The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-24 00:00:00

iAIV INTELLIGENCE.

.HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 23.
The House sat to-day, at eleven o'clock, to hear appeals. The
Peers present were, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord
Cotter :haul, and Lord Campbell.
7 HE CORPORATION OF GLOUCESTER V. SURHAN AND OTHERS,
Th err Lordships were occupied the whole morning with the further
arguments in this part-heard appeal.

VICE- CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Feb. 23.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wittasat.)
waxvonn V. DIE.
Walford and others, for the proprietors of the Birminghim
Coal Company, hold the defendant liable for the debts of the Com •
patty, as well those contracted
to
Committee ose existing prior
to the sale of defendant's shares to the of Management.
The attention of the Court was engaged with the arguments and evi-
dence on the supplemental bill.
Sir J. L. KNIGHT 13aucc
re sorry to observe that his Honour
is painfully interested in this day'snews from India by the loss of his
son, G. W. K. Bruce, Cornet, of her Majesty's 3d Light Dragoons,
reported on the list of killed at Moedkee. His Honour came down
this morning to Lincoln's Dm, as usual, ignorant of the calamity
which had befallen him. On learning the sad intelligence frcm the
morning papers, he immediately gave notice that he would not sit for
a week, and left.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 23.
(Sittings in London, before Mr. Justice CKESSWELL and a Special
Jury.)
CROSSKILL TUKFORD.
The Court was occupied all this forenoon with a patent case, which
is likely to last a day or two. The action is brought by Mr. Cross-
kill, an agricultural machine and implement maker, residing at
Beverley, in Yorkshire, against Mr. Tuxford, of Boston, who is en-
raged in the same business, for the alleged infringement of a patent
relating to the construction of an improved clod-breaking machine.
There was no point of novelty in the evidence beyond what Is
usual in such cases, the plaintiff contending that the defendant's
machine, though somewhat different in construction, was virtually
the same as his, and the defendant denying the allegation.
The examination of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff had not
closed when our report left.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Crowder appeared for the plaintiff ; Sir
Thomas Wilde and Sergeant Channel appeared for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 23.
;London Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the Lord CHIEF BARON and a
Special Jury.)
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
OOLDICVTT V. BEAGIN.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages fur an
alleged trreach of defendant's promise to marry the plaintiff.
The defendant pleaded that he had made no such promise—that he
had never been asked to marry the young lady—that a reasonable
time had not elapsed from the time the courtship commenced till the
time the action was brought, and that if such promise had been
made, the plaintiff had wholly absolved him from his engagement.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Gunning appeared for the plaintiff, and Ser-
geant Talfourd and Mr. Cords for the defendant.
Mr. We'rsoN stated the case. The plaintiff was the daughter of
a gentleman who had been an officer in the army, and at the time
when the circumstances which led to the present action took place
was employed as a governess. The defendant was a stock-jobber,
and had been formerly a clerk to the gentleman in whose house the
young lady was governess. The facts of the case will be best gathered
from the evidence of the following witnesses :
Mr. K. Plimten said that he was a member of the Stock Exchange,
and resided at Maida-vale. lie knew the plaintiff. She would be
nineteen years of age next June, and hid been in his family as
governess since September, 1844. She was an amiable and accom-
plished young lady. The defendant was a stock jabber on the Corn
Exchange. Defendant bad frequently visited at witness's house.
Defendant spoke to witness on the 23d of June, and told him he was
greatly attracted by the charms of Miss Goldicutt, and that it would
be his greatest happiness to marry her. Witness told him that
this was a serious step for him to take, and told him to con-
sider well of it, and at the same time said that he could
not allow his ♦isits at his house to be continued without
an introduction to the young lady's friends. An interview accord-
ingly took place with Captain Goldicutt, the young lady's father,
to whom witness introduced defendant, and stated that
defendant was worth 1,000/. Defendant was then twenty-six years
of age. Defendant was afterwards considered as bliss Goldicutt's
accepted suitor. In process of time defendant took a house at
Stranraer-place, at a rent of 75/., on the understanding that the
marriage would take place. ♦ disagreement afterwards arose be-
tween plaintiff and defendant., in consequence of which defendant
desired to break off the acquaintance with the young lady.
Witness saw Mr. Beagin the next morning after this occurred at his
office, and a warm altercation ensued. Witness upbraided bin: with
want of principle, and defendant asked him if Miss Goldicutt had
sent him any message. lie (defendant) again stated that he had been
led into it (meaning the acquaintance). That was a favourite
expression of his. Among other things, witness remarked
that plaintiff's friends had been put to considerable expense
for dresses, in expectation of the marriage. Witness believed
that everything but the table-linen had been purchased. Witness
communicated the result of the interview to Mr. Goldicutt. Witness
had such confidence in defendant that he lent him 3,0001. and 2,0001,
both of which sums had been since repaid. Witness was present at
an interview with defendant and plaintiff's family after the 27th
August. Mr. Goldicutt then said to defendant—" I ask you, sir,
do you intend to fulfil your engagement with my daughter ?"
Defendant replied, "that he did not " Mr. Goldicutt then asked
defendant if he had anything against his daughter's conduct to
justify him in adopting such a course? Defendant replied that lie
had not.

