The Sun.
London, England, 1823-02-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 18.
PERUVIAN LOAN.
Mr. HEALD renewed his motion for leave to withdraw the
appearance which has been entered in his case, on the part
of Del Rio and Paroissien, Representatives of the Peruvian
Government. The Learned Counsel repeated what he men-
tioned last Thursday, namely, that the appearance had been
entered by Mr. Cole, a respectable Solicitor of this Court,
without authority. Whatever these foreign Gentlemen
might be, they were amenable to their own Government
for whatever they did while they remained in this coun-
try, and as they had not been served with a subpoena in
the cause in which ail injunction had been obtained,
if they entered an appearance without first having been
served with a subpoena, it would be considered on their part, by
their Government, a voluntary act, which they were anxious
to avoid. Mr. Kinder is the contractor for the loan, Messrs.
Everett and Co's is the banking-house where the money was to
be deposited, and Mr. Cole is the Solicitor who has been em-
ployed by Mr. Kinder : the present application was made on
the affidavits of Mr. Cole and Mr. Kinder, by the former
stating, he received his instructions from the latter, and the
latterdeposing, that he had received no orders from Messrs.
Del Rio and Paroissien to give instnntions to enter the appear-
ance ; therefore Mr. Heald moved now, on the part of Mr.
Cole, that the appearance might be cancelled.
Mr. SHADWELL opposed- the motion principally on the
strength of an affidavit made by a Mr. Lowe, who went to serve
a notice upon Mr. Paroissien, who then told Mr. Lowe to tale
it to his Solicitors Messrs. Amery and Cole, whence the Learned
Gentleman inferred a confession, that Mr. Cole was the Solici-
tor of, and had been acting under the instructions of these
foreign gentlemen.
His LORDSIIPP thought that was not sufficient to bind these
gentlemen : a person might say that certain individuals were
his Solicitors, without being held to have said that he had given
those individuals liberty to enter an appearance.
I Leave was therefore granted to withdraw the-appearance, and
the costs ordered to be paid by Amery and Cole.
Mr. SHADWEEL made another motion in the same cause for

leave to amend their bill.
After a short discussion at the Bar as to thepractice, whether
or not leave could be granted to amend the bill after an injunc-
tion had been granted, but a subpoena of it had not yet been

served,
Ilis LORDSIIIP said, Mr. Shadwell might have leave to
amend his bill, upon undertaking immediately to serve the sub.
lama, and without prejudice to the injunction, and this leave
he would have to take at his own hazard, as the- practice was
doubtful.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 18.
Middlesex Adjourned Sittings after lifichaelnuss Term, before
the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and the Common Jury.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
HANNAH HALE V. MEADOWCROPT,
This was an action for a breach of promise of marriage, the
plaintiff, an infant, suing by her next friend. Several pro-
mises were set out in as many counts of the declaration.
Plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. SCARLETT and Mr.
C. Puti.Lirs ; and the defendant's by Mr. H. COOPER and

