The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-29 00:00:00

Those pleasures are past, yes, for awhile they are gone,
lit t a day wit arrive with a far brighter morn ;
The tAir btu:wows of joy and of sunshine will come
To illumine our path and gladden our home.
Then dream of me dearest, be constant for ever,
I ne'er will forget thee—forsake thee—no, never,
But still hope for the day when thou shalt be by my aide
Wander forth along with me, 'my own bonnie bride;'
My companion in joy and the star of my life,
My angel on earth, and my own pretty wife.
" I should like to be near you. my love, while you are
reading the above lines, as I fancy that I should have one
of your loving slaps on the head.
"Affectionately your own dear
" Tilomns."
" Jane 5, 1845.
"My dear Miss Lizzy,—What a very pretty opinion you
must have of my poetic powers to ask me where I met with
those lines I sent you in my last. Is it possible that yon
shculd have known me for so long a time and never yet dis-
covered that l had the bump of poetry very largely deve-
loped? Next time, Miss, I favour you with my poetic effu-
sions, I beg you will not look upon them as secondhand.
However, my dear girl, I am glad you liked them, and hope
that soon

" A day will arise with a far brighter morn
To illumine our path and gladden our home.
" Always your dear
" TiaoliAs."

In many of the letters the defendant spoke in the most
disrespectful terms cf his father, and urged the plaintiff to
consent to a clandestine marriage. He also wished her to
write to her father, and say that the matter was all off. She
however refused to adopt either of these plans. lie thep
wrote to her, stating that in consequence of his father's de-
termination the matter must be braken off.
The following witnesses wore also called :
Mary Bodilly- I ant sister of the plaintiff. In 1840
we resided uith our father, who is a eazier, a.
Penzance. My sister is now twenty-eight years old.
The defendant was introduced to us in the au-
tumn of 1840 at a water party. The defendant walked
home with my sister, and afterwards became a frequent
visitor at the house, and made my sister numerous presents.
He was an apprentice to a grocer. He was a little older
than my sister. He spoke of his father, who was editor of
the West Briton. He said his father was opposed to it, bat
he would marry her in spite of his father. My sister in the
beginning was reluctant to the match. He said he had a
fortune independent of his father-1,0001. He continued to
visit my sister. In 1842 I saw a letter from his father to
my father, which my sister opened. She then sent for the
defendant, who read the letter, and dictated an answer,
which my father wrote. The defendant took that letter to
the Post-office. In 1842 my mother died and the defendant
attended the funeral. The defendant gave me a Bible, in
which he wrote my name. In July, 1842, defendant
went to Truro for two months. He then wished to
marry, and told me he had sent for a licence, but could
not get it because he had not resided there a fortnight.
I saw them read the marriage service together. He was
going to a situation, and he said on his return he
would marry her in spite of any one. He made my sister
many presents, and among them a miniature of himself. My
sister went to Truro in 1845 to stay with Mrs. Rutter, who
kept an inn there. My sister, on the receipt of a letter in
1846, was very much affected. She had spasms in her aide.
She had previously enjoyed good health, but after that time
she had an alarming illness. Daring that illness I opened
letters from the defendant, which I destroyed. An anony.
MOll3 letter was received which I believe was in the hand-
writing of the defendont. It described his bad conduct, and
stated that the writer pitied Miss Bodilly in having such a
man. She was always ready to marry the defendant.
Cross-examined--I put that letter in the fire. I put those
letters in the fire that were not very comfortable. The plain-
tiff said he did not mind his father. (The witness under-
went a long and very rigid cross-examination until she began
to refuse to answer questions, saying she had already said
enough.)
Re-examined—l did not show the letters to my sister, be.
cause I thought they would make her worse.
Louisa Hoskin—l have long known the plaintiff, and knew
of the engagement between the plaintiff and defendant. In
July, 1845, I was at Truro. I then saw the defendant; he
was furnishing his house and shop. He asked me to walk
up-stairs. I remarked they were nice rooms. He said one
was intended for Elizabeth (the plaintiff) and himself, and
the other fur the boy (meaning their family). The plaintiff
has suffered much, and is much altered. The defendant has
told me that he had written to the plaintiff to break off all
Icorrespondence, but she would not take the hint.
George Daniel—The defendant keeps a grocer's shop in
the chief street of Truro. It is a tidy shop. He has married
a Miss Gill, who is pretty well for a fortune.
For the defence it was urged that the only object of this
action was to annoy the family of the defendant. The
match had been broken off in 1847, and yet this action was
not brought till 1850. It was clear it was to do what was
called "show him up." The love letters were put in to
cause a laugh and expose the defendant. The defendant,
however, would not be provoked to produce the lady's
answers. That the defendant had broken the engagement
there could be no doubt, and, therefore, the only question
was the amount of damages to be awarded for the breach
of the promise. The defendant, no doubt, for a considerable
time fully intended marrying the plaintiff, but looking at
his circumstances, it was evident it was a rash intention, and
it was more fortunate for the plaintiff that the marriage had
not taken place. There were reasons which could not be
explained why the defendant broke off the match, but it
had no reference to any impropriety on the part of the
plaintiff, against her character not a word was to be said.
The question was what the plaintiff was entitled to receive?
The jury must look at the position of the parties. Had they
married in 1842 the defendant would have been entirely
ruined, and the plaintiff most likely completely miserable.
People could not live upon love. It would have been perfect
madness for them to have married with such a determined
opposition on the part of the defendant's father.
Mr. Baron MARTIN then summed up, exonerating the
plaintiff from all blame, and stating that in his opinion she
had acted with great propriety and modesty.
The jury, having retired for a short time, gave a verdict
for the plaintiff, with 1301. damages.