The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-04 00:00:00

SPIRITS.

Mr. LAING moved " That the house resolve into a com-
mittee of the whole house, to move for leave to bring in a
bill to reduce into one Act and to amend the Excise regu-
lations relating to the distilling, rectifying, and dealing in
spirits."

The house accordingly resolved itself into committee,
leave was given, and the bill brought in.

The other business on the paper having been disposed of,
the house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—May 3.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. ,
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr,
Baron Channell and a Common Jury.)

DOVER v. RICIIARDSON.-BREACII OF PROMISE AND
SEDUCTION.

This was an action to recover compensation for a
breach of promise of marriage. The defendant
pleaded that he did not promise as alleged.
Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. R. Scott were coun-
sel for the plaintiff; Mr. Price appeared for the de-
fendant.
Mr. E. James, in stating the case to the jury,
said it was an action to recover damages under
painful and distressing circumstances, The plaintiff
was the daughter of a very respectable tradesman
—a currier and leather-seller, who carried on busi-
ness before his death at Temple Sowerby, in West-
moreland, and the defendant was a farmer of the
same neighbourhood, but he had left for New Zea-
land. He was, however, a person of considerable
property, and was capable of making recompense
so far as money was concerned. The plaintiff was
about 16 years of age when she was introduced to
the defendant at a ball in the neighbourhood in the
latter part of 1854. The defendant, who is now
about 27 years of age, became enamoured of her,
paid his attentions to her, and was accepted as her
suitor. In 1859 the defendant was sent by his
friends to study at the Cirencester Agricultural
College, and during his stay there he corresponded
with the plaintiff in the most affectionate terms. It
turned out that the defendant had taken advantage
of the confidence reposed in him, and had seduced
the plaintiff, who was confined on the 14th of last
April. Instead of making her his wife, as he ought
to have done, he had left the country for New Zea-
land, leaving to the plaintiff the necessity of coming
into a court of law to enforce pecuniary compensa-
tion. His conditct had been most heartless and
cruel. He had ruined the plaintiff, deprived her
of the society and companionship of her friends,
and had left her in a helpless condition, with the
finger of scorn pointed at her, to maintain het-
sel and child. It was a case in which he
hoped they would give substantial damages. The
learned counsel then called the following wit-
nesses :
Annie Dover deposed—l am sister of the plain-
tiff, and reside with my mother at Temple Sowerby.
My father was a currier and leather merchant there.
He died about seven or eight years ago. My mother
carried on the business till about two years since,
when my brother took it, and is now carrying it on.
I know the defendant. His parents live at Cul-
gaith, about two miles from Temple Sowerby. The
defendant was in the habit of frequently visiting
my sister at my mother's house. He has visited
there about three years. He paid marked atten-
tion to my sister, and he was received by the family
as engaged to my sister. I have seen them together
at friends' houses. The defendant left Culgaith
about a year ago to go to the Agricultural College,
at Cirencester. He returned in August last year for
the holidays, and visited my sister at my mother's
house. My sister is now about 21 years of age.
The defendant is about five years older. Great pre-
parations were made for my sister's marriage, such
as wearing apparel and articles of domestic use.
Cross-examined—My mother is alive. Ido not
know the defendant's mother to speak to her. My
sister was never introduced to his mother. My
married sister lives apart from her husband with
my mother and the family. The defendant visited
my sister at various times, sometimes in the day-
time and at others in the evening. The defendant
and my sister were often left sitting up after the
family had retired to rest. I think my mother gave
instructions for this action. I have never heard my
sister say she would have no action brought, and
would have nothing to do with it. I have never
heard her say she did not wish any inquiry to take
place, or anything of that kind.
Re-examined—l cannot say if they sat up till a
late hour. My sister was confined of a girl on the
14th of April last. My mother is in attendance on
her.

Mrs. Elizabeth Ward deposed—l am sister of the
plaintiff. I do not live with my husband from
difficulties into which he has got. That has left
me without support, and I am 'living with my
mother. I lived with my mother in 1859. The
defendant was then in the habit of visiting my
sister as her future husband. Preparations in dress
and domestic articles were made by the plaintiff out
of her own pocket money. My sister was confined
on the 14th of April. The infant is alive. The de-
fendant returned from the college at the end of
last year. He called and saw my sister twice. I
saw no alteration in his manner towards the plain-
tiff. Her appearance at that time was very guarded,
and I don't think it was perceptible. We had ob-
served her state before the end of the year, and
came to the opinion that she was in the family way.
I can't say that she ever told us she was so. I don't
think I have seen the defendant present when she
was preparing her dresses.
Cross-examined—It was various under garments,
such as petticoats.
Mr. Price—Any crinoline ? (Laughter.)
Witness--I can't say.
The Judge—lt is to be got so cheap in London
that I should not think it was worth the trouble of
making. (Renewed laughter.)
Witness—No house was taken for them to live
in. My mother's sister was engaged to attend upon
the plaintiff during her confinement.
Mr. Joseph Hutchinson deposed-1 am a miller,
residing at Acorn Bank Mill, Temple Sowerby. I
have known the plaintiff and her family for some
years. Her father was in a large way of business,
and he moved in a respectable sphere. I know the
defendant and his mother. They are persons of pro-
perty. In June, 1859, the defendant was at my
house. I had observed that he paid attentions to the
plaintiff. I said to him on one occasion as we were
walking along, " William, I hope your intentions
are. pure with regard to Miss Dover ;" he said,
" They arc, and I intend to make her my wife." In
consequence of what 1 had heard from the family I
saw him on the 10th of March last. It was notorious
then that she was in the family way ; her mother
requested me to see defendant. I told him he must
be perfectly aware what I called to see him about.
He said he was not. I said " You are perfectly