Cross-examined—There was a good deal of fiectuation in wit-
ness's business. Defendant and witness had jobbed together.
Defendant had been in the habit of coming to witness's house during
the time of the courtship. When witness first saw him on the
25th of August it was in the dining-room. Witness was quite sure
that he did not remonstrate with him on the subject of courting the
young lady without having the means to support her. lie did re-
monstrate with him on taking the house, or bringing matters to such
a pass, when he had only 3001. or 4001. afterwards. lie knew, as
defendant had stated, that defendant had a considerable loss (about
1,2091.), Li the course of the summer. The defendant did not say
that he was ready to proceed with or to decline the business alto-
gether. The altercation might last for an hour and a half. Witness
wou e
ld swear tht defedant never xpresed a wsh or a readi-
ness to go on with tken engagement. Witnes iss and defendant met
next morning and witness desired them to go into his office. The
message which Miss Goldicutt sent was that if what defendant said
as to the state of his affairs was tree there could be no happiness to
them when married. In the interview which subsequently took
place with Mr. Goldicutt no reference was made to that message.
That was on the 27th August. Witness did not know that the action
was commenced on the 6th September. Witness did not say that
he would spend 500/. in Cringing an action against defendant for his
conduct.

Re-examined by Mr. WATsos--The lady was much depressed
about that time (the 25th August), and the family were much dis-
tressed since. There was nothing to lead him to believe that the
la.ly desired to break off the match.
Captain Goldicutt, the lather of the young lady, was then
examined—lle had been captain in the 60th Miles,
but was now retired from the army. Had retired from
the army in 1826, and had been engaged in mercantile business since.
Was now secretary to an insurance company. He recollected his
daughter going as governess into Mr. Plitaton's family. On the 25t0
June last a communication was made to him by Mr. Pllmton about
defendant. The account given by Mr. Plimton was correct,
he believed, in every particular, and he had, in conse-
quence, had no objection to the defendant paying his ad-
dresses to his daughter. lie knew that his daughter made pee-
paratio.ls tbr her marriage with defendant. Ile went himself to the
expense of about fifty preliminary arrangements. On the 26th
August, in consequence of a communication made to him relative to
defendant's betaking off the match, he went to the Stock Exchange
to see Mr. Beagin. Defendant appointed to meet hint
at twelve o'clock, at the house of defendant's brother-in-law,
Mr. Ward, an attorney. When witness called there he was shown
into a room where he saw Mr. Beagin, Mr. Ward, and his wife (Mr.
Reagin's sister). Witnesss wished to speak with him alone, but
defendant declined to have any interview with him, but in the pre-
sence of his brother-in-law and sister. Seeing, therefore, that he
would have no opportunity of speaking to defendant
but under such circumstances witness then said to him,
"I demand to know whether you intend to fulfil your engagement
with my daughter ?" Defendant said, "Certainly not." Witness
then asked if he had any imputation to cast en his daughter's conduct.
He replied that he had not. Witness asked him if he had sustained any
losses, so as to induce him to come to such a determination. De-
fendant replied that ho had, but that he had recovered them. Wit-
ness then retired. Defendant's tone throughout was abrupt and un-
gentlemanly. Witness went that evening to Mr. Plimton's residence,
in the Hackney-road, when he again had an interview with de-
fendant, whose demeanour was most ungentlemanly and insulting.
The whole matter was a great source of annoyance to himself and
thmily, as well as to his daughter.
Mr. Brooks was examined to prove that the house was taken in
expectation of the marriage taking place.
Mr. Sewell, a stock-broker on the Stock Exchange, was ac-
quainted with defendant, who was in good credit on the Stock
Exchange.

Mr. /faker, an upholsterer, received an order to furnish the house,
in question, about the 16th of August, which order was counter-
manded, on the Ist of September following, by Mr. lleagin per-
sonally.

This dosed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant TALvornth addressed the jury for the defence. Ik deified that it was a case of that description which presented any
of those features which justified the plaintiff in bringing an action to
recover compensation in damages. He did not wish to throw any
Imputations on the conduct of the young lady, but he considered that
If she and :.er friends had not been so precipitate matters would have
come to a far different termination. He concluded a lengthened ad.
dress by saying that the prospects in life of the young lady had not
been blighted, and that she had really sustained no injury which
would justify ajury in awarding her damages.
The CHIEF liaaoN briefly summed up, and, after explaining the
law atilt question, adverted to the principal points of the evidence,
which we have already given.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 3001.