The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-14 00:00:00

and see us." My daughter is either 34 or 35, I can-
not exactly say which. I have had so many children
that I cannot keep the ages of all in my mind. I have
five daughters. I have a 114phe w an attorney. He con-
ducts the present action. My daughter once told use the
defend ant wanted his own letters back, but she said he
might keep hers, but she would not give up his. He
returned her letters some three months after the con-
versation we had on the Sunday. My daughter
afterwards asked the defendant whether he was not
keeping company with Miss Watkinson. He said he
was. She told him she would write to her and in-
form her that he was under a promise of marriage to
her as soon as he should be in circumstances to do
so. She did so write, and offered the lady to answer
any questions, but no notice was taken of the letter.
Re-examined—lt was after my daughter heard the
defendant was keeping company with Miss Watkin-
son that he brought her back her letters. It was in
December, 1849, that she learned he was keeping
company with Miss Watkinson. My son is managing
clerk at an attorney's in Carlisle.
Samuel Reddish-1 am brother of the plaintiff, and
have known the defendant many years. In 1844 I
was with him, and my sister, the plaintiff, in Liver-
pool. I understood they were engaged to each
other. They acted as people in such circumstances
usually do. When I heard defendant was going to
be married to Miss Watkinson I called on him and
told him proceedings would be commenced against
him if he married. He said he had visited the house
only as a friend. I told him he had come to the
house too often, and with a different purpose than
from mere friendship. He admitted he had done

wrong.
Mrs. Turner, a married sister, gave evidence that
a Mr. Cotteen, a gentleman in the Customs, wished
to pay attentions to the plaintiff. He sent a ring to
her, but she declined to receive it. She spoke to
defendant's visiting the plaintiff in Liverpool, at wit-
ness's house. They went out together to the Zoolo-
gical Gardens. The plaintiff showed me a Bible and
a portrait, which the defendant gave her.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant H. JONES submitted that no evidence
had been given of a promise to marry, and therefore
there was no case to go to the jury.
His LORDSHIP, however, thought there was some
evidence to go to the jury, the question for them
being, whether they would :infer a promise from the
letters and the statements of the witnesses.

The Learned SERGEANT then addressed the jury
for the defence. There were, he said, in this case,
two issues for their consideration—the first being,
whether the defendant ever promised to marry the
plaintiff; " when" (to follow the special allegation in
the declaration) " he should be in a position to set up
business for himself;" and the second whether—sup-
posing the jury should think that such a contract was
made between the parties—it had not been rescinded
by mutual consent, and the defendant relieved from
the obligation to marry the plaintiff. It had been
said by his Learned Friend, in opening the case to
the jury, that the defendant had rejected the plain-
tiff because he had found a lady with larger means
than she possessed; but not one tittle of evidence
had been given in support of that statement. He
would not trouble the jury with reviewing the letters;
they had been read by plaintiff's counsel, and he had
purposely spared the Court the infliction of having
them read by the officer. He would confidently ask
the jury whether they could discover the merest
shadow of a promise in the entire correspondence ?
Certainly he could not. The warmth was all on the
side of the plaintiff. The defendant styles her " Dear
Anne," and she replies "My dearest William." As
to the Bible and picture, no evidence had been given
that they were ever presented by the defendant to the
plaintiff. It was true there was the plaintiff 'a name
in the Bible written by the defendant ; but what of
that ? He (the Learned Sergeant) had himself often
been asked to write a person's name on the cover of
books because he happened to write a good hand, and
that was probably the case here. Those articles had,
however, artfully been put in to create a prejudice
against the defendant, and for the plaintiff's benefit.
Supposing the jury, however, should infer, from the
circumstances, that the defendant had promised to
marry the plaintiff, this was, at all events, not a case
for heavy damages. The defendant had never in-
sinuated or uttered a syllable against the plaintiff. They
were unsuited for each other; there being a difference
of seven years in their ages in the plaintiff's disfa-
vour. The defendant was a green young man when
the affair commenced, and the lady had greatly the ad-
vantage of him. At the marriageable age women are
much sharper and more subtle tacticians than young
men. In the present case the lady was the suitor,
and not the gentleman. The Learned Sergeant next
reviewed the evidence at great length, and with
much ability, contending that it altogether failed to
establish a promise by the defendant to marry the
plaintiff.
The Learned JUDGE summed up with equal mi-
nuteness and care, telling the jury that as in these
cases formal promises are seldom made, it was enough
if, from all the circumstances of the case and the cor-
respondence, they could infer that an intention to
marry had once existed between the parties, and no
release been given by the lady. As to the question
whether the defendant had been absolved of his pro-
mise by the plaintiff, so far from there being any proof
of that, the evidence in fact, was the other way, for
she had expressly refused to absolve him, declining to
give tip his letters, and her brother threatening pro-
ceedings in a court of justice. But the question
was entirely for the jury, who would take into consi-
deration the means of the plaintiff, who was in a house
and shop of 401. a year rent, and had received no
benefit, in the shape of property, on the death of his
father.

