The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-07 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Mr. Justice
Willes and a Special Jury.)
6211TH V. WOODFINE--BREACH OF FROMM OF
MARRIAGE,

This was an action brought to recover damages for a
preach ~f promi-e of marriage, and the defendant denied
the promi 4i- ; and that the plaintiff had not been always
red ly to tnarry•hiin ; and he also pleaded that a reason-
ible_time had nit elapsed for the performance of the
promise ; and that he had broken it by the leave and li-
cence of the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Byles Mr. M Smith, and Mr. Unthank
appeared for the plaintiff; and the Attorney-General
and Mr M. Chambers for the defendant.

Mr. SA•geant Byles said that he bad the honour to ap-
pear for Miss Margaret Smith, a, younz lady of amiable
temper.and pleasing manners, the daughter of a gentle-
man who was for a great many years in the Audit-office,
but who had retired three-or four years ago on a pension,
and he wai in
_addition possessed of some fortune, the
result of the judicious employment of some capital be
possessed, and of an ecanowical mode of living. ifebad
four daughters and a son ; and his wife having di-d,
retired to live with one .bis daughters, who had mar-
ried a medical gentleman named Matthews, and resided
in the vicinity of Hoinch'urch, near R%intord. In
the neighbourhood of Hornchurch . also lived the de-
fendant, who was a bre .'er-s-his father having tied
in 1853, and left the business to the defendant and
his mother. The brewery was a very thriving con-
cern, and was represented by the . defendant to be
' worth from ACC, to 70,0001; • or 80,000/. ; and in
addition to his interest in that business the defendant
was possessed of other property. He was a young mar,
32 or 33 years old, and the plaintiff 'was about 21 years
of age. The defendant visited it Mr. Matthewe'e house,
and there be saw the plaintiff ; and as early as June,
1855, he made known his
_intentions to her, but she re-
quired that those intentions should be communicated to'
her father, and-they were so communicated. • She •also
did what was natural and what was also highly proper
to be done on such occasions ; the defendant was compa-
ratively a stranger to her, and she took time to delibe-
rate on so important a step ; she wished for an oppor-
tunity to form a deliberate judgment how far such a
union would Contribute to their mutual happiness. Mat-,
tern went on without anything particular occurring until
abont.Christmas, 1855, when -it • was finally arranged
that the defendant should be the accepted suitor of the
plaintiff, and the day of the wedding wan fixed for the
3d of April. In order to show,upon what terms the
plaintiff and defendant were, he would read some pas-
sages from a correspondence, in which the defendant ad-
dressed • the plaintiff , in the most affectionate manner,
and these letters showed cleirly` enough what at that
time the defendant thought, and hoped, and belieled.
In August he aldressed Lor as " My dear Madge," and
Bahl, " Now absent, it affords me pleasure in writing to
you, in whom my happiness Dr reposed. You know,
dearest, without your society I cannot continue happy,
but I try to console myself with the pleasing thought
that we shall be united alter.a .favr., months have passed
over. ' Im another part of thitAtune letter he said "Your
doves are in the hew cage and arestaken great care of ;"
and he concluded by remaining her "ever-affectionate,
Thomas Wzodfine." A day or tiro after be said, "The
recollection of the happy- tinsel passed with you is pleas-
ing to me, and can never be forgotten ; fur ;sou, dearest,
possess my sincere love, and to.contribute te'yozr happi-
ness shall ever be .the study•of your ever affectionate and
fondly attached, Thomas Wondfioe." On the 21st De-
cember, he expresses himself thus:—".Having now ar-
rived at the close of this year, never to be forgotten
.by
me, I beg 'to express a hope that the succeeding one will
be as happy t. yot as it will t 4 ale ;" he was still

—" your ever affectionate " Oa the 28th Dec., he said
" I wish I could find words sufficient tbexpr-ss my fond
affection for you, but time will_ prove.' On the 9:-.11
Jan., " I was very much pleased at seeing you on Mon-
day la-t, but since I have really felt home to be more
dull than ever," and on the 23J, " You cannot conceive
htw dearly I love you, dearest, and with how much plea-
sure I look forward to our marriage, as I know how happy
I shall be at all times when blessed with your presence."
The marriage having been fixed for the 3,1 April, in the
meantime the gentleman went in search of a suitable re-
sidence for the plaintiff; and in January he took a place
called Hill-house, and he at.;) ordered a brougham and a
phaeton. On the 17th March, however, Mr. Smith, the
plaintiffs father, received this extraordinary letter, to
which he wished to call their attention, indicating, as he
thought it did, a vacillation and impropriety of conduct
perfectly inexcusable under such circumstances, when
the happiness and the very life of this young lady were
at stake. The letter was

