The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-27 00:00:00

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

The Chief Justice said the Court had determined
that the issues in divorce causes which were set
down for trial by jury should be tried before the
Judge Ordinary, or some other member of the
Court. The issues would then be brought into the
full Court, which would decide upon the cases.
. The Court then rose. No day was fixed for its
sitting.
To-morrow (this day) the Judge Ordinary
proceed with the case of "Marchmont v.
out."
wilMarch
m

BAIL COURT.
CORBUT V. WEMYSS-BREACH OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.
_ _ _

Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Field were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Overend and Mr. Cleasby for the
defendant,

The declaration was drawn in the usual form, and
the defendant pleaded--lst, that he did not agree
to marry the plaintiff; 2d, that a reasonable time
had not elapsed to enable him to fulfil his engage-
ment ; 3d, that the plaintiff was not willing and
ready to marry the defendant; and 4th, that the
plaintiff had exonerated the defendant from his
promise.
Mr. Macaulay, in stating the case, said the plain-
tiff was 26 years of age, and was at the time of the
promise alleged in the service of Lady Elizabeth
Stanhope, the wife of Mr. John Spencer Stanhope,
of Cannon Hall, near Barnsley, in Yorkshire, as
lady's maid ; and that the defendant, Charles
Wemyss, was engaged in the employment of the
same gentleman in the capacity of land steward.
So far back as the year 1853 the defendant, having
become on somewhat intimate terms with the plain-
tiff, commenced a correspondence with her on the
occasion of her journeying_ with the family up to
London for the season. The early letters of the
defendant were written in a light, trifling tone,
and in the first of them he expressed a desire that
the plaintiff would correspond with him. The
plaintiff, he might tell the jury, was a native of
Wales, and for that reason she always went by the
name of " Taffy"—(a laugh)—amongst her fellow-
servants. Hence it was that throughout the cor-
respondence defendant addressed the plaintiff as
his "gear Taffy." It was not until the defendant
had written to the plaintiff twice that he was gra-
tified by receiving a letter from her in return, but
from that time, 'which was early in May, 1853,
down to the defendant's letter, marked 40, and
of date the 9th of June, in the year 1857,
when the defendant distinctly told the plaintiff
that he would rather be ".hanged" than marry
her, the communications between the parties
were uninterrupted, and were of the most ami-
cable description. It was .true the letters of
the defendant were not of a very high-flowing
character,-the correspondence was not, perhaps, as
warm and as thrilling as that of lovers sometimes
was ; but he thought, when placed before the jury,
it would leavano doubt whatever upon their minds
that the defendant hadengaged to marry the plain-
tiff. The learned gentleman then read copious ex-
tracts from a most voluminous correspondence on
the part of the defelndant, showing that it was clear
he stood engaged to marry the plaintiff. In the
autumn of '54 Lady Elizabeth Stanhope, feeling
annoyed at the'' reports that were going about the
plaintiff and defendant, sent for the defendant, and,
telling him what .was afloat about him, questioned-
him as-to his intentions 'with-respect to the plain-
tiff. The defendant, however, quite set at rest all
her ladyship's anxieties by declaring that his in -
tentions towards the plaintiff were perfectly honour-
able. In fact, nothing could be more respectable and
aboveboard than the whole proceeding. 'The mar-.
riage was obviously for the advantage of the young
lady, for the defendant occupied a most respectable
position, and-besides emoluments derived from a
business of his own, he would ultimately have £3OO
a-year as land steward at Cannon Hall. The plain-
tiff, on the other hand, was a young lady of most
agreeable manners, wars -very well educated, and
W IS, thoroughly acquainted with the duties of the
mistress of a household. Well, the correspondence
continued in the same strain through 1855 and
1856, and in the autumn of the latter year, on the
occasion of certain festivities at the hall, defendant
gave plaintiff a ring in token of the event that was
about to take place between them. In the month of
Nov. it was arranged that the;marriage should soon
take place, and in consequence of the departure of
the family from the hall in the course of that month
it was permitted the plaintiff to remain behind.
