The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-31 00:00:00

JULY 311 1851

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, July 30.

This was an action to recover damages from the de-
fendant, for the breach of his promise to marry the
plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Needham, were
counsel for the plaintiff; Sergeant Shee was for the de-
fendant.

Mr. CHAMBERS, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff, Mrs. Sophia Kingsford, had been compelled to
bring the present action against the defendant in order
to recover damages from him for very serious miscon-
duct, in having deliberately broken a solemn engage-
ment he had made to marry her. It was his duty to inform
the jury that neither of the parties in the cause were
young—on the contrary, they were both at a somewhat
advanced period of life, the defendant being the older
of the two; but it appeared to him that this was rather
in aggravation of the defendant's misconduct than other-
wise. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to state the
facts of the case. It appeared that the plaintiff was a
person in humble circumstances. She was a widow,
living with her daughter, who kept a chandler's shop at
Deptford, and the defendant lived near her at the house
of his brother. He paid her attention during the
year 1850, and at length made ber a formal
written promise of marriage ; but as he was at that
time dependent on his brother, it was considered pru-
dent by both parties that the marriage should not take
place until the death of the defendant's brother, from
whom he had the expectation of receiving some con-
siderable property. The brother died in the month of
October, 1850, and, as the defendant anticipated upon
' that event taking place, he came into possession of all
the property that belonged to him, and he still continued
his attentioas to the plaintiff, and repeated his promise
to marry her; but on account of the death of his brother,
and also the death of a sister of the defendant, it was
considered right to postpone the ceremony for a certain
time. The defendant, however, still continued his at-
tendees to the plaintiff, and in March of the present year
he expressed his intention to go to Norwich for a short
time, and said that at his return the marriage should
take place. He went away accordingly, and, to the as-
tonishment of the plaintiff, it appeared that on the 13th
of that month he married a Miss Mary Nicholls, and
shortly afterwards brought her home to Deptford, where
he took up his residence with his wife, close to the
plaintiff. The Learned Counsel, in conclusion, said that
it was under these circumstances the present action was
brought. He did not put the case as one of blighted
affections or disappointed hopes, but he did say that
the defendant had grossly misconducted himself towards
the plaintiff, and that she was entitled to compensation
for the injury she had sustained by the defendant failing
to perform the promise he had made to her.
Witnesses were then examined, who made out the case
as stated by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff. It
appeared upon the cross-examination of some of the
witnesses that the plaintiff was at least fifty-five years
old, and the defendant was sixty, and that when the
parties first became acquainted he was living with his
brother as servant of all work, and was in very humble
circumstances, and it was evident that both parties con-
sidered the marriage ought not to take place until the
condition of the defendant should be improved by the
death of his brother.
Sergeant SHEE made a most humourous speech to the
jury on behalf of the defendant. He said it was a very
rare occurrence for parties of the respective ages of
fifty-five and sixty to come into a court of justice and ask
for damages for a breach of promise of this description,
and if juries were to sanction such actions by giving
damages, he was afraid that the time of the courts would
be wholly taken up with them. He must confess that
the present case put him in mind of a story he had read
of a gentleman who, having fixed his marriage day,
made arrangements to have all the proceedings of the
marriage carried on in the guise of a funeral.—(A laugh.)
There was a hearse, mourning coaches, and mutes, and
when the bridal party left the church after the ceremony
the first thing that met their eyes was a newly-made
grave. It was clear that in the present instance the
plaintiff was not to be " made happy," as the defendant