"Dear Sir,—For various causes, the affair fixed for
the 3d of April must be postponed.—l remain, yours
faithfully, "THOMAS WOODFINE."
Nothing more than that. Inquiry was made as to the
reason of this, and the reason alleged was, that an af-
front had been offered to the defendant's family in not
sending an invitation to the wedding breakfast t 3 his
sister, Mrs. Thompson, 'who resided in London. The
fact, however, .was,_ that an invitation had actually
been sent to that lady, and no reason could be ascer-
tained why the letter should not have been delivered.
lle was told that -Abere was no intention to give any
. ffence, and eventually'-the matter ended in the de-
fendant expressing his -penitence for what he bad
.lone, and he took charge himself of the sec and
letter to Mrs. Thompson, in order that there should
i)e no mi,delivery again. The day for the wedding
was altered to the 17th April, and every preparation
was made for it ; but before the day arrived the defen-
dant began to harp 'upon the old-st4iyi There were
various pretexts ; but the principal ou'.was that Mrs.
Thompson had notreceived an invit4l*:_tbOtigh she had
in fact received the second invitation, 'answered
that Mr. and Mrs. Thompson could not piiSsibly come.
He also said that his mother didaot like the.yenrig lady;
and on the let April,. Miss Smith, . with a feniale--eorn-
panion,:.waited on Mrs; Woodfine, and askeW444her
she had done anything to offend her, and exprOkkher
sorrow if she had done so. She also asked wileihergr.
Woodfine was at home, and at first he was denieil;bnt
afterwards he came into the room with his slipPersinii',-,
'and appeared as though he bad been in the house all the'
time. On the next day 'Mr. Woodfine called
Smith, and requested to 'bee his daughter. The'nfd,
gentleman, after what had occurred, was not desiroua
that his daughter should be seen when he was not,
present, but the defendant contrived to get into
the room where she was, and locked the door after
him. He said to her, " I will marry you on this
condition, that your father," or else is was " None
of your relatives shall ever moss ray threshold."
He might as well have said to the young lady, " I will
marry you if you cutoff your right hand." She said,
"No, I cannot marry you on those conditions." On

