The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, AUG. 24.
(Before Mr. Baron Wilde.)
KERFOOT V. MARSDEN.
This was an action for breach of promise of mar-

nage:
Mr. Monk, Q.C.,:,Mr. Milward, and Mr. Fitz-
Adam appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Overend,
Q.C., and Mr. Chas. Newton for the defendant.
It appeared from the statement of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff, and from the evidence of
Mrs. Kerfoot, the mother of the plaintiff, that her
husband is a farmer in Upholland, and that the
plaintiff is her eldest daughter and 24 years of age.
The defendant is a boltmaker at Orrell, where his
ironworks are, and where he employs a number of
men. The two families had been acquainted for
20 years. The defendant is about 30 years of age,
and about two years ago began to pay his addresses
to the plaintiff. On one occasion he asked permis-
sion of the plaintiff's mother to permit the plaintiff
to go to Liverpool with him, to see the circus and
stay with an old lady, a friend of his. Her mother,
after much persuasion, allowed her to go, and they
returned next day. Tho defendant also got the
plaintiff's likeness taken as a photograph. Aftir-
wards the plaintiff was discovered -to be iu the
family way, and her mother asked the defendant
what there was to prevent him and her daughter
making things comfortable, seeing the way she
was in ? He said it was a misfortune between
them; it did not suit him to be married just then ;
they would be married in the following February.
This was in October. The plaintiff was near her
confinement, and the defendant said he would give
her £2O to go away with him to Freston during
her confinement, but her mother declined. In No-
vember the plaintiff gave birth to a child, and alter
its birth the defendant brought the plaintiff wine,
and nursed and appeared fond of the child. Her
daughter was now a dressmaker in Wigan. Mary
Kerfoot, the sister of the plaintiff, gave similar evi-
dence, and proved that the defendant promised to
marry the plaintiff, if the matter were kept quiet
from his father, as soon as he got settled. He how-
ever cooled afterwards in his attentions, and the
defendant was communicated with by the plaintiff's
attorney. The defendant, through his attorney,
offered to give £lOO to the support of his child,
without saying anything about marriage ; this offer
was refused, and subsequently the defendant said
that he had made up his mind to marry the plain-
tiff. It was proved that the defendant was in good
circumstances, and that he carried on works em-
ploying 20 or 30 men. After this communication
from the defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant's
attentions were not renewed, and the next that was
heard of him, a few months after, was that he had
married another woman.
The learned counsel for the defendant cast no
imputations whatever on the plaintiff. She had
most imprudently been permitted to go with him
to Liverpool and remain away all night, and the
consequences had been what might have been an-
ticipated,—she had become pregnant. But up to
that time there had been no promise of marriage,
and the promise that was made was only made af-
terwards under pressure from the plaintiff's attor-
ney, and the defendant might have well thought
that a promise so made was not, if carried out, likely
to lead to a happy result.
His lordship, in summing up the facts to the
jury, left it to them to consider whether at the
time he made the promise to the plaintiff's attor-
ney the defendant was not paying attentions to the
lady he afterwards married, and, if so, whether the
promise then made was not made with the inten-
tion merely of putting off the plaintiff till after
his marriage, and to prevent an inconvenient ex-
posure at that time. In estimating the damages,
the jury must consider not only what the plaintiff
had lost in losing a union with the defendant, con-
sidering his position, but also the injury she had
received by having been seduced, possibly under the
promise of marriage, and by having had a child.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff--
Damages, 1500.
STEWART T. THORNLEY.
This was an action brought against the defen-
dant for having, as attorney for the plaintiff, and
in that character, without her assent, compro-
mised an action for an assault for £7.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had as-
sented.
Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Deighton appeared
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Brett (with precedence
in the County Palatine) for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff was in the position
of an " unfortunate woman," and went into the bar
of a public-house in Lime-street, Liverpool, and it
was alleged, being the worse for drink, she created
some disturbance, which led the barman, named
Goodman, to attempt to turn her out. In doing this
he violently kicked her on the thick part of the
thigh, and she appealed to the persons present
who had been witnesses of the assault, to give her
their cards and be her witnesses. The defendant
was one of the persons present and gave her his
card, informing her that he was an attorney ; and
he subsequently went home with her in a cab and
the plaintiff showed to him the place where she had
been kicked. The defendant subsequently brought
an action for the plaintiff as her attorney, in the
Liverpool Court of Passage, in which he was the
principal witness of the assault, and also of the
in-
jury it had inflicted on the plaintiff, the kick having
burst a varicose vein. On delivering the brief for
the plaintiff to counsel in the Passage Court the
defendant was strongly advised to settle the action,
as the circumstances attending it reflected little
credit on himself. The defendant accordingly at-
tempted to settle the action, and the then defendant
Goodman agreed to give £5 damages and £2 costs,
which the present defendant, as attorney for the
plaintiff, accepted, as he alleged, by the direction
and request of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the
plaintiff stated that she had distinctly refused to
settle the action for £7, and when she heard that it
was settled it appeared she flew into a violent rage
about it. The question raised in the present action
was whether the defendant in settling the action
did so without the plaintiff's authority as alleged.
His lordship, having summed up the evidence on
this issue, directed the jury that if they found for
the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to be placed
in the same position as she would have been in the
first action, and to recover such compensation as she
would then have been entitled to, together with
damages for the inconvenience and trouble she had
been put to by reason of the defendant having acted
as he had done without her authority.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages, £4O.
The causes have been disposed of at a great rate
to-day in the two courts, and it is expected that the
cause list will be got through to-night.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BRISTOL, AUG. 24.
TAYLOR V. POOLE.
Mr. Baron Chann ell commenced his summing up
in this case at 10 minutes past four in the afternoon
and finished at half-past eight.
The jury retired, and after having been absent
some time, they came into court and stated that
they could not agree, and that there was no proba-
bility of their doing so.
The learned Judge said he would give them till
12 o'clock to discuss the matter before he locked
them up for the night, and he would then come
down to the court and receive their verdict if they
ware prepared to give it ; and if they should not
then have agreed, he would determine what should
be done. Accordingly, the jury again retired, and
the Judge left the court.
At 12 o'clock his lordship returned, and the jury
were sent for. They stated they could not agree,
and there was no chance of their doing so.
The Judge said then they must be locked up,
but he would come down at any early hour the
jury would fix.
One of the jury said he was so ill that he feared
the consequences might be very serious if he should
be compelled to remain all night. He had been
extremely ill all the week.
The Judge said the case was one of the gof
possible importance to: the parties, and it ,a
great consequence to them that a verdict shown
uld
ou
'll wo
given, but as tone of the jurors was so
one en-
the perties consent to the discharge of that greatest
tleman ?
Both parties said they would consent to that
course.
The jury said they had now not
meat: since one o'clock in the Limean d thn.y ey had not
ad a
dined for for four days during the the trial had
lasted.
jury
The parties said they would consent to the
having refreshment.
The jury sedd whatever coarse might 'be taken
there was not the slightest chance of their coming
to an agreement, and after they had been locked
up all nigh t, no better result would be arrived at.
The Ina ge then asked if the parties would con-
sent to tho jury being at once discharged.
The def(3ndants said they would.
The Judge said he understood that Mr. Pr"
deau3S
was in. the town, and
better go and consult him
then that
About :three-quarters Of an hour elapsed, and
the plaintiff's attorney had
that he 811 ola u not object to .lthe 'ury being dis-
;Plaintiff's attorney returned, apse stated
charged.
The lean ied Judge then told the jury they were
dischared. , and their conntenancet very consider-
ably bright ened as they left the cos trt. Four
i days
have been completely thrown aw ay, and an m-
mense exst. use uselessly incurred.
Mr. Justi, ce Keating arrived yest Irday afternoon
I to relieve ti
he learned Baron, as t here was still a
common jun
7 cause to be tried.