expressed it, in one of his letters, until the death of his
brother, and the marriage was only to succeed the fune-
ral; and in all the love whisperings that took place be-
tween this old boy of 60 and the young lady of 55, the
consent to marry was only given, " when brother should
be dead."—(Laughter.) He did not deny that there had
been a promise to marry made by the defendant, but
what injury had the defendant really sustained by the
breach of this promise? To talk of affection betwepn
the parties under these circumstances was perfectly ridi-
culous, and as to the loss of any benefit that would arise
to the plaintiff from the property that came into the pos
session of the defendant at the death of his brother,
they should not forget that if she was to have the money
she must have had the old man as well.—(A laugh.)
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Don't use too hard terms, bro-
ther Shee. He is only sixty.—(Renewed laughter.)
Sergeant SHEE proceeded—He was not aware of any
peculiar advantages appertaining to the ago of sixty, al-
though ho hoped ho sboald in time attain that knowledge.
—(A laugh.) It was said that a young man married far
a mistress, a middle-aged one for a companion, and an
old ma❑ for a nurse; and it appeared to him that all this
hearty old widow of fifty-five, with five young children
and a chandler's shop, could have expected from an union
with the defendant, was to have to nurse him after the
expiration of a very short period of time.
The CHIEF JUSTICE briefly summed up, and the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, 40/.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Durham, July 29.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS
and a Special Jury.)
SHEPHERD V. THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY.
This was an action of replevin brought to try the right
to the tithes of the rectory of St. Giles's, Durham, which
were claimed by the defendant in right of his wife, as
the lay rector. The plaintiff complained that his cattle
had been seized for a tithe.rent charge, not payable to
the defendant and not in arrear, he being tenant to a
Mr. Oving ton, to whom he alleged the tithes of his laud
belonged.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr.
Jones appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Watson, Q.C.,
and Mr. Manisty for the defendant.
It appeared from the opening of the Learned Counsel
for the defendant, who had the right to begin, that the
rectories of St. Giles and St. Nicholas, formerly part of
the monastery of Kepier, at Durham, at the Reformation
were leased for twenty one years by Henry VIII. to
one John Franklin; that afterwards, in the sixth year of
the reign of Edward VI, they were granted by the
Crown to John Lord Ormeston and his heirs, and by
him granted, in 1554, to one John Heath, the ancestor
of the present Marchioness of Londonderry. By a
subsequent marriage settlement in 1642, made in
contemplation of marriage between John Tempest,
the son of Sir Thomas Tempest, Attorney-General for
Ireland, and Elizabeth Heath, the granddaughter of that
John Heath, the rectories and all the tithes were settled
on them and their issue, and were again settled on the
marriage of a descendant of that John Tempest with
Elizabeth Sudbury, niece of the Dean of Durham, in
1677. In 1706 another settlement in contemplation of
marriage was made, but the lease only was put in (the
release being lost), by which the rectories and tithes
were given to persons named White and Nicholson, who,
the defendant contended, were trustees of the settlement.
A descendant of these Tempests was married to a Dr.
Henry Vane, and his descendant Sir Harry Vane mar-
ried, in 1794, Ann Catherine Countess of Antrim, and
on their daughter, the present Marchioness of London-
derry (married to the defendant in 1819), descended
these rectories and the right to the tithes. In 1816 a
private inclosure Act was passed, enabling Gillygate
Moor to be enclosed, and the burgage tenants of Gilly-
gate, or St. Giles, in Durham, in respect of their rights
of common, became entitled to allotments of the moor
under that Act, which became liable to tithes in the
same right as the tenements in respect of which they
were claimed. Mr. Robert Ovington, one of these
tenants, had allotted to him eight acres and two roods of
this moor, and it was in respect of the tithe of this allot-
ment, seized from his tenant, that the present action was
brought.