- -
which he ran out of the house, saying, " She pays no ;
she says no." The consequence was that the- second
day fixed for the wedding went off as the .firef had
done, and no resource remained but to bring the ac
tion which was slow before them. It was an action
to which there was no solid defence, and the only ques-
tion would be to what damages this young lady was en-
titled for this causeless and most distressing conduct of
this gentleman.
Mr: Henry A. Smith, the p'aintiff's father, was
called, and said—l reside at Hernchurch, and' was for a
great many years in the Audit-office. My daughter 'yip-
-21 last July. The defendant told me that the brewery:
last year produced 6,000/. profit, and he also said he
had 16,0001. or 19,0001.. in the funds. The defendant
spoke to me in June, 1855, and said he had made pro-
posals of marriage to-nledaughter, and she preferred his
naming it to me. I told him my daughter ~estsuld have
Aso fortuee until I oied, and I also said Isliatild
wish to see bis mother on the sulject, and the defendant
asked what was the necessity of that ; was be not old
enough to jedge for himself ? He alluded to a former
engagement he had bad with a Miss Jones, and be entered
into some details esto the manner in which it was broken
off. I had an interview with his mother afterwards, and
old her what her son had said, and she offered no objec-
tion. After this the defendant continue I his attentions to
my daughter; and was received as her suitor. The de-
fendant looked out fora house for my daughter. He looked
at Mr. Wagner's, the best h;suse in the neighbourhood ;
hut Mr. Wagner would not give it up. Ultimately he took
Hill-house, and was tai give 2001. a year for it. Tee wed-
ding was fixeslieitisteld Alifi; and I wag to give a break-
- feWAfter the receipt of
,thnletter in March I sent Mr.
Matthews to the deferidant, and the answer was, "If I
had anything to say I-must go to him." I went with
Mr. Matthews, and saw him in the presence of his
mother. I asked him to explain the meaning
of his letter, and he'. said, " You have insulted my
family." I said, "In what manner?" and he raid, in not
having sent an invitation to Mrs. Thompson, his sister.
I told him that the letter hdli been sen', and he observed
that there were various modes of intercepting a letter on
its road. I reminded hiM that he had promised to
take a letter and explain the circumstances. He then said,
" You have insulted my mother ; you never sent her a
letter of invitation." Mr. Matthews observed that, if we
had sent her a letter of invitation, living, as she did,
in the same village, they might have taken it as an in-
sult, and that when he was married he had not sent an in-
vitation to his mother. He then said, " Mr. Smith
eased me of wanting Us serve her as I served Miss Jones:"
I said, "Mr.Woodfine, do you want to break off the Mar-
riege r - He said, " I. do not say so—it must be post-
poned." Mrs. Woodfine observed, " Your daughter
cannot love my son, for she has allowed him to take a
house at Uptninster, and to be so far from the brewery."
Mr. Woodfine said immediately; "Os ! mother, mother,
that has nothing to do with it." The house which hart
been taken was about a mile from the brewery. I said.l
thought Mrs. Woodfine did not like my daughter, and
her reply was, " I certainly do not like your daughter;"
that she was extravagant and bad tempered. She said
there were plenty of other houses, and referred to one
occupied now by Mr. Denbigh, and let at 301. a year. I
again adverted to the letter that we had sent to Mrs
Thompson, and I said, " Perhaps by this time they may
nave received the )etier." He rose up and attempted to
ring the bell, and raid, " Oh? if you deubt my word,"
and he, in fact, ordered us out of the house. After that
Mr. Woodfine renewed his visits to our house. I -aw him
on the 24th of March. H-i shook bands with me, and apo-
logised for his conduct. He said he was sorry for having
been ro hasty ; if he at any time did wrong he wished to
apologise for it. After the 24th of March Mr. Woodfine
called as usual. Ou the 2d April he came through the sur-
gery into the dining room where I waesitting. Mr. Mat-
thews let him into the roam, and he asked if he could see
my daingh ter. I said " No; she.is tieweß, end sufferiegfrom
the tills tmetif shk had .reCtved frein 4ourtiflalfer:" and
yourself." He said "It is a pa'try excuse ; it ia-an in
famous lie." I t Id him I wax at a loss to understand
what he meant by his vacillating cooduc• ; one day c
log down to apologise for what he ha I said the day pre-
vious, and another day allowing his m-other to insult my
daughters, and standing by whilst they were insulted. I
told him I was quite at a loss to know what he meant—
did he mean to break off the marriage ? He said, " You
ire a fool, you are a liar, you are a placeman and a
clerk"— (a laugh)---and'he shook his fist at me. I told
him I should be ashamed to revert to what his father or
his grandfather had been ; and there I was wrong, per
haps. fie said be wished to see my daughter,
and I sent up for het', and, before my daugh-
ter, asked him to speak up like a man ; and I raid,
" Do yiu wish to break off the engagement—you are
trying to force my daughter to do so." He said he wa,.teo
to see her alone, and I would .not let him, He said, " I
-oust appoint a meeting with Mi-s Smith," and out we
both went—Mr. Woodfine going before me through the
surgery, and I after him. All of a stidden he slipped
round, went back to my daughter, and locked me in the
urgery. (Laughter.) He locked himself up in the room
with my daughter. I did not hear what psfped between
then). He came out with my datighter, and his words
.vere "Do you agree to my proposal ?" My daughter
. aid, " Ns, never on those cenditions."_ He then left
,he house, saying, "She saya no'—she says no." I
said, "My good fellow, she does not say no,' " and he
-aid, "Yon are a liar," and that is the last time I have
spoken to him.
The cross-examination of this witness was concluded
•siortly before s•o'cloclF, and too case was adjourned un:
til Monday. • -

ROLLS COURT.
BALDWIN V. BA42DWIN.

This .was a suit to take the opinion of the Court whe-
ther a specific bequest toa charitable use, under the will
of William Baldwin, of Sedgley and •Bilston, near Wol•
verhampton, had been revoked by a codicil to the said
will. The will was executed on.the 25th of .May, 1854,
whereby the testator gave 4,000/. to his t,istees
provide, stipends .and annuities for old, perons of
aboth
sexes, not exceeding nine in number, who through mis
fortune had become indigent, and were worthy object
of charily. The trustees were to be empowered to sele, t
the parties, with a preference-for the testator's family
servants, should they require aid in their old age, and
to devrse rules for the conduct of the almshouses. 10
three weeks after the testator made a codicil to this will,
confirming all other'becinests to his sister and brother,
but revoking the bequest to the purposes of hie intendA
charity and the pro.viding the inmates thereof with sti-
.pends and annuities for their support. This codicil was
dated 19. days after the will, and the property, upon
probate of the will on testator's decease, was found to be
fully adequate to, all' the objects contemplated by the
testator. The defendant, Martin Baldwin, now con.
tended.that the charitable bequest bad been revoked by
the codicil.

Mr. R. Palmer, Mr. Wicking, Mr. Bird, and Mr.
Druce were in the case.
The Master of the Rolls gave judgment, oberving
that the words of the codicil were sufficiently, explicit to
convey the intention of the testator to revoke the legacy
to the charitable object, and the intention of the testa•
tor so clearly expressed must be carried out.