The day named for the marriage was Jan. 17,1857,
but as that day approached the defendant began
to make excusys, and desired to postpone the fulfil-
ment of his promise on the pretence that he
was desirous of not being married so imme-
diately, and then that he would much rather
be married privately, But it was now that the plaiit-
tiff was guilty of the only indiscretion with which
she could be charged throughout the whole proceed-
ing, for, unfortunately, she was persuaded by the
defendant to leave the hall and go to Sheffield
without . the permission of her mistress, in order
that they might bsa married. However, the plain-
tiff remamednt Sheffield only a few days, and re-
turned to the hall. On her return Lady Elizabeth,
feeling displeased at the plaintiff's absence in Shef-
field, questioned her on the subject, when the
plaintiff revealed its exact cause, which being made
known, the displeasure of Lady Elizabeth was re-
moved. That little interruption being got over,
it was then finally determined that the marriage
should take place upon the 9th March ; and accord-
ingly before that day the plaintiff left the service
at Cannon Hall. However, the defendant again
evincing signs of breaking through his engage-
ment, the plaintiff communicated with her uncle
and with her mother, who at once entered into a
correspondence with the defendant. In his letters
to the plaintiff's mother defendant declared the
reason for not completing his engagement imme-
diately was that his uncle; Mr. Potts, the former
land steward, declined sharing his home with the
defendant. To that the plaintiff's mother replied,
that until the defendant had a home of his own,
they (meaning the plaintiff and defendant) could
live with her. And so the correspondence con-
, tinued down to the letter of 9th June, which had
been already referred to, and in which the defend-
ant declared, he would rather be "hanged than ful-
fil his engagement with the plaintiff." For the
conduct of the defendant there was no possible
ground of excuse ; indeed, the only reason alleged
by the defendant himself in vindication of the
heartless course he had pursued towards the plain-
tiff was, that his mother did not altogether approve
of the plaintiff, 'aria that~ he could' not forsake hia
mother in her old age and declining health. It was
then for the jury to give the plaintiff a fair and
liberal compensation for the loss of an advantageous
marriage. But she was further entitled to a liberal
compensation at their hands in respect of the injury
done to her feelings and to her prospects in life, by
reason of the defendantimving engrossed her affec-
tions during six years of the best part of, her life
—affections which 'he now heartlessly spurned.
, Mr. John Spence Stanhope, examined by Mr.
Macaulay—The plaintiff came into my service in
1852. The defendant was originally clerk to his
uncle, my steward, but he afterwards succeeded his
uncle. He received a salary of £lOO a year, and.
was not allowed his expenses. 'He lived at first in
his uncle's house, but afterwards removed to his
mother's. He had some conversation with the de=
fendant respecting the marriage. That was either
in November or March, 1857. He remarked then
to the defendant that he supposed he ought to con-
gratulate him upon his marriage, when defendant
said, " He supposed' so." Plaintiff left witness's ser-
vice in March, 1857, Defendant was still in' his
servio

Cross-examined by Mr. Overend—lt was in May,
1852, that defendant first came into his service. It
was before that he hid acted as clerk to his uncle,
and he lodged with Lis uncle, who had a small cot.:
tage in the park, besides a salary of £l5O a year.
It was to check his going to Wakefield and to the
other adjoining towns 100 frequently that his ex-
penses of going and coming thence were to be borne
by the defendant., Witness considered himself
entitled to the whole of defendant's time. Did not
recollect the exact expressions used at the interview
he had had with the defendant relative to the
marriage. He certainly. advised defendant not to
get married, as he had no home to take his wife to.
Lady Elizabeth Stanhope, examined by Mr. Ma-
caulay—Plaintiff came into my service in 1852. In
the summer of 1854 she took occasion to speak to
plaintiff on the subject of her acquaintanceship
with Wemyss, and then, in consequence of the
rumours that reached her with reference to the
courtship of the parties', she-considered it necessary
to have an interview with Wemyss on the subject ;
but very little passed between them. -However, she
(the witness) said with the marriage she never
had, nor ever could hai,e, anjthing to do, and that.