The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-06 00:00:00

and stated that his housekeeper had left, and that he would
feel much obliged if the witness would allow her daughter,
the plaintiff, to come and fill that office, at least for a short
time. It was finally agreed that she should go till the May
following, it being understood that she was then to return
home, as her father had, during the summer, sufficient em-
ployment for all his children on his own farm. When May
arrived, however, the defendant was still unsuited with
another housekeeper, and the plaintiff still remained in his
service. During this period she and the defendant were, it
would appear, the only inmates of his house. This con-
tinued until November, 1844, when witness again required

that her daughter should return home • and that
she herself called for this purpose, other members of the
family did the same. To them the defendant said that they
must make up their minds to do without her, as she was
about to become his wife. She remained at the defendant's
until May, when she went home, and was then, as subse-
quently proved to be the case, pregnant. Before her return
home, in the course of the conversations he had with the
plaintiff's mother, he said that the circumstance of her
daughter's having no fortune would make no difference, as
he was a man of property, and the plaintiff was a fortune in
herself, and had saved him considerably in his housekeep-
ing. Subsequently to ,the time of the plaintiff's return home
he called at her mother's house. By that time her preg-
nancy had been discovered. He had an interview with the
plaintiff in the presence of her mother and fattier kle said
he had had a letter from her through a Mr. hope, and that

,
it was all right. The plaintiff's fattier said, " Well, George,
you have promised marriage to Elizabeth, when do you in-
tend to perform your promise?" He replied that he never
intended anything else, and would marry her some time
shortly, sooner than was expected, and he invited the whole
family to come and see them after the happy event. When
he was leaving, he said, " Now, Elizabeth, you had better
go home with me to-night, and we'll be married to-morrow
morning." Plaintiff's father said, " No, George, I cannot
allow that. If you come in the morning and take her honour-
ably to church, you may." The defendant, however, did not
marry the plaintiff, and a child was born on the 15th of Sep •
tember. On the 6th of August preceding, the witness had
written a letter to the defendant requiring him to perform his
promise, stating that a license would be procured, and
making an appointment to meet him at the house of a friend
of the name of Hope, whence they would go to church. No
notice was taken of this communication.
In cross-examination it appeared that the defendant was
about fifty years of age, and that the witness was aware that
he was at least occasionally in the habit of being intoxicated.
The plaintiff had been in service before at the rate of eight
guineas per annum. With the defendant she was to have
not quite as much.
Charlotte Smith, sister of the plaintiff. and Martin Prowl,
her uncle, gave similar testimony. The latter on one occasion
had called to see the defendant while the plaintiff was there.
The defendant asked him to stop all night, and in the course
of conversation informed him that he (the defendant) had
about 200/. owing to him for corn, but that he was in no want
of it, as he farmed his oWn land.
It appeared from the will of the defendant's father that he
left some freehold and leasehold property to be divided among
his sons.
Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defence, com-
menting strongly on the circumstance of there being no
proof whatever of any promise, except by the. testimony of
members of the family interested in establishing it. He
observed upon the imprudence of the plaintiff's relatives in
permitting a young woman to become the inmate of the
defendant's house, in which no other person resided, espe
cially as they were aware he was a person in whom, some-
times at least, intoxication mastered his reason ; and he
contended that if they should return a verdict for the plain,
tiff, they should lay oat of consideration the seduction,
which would perhaps form the subject of another action, but
could not be taken into consideration in this.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, observed that the jury
even in this action could not lay the fact of the seduction
entirely out of the question. The damages sought were for
a breach of the defendant's contract, and it was from the
fact of the seduction a greater injury to the plaintiff to break
that contract, both as regarded her prospect of a future set.
tlement and her wounded feelings.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 100/.
Several cases were disposed of during the day on the
criminal side, bat none were of any public interest.