The jury consulted, and in five minutes returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 20/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HO USE.
Thomas Birchmore, aged 72, and James Skegg,
aged 68, persons haring the appearance of labouring
farm servants, were brought before Mr. Alderman
Moon under the following circumstances.
Sir H. W. Carden, Alderman and Sheriff, was
present during the hearing of the case.
Charles Clarke, officer of the London-bridge-wharf,
said—At half past eleven o'clock this morning the
Albion steamer, trading between London and Bou-
logne, arrived at the London-bridge-wharf. From
what was told to me by Mr. Unsworth, of Fish-street-
hill, who was a passenger, I took the two defendants
into custody, and brought them here. I said to them
"Do you know St. Alban's ?" and they both replied
that they did. I then asked them to accompany me
me to the Mansion-house.
Alderman MooN—What is your present charge
against them ? Witness—l brought them here be-
cause Mr. Unsworth informed me that there was a
reward for their apprehension for bribery at the recent
St. Alban's election.
Alderman Moon—Then, upon the authority of Mr.
Unsworth's stating to you that there was a reward for
their apprehension you took them into custody, and
brought them here? Witness—l did.
Alderman MooN—Since they have been in custody
hare you made any inquiry as to whether a warrant
for their apprehension is in existence? Witness—Yes.
Alderman MooN—Have you been able to find any
such warrant? Witness—lnspector Beckles, who Is
stationed at the House of Commons, told me that he
had received instructions not to take any further pro-
ceedings in the case.
Alderman MOON—Have you been to the office of
the Speaker ? Witness--I have, but I could get no
information there.
Alderman Moor—Did you ask the inspecter, when
you went to the House of Commons, upon what au-
thority he stated to you that he had received instruc-
tions not to take further proceedings ? Witness—l
did not ask him that.
Alderman MOON—Then you did not apply to the
Sergeant-at-Arms ? Witness—l did not. Knowing
the inspector, and the man White or Wright, who has
been ss long looking for them in the first instance, I
thought they could give me every information.
Alderman MooN—Since you have taken these per-
sons into custody have you seen the bill offering the
reward for their apprehension? Witness—Yes.
Alderman MOON—Has that bill any printer's name
attached to it ? Witness—ldid not notice the printer's
name.
Alderman Moox—To whom does the bill refer
you to apply for the reward ? Witness—To the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department.
Alderman MooN—And where did you see that
bill ? Witness—At the Mansion-house.
Alderman MOON—On the outside of the Mansion-
house ? Witness—No ; below stairs, in one of the
offices.
Scott (the Mansion-house officer)—lt is in the po-
lice-office below stairs.
Alderman MOON—Can you get me one of those:bills?
Scott—lt is pasted on the wall. I cannot get it off
without destroying it; but the purport of it is that
the prisoners, when apprehended, are to be delivered
into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the
application for the reward is to be made to the Lords
Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury.
Alderman MooN—Did you go to the Treasury at
all ? Witness--I did, and from there I was referred
to Mr. Maule, the Solicitor to the Treasury.
Alderman MooN—What information did you get
from Mr. Maule ? Witness—l saw Mr. Maule, and
he told me that be knew nothing at all about it.
Alderman Moor/ wished to know from Mr. Good-
man whether bills of this nature were put up at the
Mansion-house without its being ascertained from
some official personage that there was proper autho-
rity for the act. " This," said Alderman Moon, "is
either a forgery or it is an official document. If it is
an official document, of course there is proper autho-
rity. But, if it is a forgery, there are n ) sure means
of punishing the parties who have committed it."
Mr. Goodman (the chief clerk) said he understood