The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Feb, 10,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.—Before Mr. Baron Martin
and Special Juries.)

KILLIC4 V. WILKINSON.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF

AIARRIA.GB.

This was an action for breach of promise of mar-
riage. The declaration stated that the plaintiff
and defendant had agreed to marry, and that a
reasonable time had elapsed, and the defendant
bad refused to fulfil his promise. The defendant
pleaded, firstly, that he had not entered into any
agreement to marry the plaintiff ; secondly, that if
he had so promised the time agreed upon had not
elapsed ; and, thirdly, that the plaintiff was not
willing and ready to marry the defendant.
Mr. Skinner and Mr. H. T. Cole appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Wood
represented the defendant.
The opening of the learned counsel went to show
that the plaintiff, Miss Laura Killick, was the
daughter of a jeweller and silversmith, who for-
merly carried on his business at Knightsbridge.
In May last Mr. Killick went to reticle at the
George Hotel at Greenwich, which had belonged
to his father-in-law, and to which he bad succeeded.
Towards the end of May the defendant, who
then held a captain's commission in the Royal
Military Train, and who is now a lieutenant in
the 68th Regiment, was introduced to the plain-
tiff's family. He shortly afterwards commenced
paying much attention to Miss Laura Kiilick, and
subsequently obtained her father's consent to their
marriage. Thus matters went on until about the
end of October, when the defendant suddenly
ceased his visits, and had left unnoticed several
letters written by Mr. Killick demanding an ex-
planation of his conduct. The present action was
therefore brJught. _

The following evidence was then ealled in sup-
port of the plaintiff's case

Mr. John.Killick—l am the plaintiff's father, and
carried on the businesa cf a j,wteiee at Knights-
bridge. My father-in-law kept the George Hotel,
at Greenwich, for many years. He left it and I
went to reside there in May. The defendant was
introduced to me by Mr. Mitchell, his brother offi-
cer, towards the end of May. On the 31st May the
defendant dined at the hotel ordinary. I think it
was proposed after dinner that my wife and both
my daughters should take a walk, and the defen-
dant accompanied them. He returned with them,
and spent his evening with us. He frequently
came to the house during the ensuing week. He
paid my daughter considerable attention, and his
conduct attracted my notice. He left for Ireland
in the beginning of June. He was then in the
Royal Military Train. I next saw the defendant
about the end of June, when he returned. We
sawdhim frequently, and he pursued the same con-
duot towards my daughter. Ho t ,ok my daughter
with her sister to a fete. On their retain I told
the defendant that his attentions towards my
daughter were so marked that it was time I knew
what his intentions were. He said that his inten-
tions were perfectly honourable, and that he iiie
tended to marry her. I asked him whether he knew
of my altered circumstances. He replied that he
did, and that it made no difference to him. On
the 12th July we renewed the conversation. He
said he had 4001. a year, and asked me if I con-
sidered that sufficient. I said, I had no ob-
jection, if he felt satisfied he could sup-
port her. He said he objected to marry in
July, as it was an unlucky month to him, and that
he had been wounded in the Crimea and lost a
sister in that month. About the 9.h of July I went
into lodgings at Lee. My daughter then went on a
visit to a lady at Porchester-terrace. She was taken
there by the defendant. I recollect the defendant
coming to the lodgings at Lee with Ensign Burke.
My daughter was there on the occasion. It was
then agreed that the marriage should take place in
the third week in August. A conversation took
place with respect to the quantity of bridesmaids
who were to be at the wedding. (Laughter.) The
defendant wanted eight. (Laughter.) I said that
would be too many. Ensign Burke was to have
been at the wedding. On the 19th July tee de-
fendant said his regiment thought of going to Ca-
nada. He continued his attentions to my daughter
to the end of August. He told me he was going
to Aldershott, and that he would write to my
daughter during his absence. After his return from
Aldershott he called upon me. I had then removed
to Lewisham. I do not recollect that anything was
said on that occasion about his not writing. He
after that sent a servant to say he was unable to
come to us because his sister was ill. After that
he sent to say he had- broken a blood vessel in leap-
ing, and could not come to see us. On the Bth. of
August he gave my daughter a ring. In conse-
quence of what tuok place I went to Aldershot%
but could not see the defendant. I -wrote him a
letter. (The letter was produced, and was to the
it effect that he writer was much surprised at the
defendant' neglect of his daughter, and requiring
his decisio whether he intended to marry her or
not.) The defendant then sent this letter to my
daughter :
" My dearest Laura,—Can you forgive me after
my apparent cruel neglect of you f If you still
can care for me now, and will consent to marry me
on what I have at present, 4001. per annum, as
soon as I have completed my exchange I will marry
you, and endeavour, by unceasing love and kind-
ness. to make amends for the pain you have suffered
on my account. If you still can love me now, will
you answer this letter, and appoint some time to-
morrow when I can see you, and explain to you
personally what I cannot well do by writing t I
should like to see you and your father alone, the
first time we meet.—Believe me, dear Laura, yours
affectionately, C. BRICE WILKINSON."