Mr. BRODRICK.
The plaintiff was a young lady, not yet eighteen years of age,
whose sister keeps a school on Hampstead-heath, and the defen.
dant was an attorney. In the latter part of the summer of 1820,
the plaintiff, then scarcely 16 years of age, became acquainted
with the defendant, who was at that time conducting the busi-
ness of his uncle, a respectable attorney, and from whom he
had considerable pecuniary expectations. Under what circum-
stances the parties. became introduced to each other did not
distinctly appear, but in August they were living together in
lodgings at Pancras, in a state of cohabitation. From thence
they removed to a cottage in the Vale of Health, on Hampstead
Heath, and thence to Staples-inn.huildingst kiaborn, what
about the month of August, 1821, the connection was brokens
off, and soon afterwards the present action was cont,mencded,
now brought to trial. To prove the promise' anTnalge
defendant in their several lodgings, proved that w
1820, the
with them at Hempstead, in the month of August
would
marry
upon, a female, who had lived as servant with tnehupiatisnhtiefflianvedd
fendant repeatedly promised the plaintiff that he
defendant would marry the plaintiff some day between n
as
her. She condescended on three secific promises ;
and 25th of August; second, that he would marry her as
in the month
his uncle died; and third, that he would marry her
recol-
lection of the contents of certain letters written by the d
b h latter,
first, that
20th
• • which -had been read to her y t e
oafutSteopttehmebpelra.intSifth:deposed to these promises from he.refena
Inifentdwanhtichhadtl:eindeefneendetifn
conviction that he had seduced the plaintiffs and wa
ittishadlettebrsurnsot.
between the plaintiff and the defendant, the latterdeath he
spoken
burnt;Sl i
expressedst th thti the eodfen.
of his expectations from his uncle, on whosee 4ftth_.he_ sup.
ed to marry her. In various conversations which she 111 1 adl nd.
posed he would receive 10,0001. ; that his uncle had pos.
sessed of property to the amount of about 0
were given in eel.
affairs were not yet settled. Various letters .
deuce, written by the defendant to the plaintiff, commencing in
now the subject of a Chancery suit, and that...his meilvel":.
a strain of amorous tenderness, but gradually ending in the
coldest indifference. In the latter part of the correspondence,
the defendant spoke of his reluctance in being obliged to part
with the plaintiff, in consequence of her indiscretion and sm.
propriety ofconduct, advising her to amend her deportment,
but still expressing his willingness to provide for her to the best
of his means, if she would abstain from walking the streets.—
No female relative, friend, servant, or acquaintance, was called
to speak to the plaintiff's deportment, morals, or connexions,
prior to the time when she entered into a state of concubinage
wand the whole case, as to the proof of a
rested upon the evidence of the servant
bri
promise
the defendant;
eonfmarriage,
a
to niet .
Mr. 11. Cooren, in an able and ingenious address to the
Jury, contended that they could not safely rely upon the evi.
demo which they heard to sustain the promise of marriage, the
promise being made out merely by the recollections of an ig.
natant person, as to the contents of letters which had been
destroyed, and read but once to the witness. The letters
which had been given in evidence clearly did not carry the case
further, because from the beginning io the end they did hot
contains single word upon the subject of marriage. Supposing,
however, the Jury could bring themselves to give credence to
the fact of a promise given and violated, still there was nothing
• in the case which could warrant them in awarding to the plain.
tiff more titan nominal damages. This case was free from
every circumstance of aggravation which could awaken the
sympathy or rouse the indignation of fathers and of brothers
against the artful seducer of virtue and of innocence. For any
thing that appeared to the contrary the plaintiff' might already
have been abandoned to vice and profligacy before she became
the companion of the defendant. Not a title of evidence was
offered to spew that she .was previously a person of virtuous
principles and modest deportment. On the contrary, the Minuet
of such evidence raised a fair presumption that the defendant
at least had not induced her to aber from the paths of inno-
cenee. For aught that appeared she might have been picked
up in the streets, and had allowed herself to continue to live un-
der the defendant's protection from any other motive than that of
virtuous love. The case, therefore, was divested of every
Circumstance which could warrant the Jury in visiting the
defendant with vindictive damages. The Learned Counsel
commented at considerable length upon the series of' letters
which had been given in evidence, and contended that the
plaintiff's own indiscretion and misconduct bad, on the part
of the defendant, occasioned a reluctant separation. The
whole tenor of that correspondence vindicated the de-
fendant from the imputation of insensibility to the plain.
tiff's situation, and proved that he was willing to afford her
his protection and support until the very last, had she
not forfeited, by her own misconduct, all claim to his consider.
scion. Far was it from his (Mr. Cooper's) intention, or that
of his client, to say any thing that could wound the feelings of
the plaintiff ; but in such a case as this, where the promise was
made out by such questionable testimony, and where, at all
events, the claim to damages was so very slight, he could not
but anticipate with confidence either that the verdict would be
found for the defendant, or that the damages would be so in.
consideralile, as not materially to affect the defendant, who was
in no condition to meet any extensive claim upon his purse.
The Lord CIIMPJUSTICE ItUddrleti up the case, and left
the Jury to any, first, whether they were satisfied that any of
the promises laid in the declaration had been credibly made
out ; and, second, supposing they were, satisfied with the evi-
dence, what.demages they would give under the circumstances
which had been proved. His Lordahip adverted to the total
absence of any evidence of the plaintiff's previous' character,