For the plaintiff it was objected that the right to the
tithes was shown to be in White and Nicholson, and
was never after traced to the ancestors of the Marchioness
of Londonderry, and that the identity of the Tempests
as descendants of the first Tempest entitled to the tithes
was not satisfactorily established.
These objections having been overruled,
Mr. KNOWLES contended that the deed of 1706 being
the last deed that showed title in the tithes, and all sub-
sequent deeds having been silent about them, and none
having been received till 1829, and then only extorted
under threats of a Chancery suit, a tithe composition
must be presumed, and the Heaths, or some of their
descendants, must be presumed to have conveyed away
their right to the tithes. In support of this view he put
in a conveyance of the tithes of four of the burgage tene-
ments to the owners thereof by one of the Heaths.
Mr. WATSON having replied,
His LORDSHIP directed the jury that they must hays
some positive evidence other than mere non-reception of
tithes to enable them to presume the tithes to have been
conveyed away.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found a
verdict for the defendant.

Leave was then given to move the Court above on
some points reserved.
In the Crown Court a
_number of ordinary sessions
cases of scarcely local interest wore disposed of in the
course of the day. The criminal business is expected to
be got through to-morrow.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, July 28.
CRO VVN COURT.
Cha,les Beardmore and Edward Bloor were indicted
for a highway robbery on James Brothers, at Hanley.
Mr. Kenealy prosecuted,
This was a case of the new favourite mode of robbing
in the dark, which seems to have passed from London
into Staffordshire. The prosecutor on his way home.
ward on the night of the :23d inst., when about half way
oa the high road from 4311111310111 19 11631.167, observed thie,

•

CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
Edward Wood, 27, was indicted under the new statute
of Lord Campbell, for being found at night with
skeleton keys and other housebreaking instruments in
his possession, with intent to commit felony.
Mr. Deedes prosecuted.
It appeared that a police-constable, who was acquainted
with the prisoner, took him into custody at Boarshead
under suspicious circumstances, and a quantity of skele-
ton keys and a crowbar were found in his possession,
there being very little doubt that he was out upon some
housebreaking expedition.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and a previous
conviction for felony being proved against him, he was
sentenced to be transported for ten years.
John Bowden, 22, pleaded guilty to a charge of feloni-
ously setting fire to a stack of wheat, value 1701., and
he was sentenced to be transported for ten years.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Chief Justice JERVIS and a
Common Jury.)
KINGSFORD V. DYE.

men, whom he passed. Scarcely had he got 15 paces
from them, when he felt a sudden pressure on his throat,
which was lquei zed tightly by the arm of a man from
behind; another man stood in front of him, and as the
strangling immediately disabled him he was lifted from
the ground and flung down with some violence, the man
in front robbing him of his watch and guard at the same
instant. On recovering his senses he rose, and shouted,
" Stop thief." The parties took to flight, but were
both pursued by two other young men who chanced
to be on the road at the time. Neither of them
overtook the parties, but all three seem to have kept
one of them (Beardmore) in view during the whole of
the flight. A policeman named Cherry, attracted by the
shouting, caught Beardmore, who was immediately re-
cognized by the prosecutor as one of the men whom he
had passed just before he was robbed. The other pri-
soner escaped, but two witnesses (Germans), one of whom
met him with Beardmore on the road a few minutes be-
fore the robbery, and the other, a musician, who was
Beardmore's mistress, who deposed to his having made
anxious inquiries after " h-er chap" about twelve o'clock
on that night, and to having expressed a fear that he was
apprehended, satisfied the jury that the parties really
engaged were the prisoners. Bloor on the next day
changed his clothes, and made some false statements to
the police•superintendent at Hanley, which on cross-
examination of the superintendent he (Bloor) now at-
tempted to deny.

His LORDSHIP briefly addressed the jury, who found
the prisoners Guilty.

