The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-10 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

ROME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, AUG. 9.
(Before Mr. Justice Wines and a Special Jury.)
. GORDON V. WOOLRIDGE.

This was an action to recover damages for a breach of
promise of marriage.
Sergeant Balfamine, and Mr. Worsley, were for the
plaintiff; and Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. Hannetis t'1)•
peared for the defendant.
Sergeant Ballantine, in opening the ease, said that
the plaintiff, Mrs. Annie Gordon, was a widow, and the
defitudant, Mr. John Wootriage, was a chemist, and carried
°a his business at two estab ishments, one in the New-
road, and the other in HolLorn. The iti.itnacy between
tha parties first cornme red in the year 1856, and
At this time t'oe plaintif had been a widow six or seven
eats, and she Lad one child,. a girl, about seven years 01.1.
He was not awa e exactly of the nature of the plaintiff's
means ; bat he did not believe that the slightest fib/mak),
would be cast tipan her character. She was ahout at or 35
years of age, and the defendant was about 50, so that so far
quite suitable to each other, and when the jury had
heard the evidence he should lay before them, lie be-
lieved they would not entertain any doubt that the
defendant had made a promise of marriage to his
client, and that be had echberately broken that promise.
He was not able to make out clearly how the connection
first took place bes.ween the plaintiff and the defendant, but
he believed that the plaintiff had gone to the shop cf the
defendant to have some prescription made up, and the de-
fendant was smitten with her, and an intimacy at once
sprung up between them which ripened into affection, e id
ended in the defendant desiring to make the plaintiff his
wife. lie need hardly remind the jury that promises of
marriage were not always made on positive and distinct
terms, and the defendant in the letters he had written
had undoubtedly been very guarded in his expressions;
but when they looked at the correspondence they would say
as reasonable men whether any other conclusion could be
come to than that the defendant ititendvi that the plaintiff
should become his wife, and that his letters contained matter
that amounted to a promise to that effect.
The learned counsel then read portions Qf some letters writ-
ten by the defendant to the plainotlf ?'hey sit commenced
"Dear Annie," but were couched in very general ambigu-
ous terms, referring to the excitement he had sustained dur-
ing some of their interviews, and one of them referred to a
request he had made to her, to which he said Ole had re-
turned the monosyllable " No," and asked her whether she
persevered in that an4wer. It also appeared that upon one
cceasion the plaintiff had gone down to Gosport, and the
a dtheefe„nedxattitocacCaCsOinoinp,awniheednbtehrietodetflieendn
raaiiwty
wrote
his regret that he was not with her during thexn-
d
journey, particularly the latter part of it, when he said they
should probably Lave been alone in the carriage, an_
the "shades of evening approaching ;" and this. letter
arostteatio to station; andr he upeo
concluded by stating that the plaintiff had given hint
part-
ing gift in the shape of a "blossom" on his under hp. The
learned sergeant proceeded to state that there could be no
doubt that for a very considerable time the parties were on
the most intimate and affectionate terms; but, be said, to-
wards the latter end of 1857, the defendant's letters be-
came shorter and cooler every time be wrote, and at length,
on the 27th of February, in the present year, the defendant
wrote a very extrae•rdinary document on a slip of panel., in
which he stated that he had put this and that together, and
that be could not see the advantage of affecting that
which was a mere form, and asking the plaintiff whe-
ther this was not her own opinion upon the same
subject. The intimacy, he said, was thus broken off,
between them, and the plaintiff had no alternative but to
bring the present action to obtain redress in the shape of
damages from the defendaLt for the breach of his promise to
make her his wife.

The following evidence was then adduced :
Mary Anne Gough said her husband was a tailor, and
they lived in Gerrard-street, Soho. She f.rinerly lived in
Church-street, Soho, and the plaintiff lodged in the house
upon t Ai) occasions, once for nine months, and the second
time for 12 nionths. The first period was in 18:,6. The
plaintiff hid a little girl, mad she understood that she was a
widow. The defendant used to come and visit her gene-
rally twice a week—ou Wednesdays and Sundays—and
sometimes he used to take tea with her, and emnained till
10 or 11 o'cli ek at night. He seemed as though he was
going to make her his wife. (A laugh.) What she meant
by that was that when he went away from her he used to
appear very affectionate and used to kiss her. She thought
the old gentleman was Mrs. Gordon's sweetheart.
(Laughter.)
Cross-examined—The plaintiff lodged with witness and
her husband for eight weeks. Did not know where she
went to live after that. She had seen her in Guildford
during these assizes.
Madame d'Albert, a Frenchwoman, said she lived in
Wardour-street, and the plaintiff lodged with her 15
months ago. She was in her house six or seven months, but