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

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

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 keya and other housebreaking instruments in
his possession, with intent to commit felony.
Mr. Deedea prosecuted.
It appeared that a police-constable, who was acquainted
with the prisoner, took him into custody at Bearshead
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.

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 hehad 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 attentions 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-
tentions 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 ho 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 ho 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 betweon
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 sho 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 age of sixty, al-
though he hoped he should in time attain that knowledge.
—(A laugh.) It was said that a young man married for
a mistress, a middle-aged one for a companion, and an
old man 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, 401.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Durham, July 29.

NISIPRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice Wuxisms

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. Tho 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. Ovington, to whom he alleged the tithes of his land
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
wore 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 wore 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
deseendants, 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 have
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 were disposed of in the
course of the day. The criminal business is expected to
be got through to-morrow.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, July 28.
CROWN COURT.
Charles Beardmore and Edward Bloor wero indicted
fora 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
OEI the high Mid from Burelen2 to Hanley, °beetled three