Examination continued—The defendantcalled on
the 23d, and expressed his regret, stating that he
hoped his future conduct would cause us to forget
his neglect. He continued to pay his attentions as
before to my daughter. It was arranged that the
wedding should take place in a fortnight or three
weeks. He objected to the marriage taking place at
Lewisham, as it was too near the camp. He was
often accompanied by his brother officers. He pased
all his spare time with us. The last time he was
with ns was on Oct. 16, He promised to call the
next day. He wrote me a letter stating that he
should call, but he never did call. On the 29th Oct.
I wrote him a letter demanding an explanation of
his conduct towards my daughter, but I never re-
ceived a reply to it. My daughter's health has
suffered considerably.
Cross-examined—l consulted my attorney a fort-
night after I wrote the letter of 29th October. My
attorney wrote to defendant on the 6th November.
The defendant was introduced to my daughter at the
ordinary. The house was not much frequented by
officers. The defendant did not tell me he was the
son of a clergyman in Yorkshire. He said he was
24 years of age. He told me that his father was a
rich man, and that he allowed him 2001. a-year. I
did not ask him where his father lived. He told me
that a picture he showed me was " the old house at
borne in Ireland." (Laughter.) He did not tell
me what his pay was, but said he had altogether
4001. per annum. My daughter did not go ♦ery fre-
quently to the theatre with the defendant. They
went altogether about five or six times. The mar-
riage was al ways being talked about. It was a kind
of " Will o'-the-wisp." It was always to take place
in a fortnight, but which never did take place. The
day was never fixed. I did not press that from
motives of delicacy. My daughter was 18 on the
18th November last.

Mrs. Susan Kellick, the plaintiff's mother, said
that she had taken care of the education of lit'r
daughter, who played and drew very well, and was
otherwise well educated. She corroborated her
husband's evidence as to the attentions of defendant
to the plaintiff.
Cross-examined—The defendant told me that his
father was a private gentleman.
Miss Mary Kellick, the p!aintiff's sister, deposed
that the defendant appeared greatly attached to her
sister, and witness was to have been one of the
bridesmaids.

Cross-examined—The day on which I was to
appear as a bridesmaid was never fixed. I went to
the theatre with the defendant and my sister. There
was a wedding in the play which we saw at the
Haymarket. Thera were not eight bridesmaids in
the play.
Lieut. Witchell said—l am a lieu,enant in the
Royal Military Traits. The defendant was formerly
a captain in that corps, but he is now in the 68th.
He told me he intended to marry the plaintiff.
Redid not ask me to be present at the wedding.
Cross-examined—The plaintiff is rather an at-
tractive young lady. I did not admire her. I de-
cline to say whether there was a Mrs. Witchell of
whom I was afraid. (Laughter.) The plaintiff was
just the sort of person a foolish young man would
fall in love with.
Burke, who was in the R ,yal Military
Train during the time the defendant was in that
corps, said—l knew the defendant was engaged to
the plaintiff. He paid her attentions. Ido not
recollect anything beingsaid about my going to the
marriage. Captain Wilkinson asked me one day if
I would be present in case of anything of the kind
coming off. Ido not recollect anything being said
about the bridesmaids. The plaintiff was behind
the bar of 'the hotel when the defendant was
introduced to her.
Further evidence having been given by another
fwweiiitt
sehtshsyeaosfiurtnosgttmlpi eracndte,tfyh-
angddi
raflanhltl defendant's intentionahuead moe tvh
ewrtilotie nealaasnri
love
h
plaintiff, the case closed.
d
Mr. Edwin James, in addressing the jury for
the defendant, said that the truth was that this