The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-22 00:00:00

BREACH OF PROMISE OF .2111.RRIAGE.

At the Sheriff's Court, Liverpool, on Tuesday, the
case of Heywood v. BleaekleY was tried. This
case', the merits of which have been before the
Qieen's Bench, where, the defendant not appear-
ing, a verdict was given for the plaintiff; came to-
day before the sheriff (represented by Mr. Cross,
barrister), in order to assess damages. The plaintiff,
Esther Heywood, is a laundress residing at Prest-
which, near Manchester, and the defendant is a
farmer living in the same neighbourhood. They
had been engaged for upwards of 20 years, and in
stating the case, Dr. Wheeler (who appeared for
the plaintiff) said that, very much to her credit, she
had, during this long period, kept her plighted
troth in the hope that the day would come
when they could marry, and when the pro-
mise upon which she had so long depended
would be realised. The reason why they were
not married was, that the defendant always
stated that he could not make so comfortable a home
for the plaintiff as he desired while his mother
lived ; but he declared that, so soon as his mother's
death took place, he would fulfil his promise and
marry her. He continued to visit plaintiff as usual
until the month of August in the present year, his
mother having died about a month or two before,
when, to plaintiff's great surprise, he ceased his
visits, and married another person—one possessed
of considerable property. The learned counsel
thought it right to mention that, some sixteen or
seventeen years ago, the plaintiff became the mother
of a child, of which the defendant was the father.
From the birth of this child up to the present time
it had been supported by the plaintiff herself, whose
character had been unimpeachable, and who doubt-
less was longing earnestly for the time when, by a
union with the defendant, the child would be re•
garded by her with those feelings which a respect-
able wife and mother could alone possess. This
circumstance, the learned counsel argued, added ad-
ditional cruelty to the conduct of the defendant.
Ann Heywood, sister of the plaintiff, was then
examined, and stated that the plaintiff and she
lived with their mother at Prestwich. The de-
fendant and his father were farmers there, defend-
ant being the manager. The farm was large, and
the Bleackleys also dealt in coals, and kept teams
of horses. They were very well-to-do people. De-
fendant and plaintiff had known each other for 22
years, and had been engaged for that time. De-
fendant's mother died four or five months since.
Defendant was regularly a visitor to the house,
and received as a suitor. He also said that he could
not take plaintiff as his wife until his mother died,
as she would not allow it ; but so soon as the old
woman died he would make her (plaintiff) a com-
fortable home. Plaintiff lived upon that promise.
About a month or six weeks after his mother's
death, however, the defendant married a woman of
some property. Plaintiff had taken the matter very
much to heart ; the child of the plaintiff and defen-
dant lived with the former, and had done so since
its birth.

Mr. Cross having put the case before the jury,
said they must take into consideration the injury
to the plaintiff's feelings, in consequence of the de-
fendant refusing to marry her, and also the loss of
the establishment which she would probably have
gained if she had married him. They must also
bear in mind the great length of the engagement,
and the repeated assurances which the defendant
also gave, and upon which the plaintiff relied for•
so many years.
After a brief deliberation, the jury retwened a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £2OO.