The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE

NORFOLK CIRCUIT. Buizr, "Iva. 3.
'LIMIT V LUC CE.

This cause excited a very lively interest, which increased
in intensity as the trial proceeded, from the extraordin ry
and unusual nature of the defence. The jury were swot n
at 2 o'clock on Saturday afternoon, and the cause was not
finished till 3 o'clock on Sunday, the Court remaining
crowded during the whole time of the investigation. The
ladies, to the infinite disappointment of their curiosity,
were ordered out of Court.

Mr. KELLY sated the case for the plaintiff. The action
was brought for a breach of promise of marriape made by
the defendant. The plaintiff, a young lady of the age of
23, and of very engaging manners and great personal at-
tractions, is the daughter of a person who for 30 years
k-pt a respectab'e boarding-school for young gentlemen
in the vill ige of Grundishurgh, in this coon y. She is the
third in point of age of four daughters, two of whom are
extremely well married and living in London. The defen-
dant, who is only four days tie senior of the plaintiff in
point of age, is the only son of a person formerly a hair-
dresser in London, and who, having realized an indepen-
dence, went many years ~go to reside in his native village
of Grundisburgh. He there bought a small ratite within
a quarter of a mile of the house of the plaintiff's father's,
and an intimate acquaintance batween the two families was
the consequence, and the defendant was hisinsel for two
or three years at the school of the plaintiff's father,
when he left for the purpose of finishing his education
elsewhere, he being then about 14. Years passed by, the
defendant returning occasionally to Grundis,urgb, when
he hid an opportunity of seeing the plainiiff, and of be-
coming acqu inted with her ehar icier and disposition.
He came of age in February, 1831, about which time his
attentions to the plaintiff had assumed a more marked and
tender character than they had previously done. He
vi-ited at the house, and occasionally went with the plain-
tiff and some part of the family to the Woodbridge
Theatre. At length his attentions to the plaintiff became
so evident, that her family were induced to ask him re-
specting his inten ions, when he at once avowed himself
the lover of the plaintiff, and promised, if she and all
parties consented, to make her his wife; bi this all parties
di i consent, and be was consequently received in the
family as the future husband of the plaintiff. " One
little month" hail hardly elapsed, however, tie his
visits became less frequent, and his manner more
distant, and at length be ceased altogether to come to
the plaintiff's house, or to answer her letters. He was
sent for, and said, in answer to Airs. Redit's remon-
strance, that " he should neither visit nor write to the
young lady any more, and should give no reason, for if he
loved a woman one day, th,it was no reason he should not
1 tve another the nest!" After this, all attempts at a re-
conciliation were ineffectual. Soon afterwards the fathers
of both the plaintiff and the defendant died, and the latter
c ime into the possession of property to the amount of 2001.
or 3001. a-year.
Mr. Srrgeant STORES, for the defence, rested his an-
swer to the action upon three ;Jona is—the first, that the
defend .nt was lured into the engagement by the father of
the plaintiff; the second, that she had herself been guilty
of levity and impropriety of conduct ; and the third, that
she had lost her chastity, and had had a miscarriage
some years ago. With respect to the first, it merely
appeared that about the time of the commencement of the
particular intimacy of the parties, in February, 1831, the
defendant and the plaint.ff's father were once or twice at
a tavern in the village together; and that the latter dined
with the defendant and a party there upon the day of his
coming of age. As to the imputed impropriety of the
conduct of the plaintiff, it was stated by a Mrs. Hunt, a
former servant of the family, and by a young man named
Garrod, who was some years ago a sctiolar of the plain-
tiff's father, that the plaintiff used when she was 15 or 16
years of age to go from her own bed-room to that of the
boys, and stay there an hour or more at a time. And
as to the third point, an old wont in of the name of
Chiddick swore that she was at the house of the plaintiff's
father some years ago, when the plaintiff was suddenly
taken ill, and that she at that time had a miscarriage.
Upon the cross-examination of this woman, she stated that
she never mentioned this circumstance to a single person
till last February ; that neither the mother nor any of
the daughters knew of it; and that the surgeon who
attended her had not the least noth,n of it, and treated
her as for another complaint.
In reply to this case, the plaintiff called her sisters,
two oung ladies who were in the school, and slept in the
same room with the phintiff at the periods to which the
evidence of Hunt and Garrod applied, and they proved
that the pl.iotiff never on any occasion whatever left her
ioom, to go into that of the young gentleman In addi-
tion to this, Mr. Newson Garrett, who was at the school
at the same time, proved that the plaintiff never entered
the room of the boys at any tittle ; he was the oldest boy
in the school, and must have known of it if it had
occurred. With resp,ct to the alleged miscarriage, the
whole family of the plaintiff, and many other witnesses,
distinctly proved, in the first place, that Mrs. Chiddick,
who was only washerwoman to the famity, never at any
time attended or waited upon the plaintiff during her
illness. In the next place. they showed that the plain-
tiff never was ill but once, anti that was with a pulmo-
nary complaint, upon her return from a visit in London,
in May, 1827.
Mr. KELLY, in reply, denounced the defence as bot-
tomed in the foulest conspiracy, and supported by perjury
hi.herto unparalleled in any cause, or in any court.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 5001.
damages.
GALL V. EAGLE, ESQ.

This was an action for a libel, brought by an Alder-
man of the borough of Bury against Mr. Eagle, the bar-
rister, as the proprietor of the Bury press.
Mr. Eagle
was the reform candidate for the representation of the
borough at the last general election, and is, on many ac•
count,, immensely popular in the town. The alleged
iihtl conce.ned matters purely local, and possessed no
general interest.
The Jury returned a verdict fur the defendant, which
was received with repeated bursts ofapplause, which were
renewed outside the Court as soon as Mr. Eagle made
his appearance.

A beggar, said to be the husband of Madame
SAQUI, the celebrated rope-dancer, banged hnueelf, at
Cambray, in a cellar, on the 24th ult.