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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SMITH V. WOODFINE.-BREACH OF PROMISE.
The hearing of this case was resumed this morning.
It will be seen from our report of the proceedings on
Saturday, that the cross-examination of Mr. H. A.
Smith, the plaintiff's father, occupied the Court until it
rose. The firdt, witness called this morning was
Mr. Matthews, who deposed to the defendant's calling
on Mr. Smith, and that at the defendant's interview
with the plaintiff he overheard the defendant say to the
plaintiff that if "she would live in a house in the village,
be married in private, without any of her friends, be-
cause his mother could not forget the insult she bad
received, and consent that her father and none of her
friends or relations should cross his threshold aftar their

marriage,—if she would consent to that, his mother
would forgive her, and he would marry her." She re-
plied, "low can I after this," and the door was then
shut, the defendant saying, "There he is again," mean-
ing, he supposed, Mr. Smith. The plaintiff was as good
a temper as one could wish.

Cross-examined—ln the course of the conversation,
when defendant complained of his plaintiff's remark on

his mother's temper, he did not recollect if the defendan

also complained at the plaintiff saying " he was only
Miss Jones's leavings, that she did not care for him,

and that she would try and do her duty, and that was all
lie was to expnt." He had never heard that the Phil-
lipses were objected to by the plaintiff as being unfit to
associate with her friends, because they were trades-
people. He did riot recollect that defendant said to the
plaintiff, when he overheard the conversation, he
" wished them to be married privately after what had
occurred," and as to her refusal thin being a substantial
refusal, and marrying him was a matter of opinion.
At the interview between witness, defendant, and his
mother, at the latter's residence, he did not recollect that
defendant said "he had asked the plaintiff to give him
a kiss and make it up ;" and that she said, "Certainly
not, for after our marriage they will say I have only had
Miss Jones's leavings after all." (Laughter.) Witness
had never seen any reluctance on the plaintiff's part to
aff,rd the defendant that lover's privilege. (Renewed
laughter.)
A number of letters written by the defendant\to the
plaintiff were put in and read, in which the defendant
expressed his love and affection for the plaintiff, and the
impossibility of his ever being happy without her ; and
also the will of the defendant's father, giving the son a
joint interest in the brewery,
Tuis was the plaintiff's case.
As the defendant did, not intend to call witnesses,

Mr. Sergeant Bytes addressed the jury on the evidence,
contending he had made out his case, and characterised
the excuses of insults to the family as miserable subter-
fuges to break off the match, and added that if defen-
dant had been pressed further he (31. Sergeant Bytes)
had no doubt he would have raised as another excuse
for not fulfilling his promise, that he had not been in-
vited to the wedding breakfast. (Laughter.) The learned
gentleman humourously referred to the evidence, and
created much amusement by criticising the conduct of
the defendant and the interference of the mother, and
ridiculed her idens-of, propriety in objecting to her son,
with a share in the ii?evrery returning
,between 6,0001.-
and 7,0001. a-year, ta'eine; a house at 2001. per annum,
intead of one at 301.1per'annum. The last offer on the
part of the defendant was, he contended, the most dis-
graceful, in wishing to enforce terms on the plaintiff that
she could not,accept, viz., marriage with entle separa•
Lion from her father and relatives. It was clear the de-
fendant had broken his promise, and he had no doubt
r.the jury wt. uld mark their sense of his conduct by
Awarding the plaintiff substantial damages, a portion of
I..whieh his " ma" ought to pay.
The Attorney-General, for the defendant, addressed
the jury in mitigation of damages. There could be no
doubt that the defendant at one time was attached to
the plaintiff and intended to marry her, but when the
period arrived he felt some misapprehension as to the
results from what bad occurred, and being doubtful as
to the manner in which his relatives might be received
after marriage with the plaintiff—he being of humble
origin, the grandson of a carpenter—from the conscious
superiority over them of the plaintiff, the daughter of a
retired examiner of the Audit-office, he thought it better
to postpone the marriage until an explanation had taken
place. Had that been entertained by the plain-
tiff's friends no doubt the gossip of the village,
that the plaintiff and her family despised tradesmen,
and were disposed to look down on that class
of persons with indignity, would have been satis-
factorily explained. It often occurred that ladies
were of amiable temper when courting, but when it
came to a question of whose will shall carry the day,
then a little of female human nature peeped out,
and a man in a moment saw that he was about to take
to himself a yoke fellow, who would be disposed to exer-
cise a little more despotic power over him than would
be agreeable. Had the plaintiff been a warm hearted,
generous young woman, and have spoken to the defen-
dant in terms of concilliation and endearment, instead
of standing out as she had against the terms proposed
of a private marriage, in all probability the defendant
would have given way. Or if judicious friends bad na•
terpused, there could be no doubt that the foolish quar-
rel and the differences existing between them would have
been healed, and these parties by this time have been
man and wife, instead of in a court of justice in hostile
antagonism, as plaintiff and defendant. Under all the
circumotances of the case, the learned Attorney-
General contended the plaintiff had relieved the
defendant from his promise, or if not, that
had sufficient time been allowed between the last
quarrel and the father consulting an attorney (three
weeks after), a reconciliation would no doubt have taken
place between them, and the marriage consummated.
He condemned the conduct of the father and friends
of the plaintiff who, he said, did not appear to
have been actuated by any desire to uphold the
plaintiff's character, or from any regard for her
feelings, hut a desire to obtain money, or he would
have attempted a reconciliation instead of going to
an attorney, and have proceeded with undue and in-
delicate haste. In awarding damages, should they be of
opinion the defendant and not the plaintiff had broken
off the marriage by her injudicious conduct, as well es
that of her friends, he hoped they would not be misled
by the exaggerated statement of the defendant's pecu-
y
ni''rTyr eeP laieBuarr ntyl enrde.
tji judge
tEollincomnseiddeurp.their verdict, and after
being absent about half an hour, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages 3,000/.