The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-28 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 27.

JOHNSON V. WILSON.
This was an action brought to recover damages for an
injury the plaintiff had sustained owing to the negligent
drivitr, of the groom of the defendant, a respectable wine
merchant,6 residing in Drury-lane. It has twice before been
tried ; once, when no Counsel appeared to defend, and an-
other time when the Jury, after having been locked up
until twelve at night, would come to no conclusion, and
were discharged. The plaintiff was a poor widow woman.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 50/.

BREACH OF PROMISR OF MARRIAGE.-PtILLEN V. TINSLEY.

Mr. Sergeant SPA NKIE stated that this was an action
brought by the plaintiff, Miss Rosina Pullen, the daughter
of a respectable attorney in Basinghall-street, to recover
damages for a breach of promise of marriage. The inti-
macy between the parties commenced as long ago as in
1825, when the lady was of the age of 22, and the defendant
only 19, upon his coming to London to endeavour to get
articled, when he was introduced to Mr. Pullen. A brother
of the defendant, of the name of Henry, had formerly been
on equal good terms with the plaintiff, but from some cir-
cumstance had absented himself. It was just on his doing so
that the defendant presented himself on his arrival in town.
'The plaintiff, finding herself in very great distress and ill
health from the conduct of Henry Tinsley, loft London to
visit her relations at Wisbeach, in Lincolnshire, where she
was accompanied by the defendant, who had relatives in
that neighbourhood. On his return soon after to town, a
long correspondence took place between them, which was
continued until 1826. His letters were extremely long,
some of them as many as six or eight brief sheets in length,
in which he addressed her in a most tender way, saying in
one, " that the God of our father may ever bless you will
be the heartfelt wish of yours ever, Charles," and in all of
them addressing her very affectionately and familiarly ;
many of them also containing an account of his adventures
and pleasures, talking of theatricals, and offering a disserta-
tion upon a play of My Uncle Toby, at the Surrey
Theatre, in which he complains that Corporal Trim was
not introduced, which was as bad as leaving out Romeo in
the play of Romeo and Juliet, and introducing the candle-
snuffer. In October, 1829, the lady having returned
to her father's house on the Ist, the defendant called
and had a conversation with the mother, in which he
stated that he had been for a long time corresponding with
her daughter secretly ; that he was greatly attached to
her ; and it was his wish that she should enter into
an agreement to let him marry her at the expiration of his
articles. She objected at first to it, stating that it was so
long a time for her daughter to wait, and she was extremely
angry with the daughter for having corresponded, but that
as she was agreeable she had no objection. The father
also had a conversation to the same effect with the defend-
ant, in which he stated that he had made a verbal engage-
ment to marry her, which it was agreed should be kept se-
cret, giving as a reason for it, that some people might sup-
pose it was his wish to supplant his brother in the affections
of the plaintiff, and stating that he had 1,500/. to receive
from his father. On August 1, 1833, the defendant mar-
ried a lady of the name of Turner, at St. Marylebone
Church. The father hearing a report of it called upon him
at the office of his employer, Mr. Pyne, Duke-street, St.
James's, and asked him as to the truth of it. The defend-
ant at once admitted it was the fact, saying that he was
forced into it—that he could not help himself—and upon
being threatened with an action, declared the plaintiff could
not maintain an action for a breach of promise as it wl;t1
only a verbal one.
The father, mother, sister, and brother of the plaintiff

were called to prove these facts, and the defendant's letters
were read which took up much time.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, on the part of the defendant, was
sorry, as a principle of law, be could not agree in what the
defendant was reported to have said, that he had only given
a verbal promise. In all matters of contract in commercial
life it was by the policy of the lavenecessary to have written
ones ; but in this, the most important of all, it was not ;
but he contended that on the present occasion there was no
promise ever given. He trusted the Jury would not con-
sign a young man just commencing life in respectability to
a gaol, with a young wife dependent upon him, whom he
had married without a farthing, and that even if he bad the
costs against him it would be his ruin.—[The letters of the
plaintiff to the defendant were then read.]
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
one farthing.
The cause lasted till ten o'clock at night.