
brought. On the part of the plaintiff this offer having been
refused, the rule for a new trial was discussed.
Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. PHILLIPS chewed cause against
the rule, and contended that under all the circumstances of the
case, the damages were not excessive.
Mr. Coopx4 in support of the rule, urged that this was
not a case to justify the Jury in awarding such large damages
as 5001.

The COURT, adverting to the circumstances of the case, said
that if they had been on the Jury, probibly' they would not
have given such large damages, but the merits of the case on
both sides having been submitted to the Jury, they were unwil-
ling to disturb a verdict which was the provipee of that Tri-
bunal.—The Rule was, therefore, discharged. 1"

ARCHES COURT, JUNE 2.
BEST V. BEST.

Sir C. Ilmxsoar.—This was a suit promoted by Mr. Best,
for cruelty by her husband. In 1819, a libel was brought in,
containing 16 articles. They stated the marriage in 1017, and
that, shortly after she was obliged to leave her husband, in con-
sequence of the ill-treatment he exercised towards her ; on the
14th March, 1818, while she was sitting at her drawing-room
window, lie struck her a violent blow across the breast with a
horsewhip, which produced a great swelling; the next day he ,
placed a lighted candle under her bed, threatening to burn her
and the house. She then preferred a complaint, in conse-
quence, to a Magistrate, when her husband for a short time
behay.d rather better. Some time after he struck her across
the head, and followed her up stairs, where his conduct became
so outrageous that one of the upper servants interfered.
Dr. Lusiim Tow objected to the course the Learned Advo-
, cate was taking. It was a suit promoted by the wife for au-
' elty : the husband pleaded he did not exercise the cruelty al-
'edged in the articles, but charges variousacts of adultery ut corn-
nted by the wife. The ease nad been tried in the Court be- '
low, where it was found they-bad not established the charge.
Ile therefore now contended the charge of cruelty could not bei
gone into.
After some further observations on both sides, the further
hearing was postponed till next Court day.