A policeman and a woman having given the prisoners
a good character,
The JUDGE said that but for their charact©r he would
have imposed a very severe sentence on them. Ha now
ordered them to be imprisoned for twelve calendar
months, wish hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Robert Johnson, a Scotch lad, was brought before Mr.
Hardwick, charged with attempting to pick pockets at
the Great Exhibition in Hyde-park.
Police-constable Capping, H 379, said he was on duty
at the Exhibition yesterday atternoon about five o'clock,
when he saw the prisoner, in the south gallery, put his
hand to a lady's pocket. The prisoner soo❑ afterwards
went and stood by a gentleman and put his hand into the
gentleman's pocket and drew his handkerchief nearly
out. Witness went forward and took the prisoner into
custody.
The prisoner protested his innocence. He had only
come from Scotland with his father, who was a baker,
about a week ago. Ho was looking at the articles in
the Exhibition when he saw a gentleman's handkerchief
partly hanging out of his pocket, and he touched the
gentleman fur the purpose of drawing his attention to the
circumstance, when the constable came to him and took
him into custody.
The constable was positive that he saw the prisoner
attempt to steal the handkerchief. He had seen
the prisoner about the Exhibition, on the outside, a day
or two previously.
Mr. HARDWICK sent him to prison for three months.
After the prisoner was removed to the lock-up cells
information was given to the gaoler, Parkin, that the
prisoner was attempting suicide. On entering the cell
the prisoner was discovered in a state of strangulation.
He had tied one end of his handkerchief to his toot and
the other round his neck, and had drawn the noose so
tight that he must have died had not the gaoler made
his appearance. The handkerchief was taken away and
the prisoner, after being brought to, was left. In a
short time afterwards an alarm was given that the
prisoner was a second time attempting to destroy him-
self. Oa entering the cell the prisoner was found
with his braces round his throat, nearly strangled. The
gaoler was informed that the prisoner had offered a lad
who was in the cell with him 4d. for a clasp knife to cut
his throat with.
Parkin reported the circumstance of these repeated
attempts at belt-destruction to Mr. Hardwick, who, atter
sending for a medical gentleman, decided upon requiring
the attendance of the lad's father, in order to ascertain
his previous character and conduct. The prisoner was
remanded for that purpose.
W ORS HIP-STREET.
Edward Jones, a tall, powerful man, described as a
hawker, was placed at the bar before Mr. Arnold,
charged with cutting and wounding James Bates, with
intent to murder him.
The prosecutor, who appeared to be greatly debilitated
from loss of blood, stated that the prisoner heel for some
time past entertained the most hostile feelings towards
him, iu consequence of some previous transaction con-
nected with his wife. On Sunday last he accidently met
him, and was then warned by the prisoner that he had
better prepare himself, as he had resolved to murder him
before two days had passed over. He took no heed of
the threat at the time, but while seated that morning in
front of one of the houses in Red Lion-court. Kingaland-
road, the prisoner suddenly rushed upon him with the
observation, " Now you are my victim," and raising his
hand, in which he held some bright instrument, made
a violent stab at his right breast. He succeeded by a
rapid movement in partially evading the blow,
but was instantly seized by the prisoner,
who dragged him along the ground by the hair of his
head, and repeatedly stabbed him in the back, declaring,
with an oath, that be would kill him on the spot. He
was at length rescued by some of the bystanders and
conveyed to the residence of a medical gentleman, where
it was ascertained that he had fortunately escaped with
only one wound, although his clothing had been com-
pletely cut through in several places.
Inspector Pascoe, of the N division, stated that the
prisoner was given into his custody, and upon acquaint
tug him with the nature of the charge he observed that
the prosecutor had occasioned him constant misery for
the last three years, and that he regretted the weapon
bad not gone through his heart. The inspector pro-
duced a large pair of pointed shears, used by tailors i❑
heir trade, which he received from a person in the
crowd, who had picked them tip near the ep, t, and stated
them to be the instrument with which the injury had
been inflicted.
Mr. George Coward, the divisional police surgeon,
stated, that upon examining the prosecutor he found that,
in addition to an abrasion upon the left breast, he had
received a triangular punctured wound beneath the left
shoulder blade, from which he must have lost a consi-
derable quantity of blood, and that he considered the
points of the shears now produced were calculated to
produce such an injury.
The prisoner declined offering anything in answer to
the charge, and was ordered to be remanded until the
ultimate result of his violence could be ascertained.
A middle-aged man named George Edwards was
charged with an assault of an aggravated and indelicate
description, in Victoria-park, upon a girl named Martha
Davis, 13 years of age.
The case was conclusively established by the evidence
of the prosecutrix and two other witnesses, but the facts
were of too gross a nature to admit of publication; and
the prisoner, who pleaded intoxication as an excuse for
his conduct, was ordered to pay a penalty of 5/., or to
bo committed in default for two months to the House of
Correction; in addition to which he was ordered to pro-
vide substantial bail for his good behaviour for the suc-
ceeding four months.
The prisoner could not procure the penalty by the
close of the court, and was therefore transferred to prison
in the van.