aware of Miss Dover's state." He replied, " I am—
I am very sorry for it." I expressed io him that " I
hoped he would Make her amends." He said he was
very sorry he was not prepared to carry out the
engagement, as he was going to leave for New Zea-
land. i said, "I am very sorry to hear it," and he
replied that he was extremely sorry that it had
come to that, and that he could not carry out. the
engagement. I told him he was possessed of suffi•
eient means to keep a wife in a respectable manner,
as I understood he was left £2,000 by his father.
He said that was not the case. I last saw him about
a month ago. He has left hiii residence.
Cross-examined-1 did not tell Mrs. Ward that
the defendant said his intentions were pure, and that
he intended to marry the plaintiff. I informed her
of his intention to leave England for New Zealand.
I was not asked by the plaintiff's mother to ascer-
tain the defendant's intentions previous to June,
1859. The plaintiff and defendant were friends of
mine, and that is the reason why I asked him what
were his intentions towards the plaintiff. Ido not
know if his mother has only £5O a year to live on.
I do not know anything about their circumstances.
The family live in a respectable manner, in one
house—the mother and three sisters. The elder
brother has a farm of his own. Ido not know that
he went to the Cirencester College to prepare him-
self for settling in New Zealand. I never hoard
before the 10th March that he intended to go to
Australia. lam indebted upwards of £4OO to the
plaintiff's brother, not to the mother. The money
was lent to me at different times. I have been sold
up. I was a miller at Acorn Mill. I did not go
to the plaintiff's at torn ey and offer nay evidence. He
came to me about two months ago. I have seen the
plaintiff since March. I never heard her say she did
not wish the action to be brought or anything of
the kind. I did not ask the defendant for £5O last
winter and he refused me. I never applied to him
or any of the family to lend me money. There is
an account between me and the brother. He does
not dispute owing me anything.
An admission was put in stating that the defen-
dant is possessed of £1,400.
The following letters were put in and read. They
were in pink-tinged envelopes :
" Alma-lodge, Cirencester, Aug. 24.
" Dear Sarah,—l have no doubt you will be look-
ing for some communication from me according to
promise. I arrived all right here last night, too
late to catch the post. I hope that you are better
in health than when I last saw you and not quite
brokenhearted. It is always a task for me to say
good-bye; but I say it, and get away as soon as
possible. I saw the tear glisten in your eye at
parting with you, and would gladly have stayed to
kiss it away, bat that would only have made mat-
ters worse. The time will soon pass that I have to
stay here, and then there is the pleasure of looking
forward to the time when we shall meet again.
Take care of yourself. I cannot tell you anything
about the place yet, as I have not had time to look
round. When you write address as above. Excuse
this short scribble, and accept with it, dear Sarah,
the kind love of yours ever, " W. A. It."
The letter bore the post mark of 1859. The
second letter was dated

" Wednesday Evening.
" Dear Sarah,—l was extremely sorry when I
received your last. I hope to Heaven that it is not
as you predict. You seem to say that you suspected
it before I left home. Why did you not mention it
then ? I am; however, inclined to think that it
cannot be as you say, or you would have had con-
clusive evidence of it before this time. In the
meantime, however, keep up your heart, and do not
despair ; everything will be well yet. lam much
obliged to you for remembering my birthday. I
had forgotten about it myself. I suppose you
would be at the flower show at Penrith. I under-
stand it was very wet and disagreeable."
The letter concluded—
" However, it is not long till Christmas, when I
hope to find you all right and hearty. Never fret,
it will do no good. It is no use to meet trouble
half way. It is too soon when it comes. I shall
expect to know when you write again. Consume
this, as I have done yours, to avoid any detection ;
and accept the sincere love of your's ever,
" W. A. RICHARDSON."
This letter bore the post mark of Sept. 21, 1859.
This was the plaintiff's case.
The defendant called no witnesce,..
Mr. James summed up the !_;1,1,ill L111.'6 case, asking
the jury to give exe•-p try damages.
Mr. Price addre,sed the jury in mitigation of
damages. 1-le denied theie was such a contract of
marriage between the parties as entitled the plain-
tiff to recover damages. She was fully aware of
the consequences that must result from the sedvc-
tion, and it was unfair to introduce it into this
action in order to catch a verdict and swell the
amount of damages. An action might have been
brought for the seduction, in which case the plain-
tiff must have been called and examined, when the
facts of the case would have been thoroughly sifted.
The plaintiff, he contended, had not made out the
contract of marriage; and with regard to the seduc-
tion the plaintiff had other remedies.
Mr. Baron Channell summed up. The only ques-
tion for the jury was, whether the defendant had
contracted to marry the plaintiff. The defendant
denied that he had made such contract. This was
an action in which it was not expected that definite
evidence of the contract could be given in all cases,
but it must depend on the circumstances surround-
ing the case. Promises of this kind were most
likely made when the parties were alone, but if they
unequivocally conducted themselves so as to justify
their relatives and friends in coining to the conclu-
sion that they were engaged, the jury would be
justified in acting on such evidence, and in giving
such damages as they thought would meet the cir-
cumstances of the case.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff-
damages £350.

