The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-09 00:00:00

not give her an adequate amount of damages, Mr. ,
Rosser would have obtained a victory over her. If his
object had originally been an improper one, no amount
of damages could be too high ; but if he had originally
intended to make her his wife, she was entitled to re-
ceive, not only an amount of damages sufficient to re-
munerate her for the station she had failed to obtain as
his wife, but also to compensation for the misery and suf-
fering- she had endured, and for the injury he (Mr.Rosser)
had attempted to do to her character. They were called on to
perform an important duty. If they dismissed the plaintitr
with disgrace, they would be inflicting on her a life of
ignominy, but he was certain they ,never could do so.
No British Jury would come to a conclusion branding
the character of a fellow-subject without any evidence,
and they had no evidence to brand his client in the pre-
sent case, and he trusted to them to pronounce such a
verdict as would adequately compensate her for what
she had suffered.

Mr. Justice WIGHTHAN in summing up, said he sin
cerely congratulated the Jury on the approaching to a
conclusion of this most tedious cause. It would not be
necessary to go through the evidence; the pleas had
none of them been made out. It was evident a promise
had been given, that the-defendant had never been re-
leased from his promise, and that the money had not
been accepted as a release from that promise. The
only question, therefore, would be that of damages.
The Learned Judge then proceeded to relate the circum-
stances of the case, as they have been detailed in evidence.
The correspondence was one of the most extraordinary
series of letters ever read. Sometimes the plaintiff re-
pented of his engagement, and then he repented of his
repentance ; and these changes took • place so frequently
that it appeared that the plaintiff really had hardly had
time enough to make her mind up as to what course she
could pursue. It appeared, however, that the defendant
had all along some fears of what his family might say to
this engagement ; that the plaintiff was aware of this,
and that she took no steps to inform his family of what
was going on. His daughters, no doubt, frequently re-
monstrated against the engagement, and this remon-
strance appeared to have produced a great effect on Mr.
Rosser's mind. There did not seem to be the
shadow of an imputation on the character of the plaintiff.
With regard to the affair of Kitchen it was evident that
she had refused him long before she accepted Rosser,
and there was no imputation whatever on her character.
The history of the engagement would best be learnt from
Mrs. Darbon's evidence, which he would read to the
Jury. (Having read Mrs. Darbon's testimony, the
Learned Judge proceeded). Whatever they might
think of the nature of such a connection, as far as a set-
tlement in life went there could be no doubt but the
marriage would have been an advantageous thing for
plaintiff. His Lordship then read one of the defendant's
letters, in 1839, from which his Lordship thought it
was evident that he was still as much attached to the
plaintiff as ever, and only prevented from fulfilling his
engagement with her by his very natural unwillingness
to inflict additional pain upon his daughter, whose
health had already been much impaired in the struggle.
However, he did afterwards renew his promise,
and went so far as to procure a license. It
was for the Jury to consider how far the plaintiff, a
young woman of 29 years of age, could be supposed to
have suffered in her affections, by being disappointed of
a marriage with a man of 83. But it appeared after all
to be the real consideration for them, whether this was
one of the cases in which worldly compensation could
be applied, and then what amount would be sufficient to
compensate the plaintiff for the annoyance and vexations
she had suffered, and the injury done to her feelings,
by the defendant's playing fast and loose with her for
so long a time. In that light the matter seemed to have
been viewed by both the parties at several periods,
the question having been discussed between them
so far back as 1839, how much would be
an adequate settlement for her, to satisfy her for
her disappointment ? Sixty pounds a-year was
offered by the defendant, and the plaintiff held out for
1001., so that the latter may be supposed to be the
estimate she put upon what she would feel a compensa-
tion at that time. The correspondence, however, had
been renewed, a ring and license had been bought, and
two years more had passed in some suspense. All these
were considerations for the Jury in awarding damages.
In their hands he now left the case. There was no
question whatever but as to the amount of damages, as
the verdict must be for the plaintiff on all the counts.
The foreman inquired if the stock (666/. in the Globo
Insurance) stood in the plaintiff's name ?
His LORDSHIP replied in the affirmative.
The Jury then retired, at half-past seven o'clock, and
at a quarter to nine returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
Damages 1,6001.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. S.
PARKER V. TAYLOR.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. Justice ERSKINE, in summing up, said that al-
though it was suspicious that in all the time from April,
1838, when the I 0 U was alleged to have been
given to Parker, in discharge of which the transfer
was made, he never took any step to obtain pay-
ment; yet it was possible 'to account for that lenity on
the ground of the near relationship of the parties. It
was also suspicious that the bill of sale was not exe-
cuted until the night before the distress was put in by
the defendant, which distress must have been ex-
pected by Stockbridge and his family. It was for the
Jury to say whether the evidence of Stock-
bridge cleared away those suspicions, and satisfied them
that the sale to plaintiff was bona fide.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found a ♦erdict
for the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

SENTENCES.

The November session terminated late on Tuesday
evening, when several prisoners were called up to re-
ceive judgment. The following prisoners who were
convicted during this and the previous sittings were sen-
tenced as under :

Death—John Job Ward, convicted of murder, and
ordered for execution on Monday week, the 20th inst.
The undernamed were sentenced to banishment for
the periods set against their respective names :
For:the term of natural Life—Henry Beaumont Smith,
for the Exchequer bill forgery ; William Henry Mence,
for a robbery at the Postrottice.
For Twenty Years—Joseph Paybody, for forgery ;
Edward Beamond, for receiving stolen goods, having
been previously convicted of felony.
For Fifteen Years—W. Johnson, John Crittle, Richard
Ball, Dennis Leonard, and J. W. Bigg.
For Fourteen Years—Soloman Levine, for receiving
stolen goods ; and Hugh M'Cave, on a second conviction.
For Ten Years—John Sharley, John Baker, Thomas
Conway, R. Hitchman, R. Sullivan, Charles Tyrell, J.
Cooper, Richard Gower, Joseph Frank, P. I. M'Ewen,
James White, George Haydon, W. Armstrong, R. New-
bury, J. Mahoney, alias Hewett, John Barker, J. Smith,
W. Smith, J. Banes, W. Clarke, George Barnes, J. Brown.
For Seven Years—Charles Thomas, Michael M‘Loch-
lin, Daniel Whitlock, S. Bennett, J. Reddington, Joseph
Gisling, Elizabeth Jones, Jane Smith, Henry Fawcett,
Thomas Major, J. Ogleby, J. Jennings, T. Murray,
Edward Coleman, Ann Brewer, William Virtue, Charles
Jones, Daniel White, J. Thorpe, T. Darby, J. Ryan,
C. Campbell, J. Kemp, J. Lorns.
A great number of other convicts were sentenced to
imprisonment for two years, eighteen months, one year,
nine months, and shorter periods, down to fourteen days.
The Court at its rising adjourned to Monday next, the
12th inst., when the December Session will commence.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Mr. Hobler, jun., applied for a warrant to take into
custody a person who committed an extensive forgery
and fraud on the Ist December, upon a house in the City.
The individual, it appears, is not known by name.
He went to the house. the principal of which is in pur-
suit of him, on the Ist of December, and produced -Bel-
gian bank-notes, as they appeared to be, for which he
asked and procured Bank of England notes. He re-
ceived in exchange for his Belgian notes one Bank of
England note for 3001., six for 1001. each, five for 50/.
each, two for 401. each, ten for 51. each, and small Bank
of Ireland notes for 11. and IL 10s. each. The whole
amount with which the delinquent got away is upwards
of 1,4001. A warrant was immediately granted, and
placetkin the hands of John and Daniel Forrester.
The Belgian notes, it was stated, were not discovered
to be forgeries until they were sent to Belgium for pay-
ment.

A cab-driver, named James Austen, was summoned
for having refused to take a fare.
The servant of Mr. Moses, of Finsbury-circus, stated
that he went, by the desire of his master, to the stand at
Moorfiolds, where the defendant was with his horse and
cab. and sired him to drive to take up 'at the Circus.
The defendant, who knew that Mr. Moses wanted to go
no further than Houndvditch, and was in the habit of
paying no more than the legal fare, refused to drive
" the Jew." The cabmen on the stand were in the habit
of treating any gentlemen who resisted their attempts at
imposition in a similar manner, and Mr. Moses was de-
termined to-see what the Act of Parliament would do
for him.
The cabman, whose appearance and tone of voice were
quite unanswerable evidence in favour of the prosecution,
said that he had a respectable gentleman, the waterman
who attended the stand, to prove that he (the cabman)
/vas engaged to another gentleman at the time Mr.
Moses's servant addressed him'.
The LORD MAYOR—Let him appear.
The waterman came forward, and said that just before
Moses's servant appeared, a gentleman, who came by one
of the railway trains, came and engaged the cab.
Mr. Moses's servant—l got into the cab on the stand,
and I saw neither this waterman nor any gentleman at
all near the place.
The LORD MAYOR—What do you say to that, Mr.
Waterman ? Waterman—Lord! please your Lordship,
the gen'lman when he came up, gives me and the cab-
driver an inwite to gp into the.public- house, and have a
drop afore they'd go, so we goes in, and then we sees the
young man get into the cab which he had no right to.
The LORD MAYOR—Oh, that was it. You three gen-
tlemen went into drink before the job was commenced ?
Waterman—Just so.
The LORD MAYOR—Very well. You have fully con-
firmed the account given, by the young man who has
complained. My decision is, that the cab-driver pay the
sum of forty shillings penalty, or go to prison for one
month. The cab-driver—I cha'n't pay no forty shillings.
The LORD MAYOR—Then you must be locked up for
a month.
Mr. Moses's servant saiwdhtiliehatihniisomitabseterpdaieds,iretdo him
the
benefit of the poor.
Lt o hmainAdi
ao;
oe rr anforvy tph can a l t)'
mepts to preuanyis hhe fellowsteade
to o f
dis-
appoint
The LORD MAYOR—I hope Mr. Moses will serve the
elapsinagtte m
public furthers
obfytehe this
description,him.
as
His LonpsiiiP stated, in the course of the day, that he
had received from an anonymous contributor, to whom
he returned most sincere thanks, the sum of 10/. for the
benefit of the poor-box,' • •