COURT OF DIVORCE, MAY 3.
Before Sir Cresswell Cresswell, Mr. Justice Hill,
Mr. Justice Willes, and a Special Jury)
CALLWELL V. CALLWELL AND KENNEDY.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram appeared
for the petitioner; Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr.
Burke appeared for the corespondent; and Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., for the wife.
Damages were laid at £3,000.
This was a petition for a dissolution of marriage,
by Mr. Wm. Callwell, on the ground of his wife's
adultery with Wm. Kennedy. The respondent and
co-respondent had put in answers denying the adul-
tery, and on this issue had been joined. The peti-
tioner was a gentleman of station and respectabi-
lity, residing for some time in London, having,
however, his permanent residence in Kildare, Ire-
land. He married on the 16th March, 1850, a lady
named Elizabeth Martin, and up to June, 1858, no-
thing occurred to disturb the harmony of the union.
There were three daughters and one son, the result
of the marriage ; but since the separation, a child
had been born in November. The co-respondent,
was a man of property, and a neighbour of Mr.
Callwell's, and they used to hunt and shoot to-
gether, and were on very intimate terms. Towards
the end of May, 1858, the petitioner was called to
London by business, and he took his wife with him
as far as Dublin, where he left her on a visit to her
aunt, Mrs. Bush, during his temporary absence.
His business was nearly accomplished, and he was
meditating a return to Dublin, when he received a
note from his wife, dated the 6th of June, and stat-
ing that there was no necessity for him to come
over on the following Monday, as she was not ready
to leave Dublin on that day. The very next morn-
ing he received another letter, dated the 7th of
June, saying, "Do not leave London until you
have another line from me." Mr. Callwell subse-
quently ascertained that, shortly before the first
letter was written, his wife had received a telegra-
phic message from Mr, Kennedy, to the effect
that she waa not to leave Dublin until she heard
from him. It appeared that Mrs. Callwell told
her aunt she had received a letter from Mr. Ken-
nedy, also stated she was aware she had acted im-
prudently, and put herself in his power, but she
would go over to London, and set matters all right
with her husband. She afterwards said she had
received another letter from Kennedy, and there-
fore was determined to go over to London at once.
This, however, was only to blind her aunt as to her
real intentions. Mrs. Callwell then left Dublin and
arrived in London on the Bth June, where she was
joined by Kennedy, who accompanied her to Dover
the same night. After sleeping together at Dover
they crossed the Channel and went on to Paris, but
she had previously written the following note to her
husband—" lam gone, William, for ever. I never
dared to tell you all my deceit and treachery.
Curse me, for you wall may do so. lam a curse to
all belonging to me. You will be better without
such a miserable wretch—farewell." The next that
was heard of her was that she had written a letter
from Munich to her husband's brother, Mr. Henry
Callwell, who had married her sister, in which she
expressed the agony and distress of mind under which
she was labouring, and the impossibility of continu-
ing to live in such a state of sin. Mr. Henry Call-
well thereupon went over to the Continent, and saw
the respondent, who was there living as the wife of
Mr. Kennedy. The result of his charitable visit was,
that he induced her to leave Kennedy and return to
England. Upon her arrival she took up her resi-
dence at Mr. Henry Callwell's house, at Norwood,
where a child was born, but en the 17th December
she went to live in York-street, Portman-square,
and there, it appeared, she was in the habit of re-
ceiving visits from the corespondent, some of them
beginning at seven o'clock iu the morning, and not
ending before 12 o'clock at night.
The evidence produced completely established the
case of the petitioner.
The Jury found that Mrs. Callwell had been guilty

•
of adultery with Mr. Kennedy, and gave £3,000
damages.
Their Lordships suspend:A the decree of dissolu-
tion, in order to allow an application to be made
with regard to the settlements, and also as to the
disposition of the sum awarded as damages.