The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-13 00:00:00

corj

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Dec. 12.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Mr.
Justice Blaekburn and a Common Jury.)
AIIMIT&GE 17. CHAPLIN.
Mr. E. James and Mr. 'H. James were counsel
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff and
Mr. B. C. Robinson for the defendant.
This was an action for breach of promise of mar-
riage. •
Mr. E. James stated that the plaintiff, a very re-
spectable young lady, had brought this action to
recover damages from the defendant for having
broken his engagement to marry her, under very
trying circumstances. The plaintiff and defendant
became acquainted in 1855, and an attachment was
formed which continued until the latter end of 1858,
when defendant chose to break it off on the pretence
that he was too ill to marry her, but at that very
time it would appear that he was actually paying
his addresses to another young lady, whom he mar-
ried last September. Defendant had visited the
plaintiff's friends during the courtship, and par-
taken of their hospitality, and she and her friends
had visited defendant at his country house at Syden-
ham. He had sent her presents from time to time,
and written about 375 letters to her, and promised
her marriage. The plaintiff had been much attached.
to the defendant, and when it was broken off re-
ceived a severe shock in consequence.
David Wilkin—l am the plaintiff's uncle, and
senior partner in the firm of Wilkin and Pugh, of
St. Mary-axe. My wife and I brought up and
educated the plaintiff, who is now 24 years old.
In 1855 she was shopwoman and manager at Mr.
Turner's, a confectioner in the South-Eastern
Railway Arcade. The defendant then kept a
jeweller's and watchmaker's shop in the arcade.
After a communication from the plaintiff to me the
defendant was introduced, and visited at my house
two or three 'times a week, and occasionally dined
there, and I introduced him to my sister as the gen-
I tlenaan who was paying his addresses to my niece.
He Paid' her very marked attention, and visited at
my house for two years. I understood that he had
taken a house at Forest-hill, and I gave my niece
permission to visit him there: I heard that my
niece went to see the defendant's friends. In the
spring of 1858 I was negotiating for a business in
the confectionery line at Cheltenham for my son,
and intended that the plaintiff should go there to
manage it for him. I asked the defendant if he
would have any objection to her going. He said,
" No, his circumstances at present would not per-
mit him to marry her," and he then made no com-
plaint of ill health or chronic disease. In the course
of that year my niece received these two letters
from the defendant :
"My darling Girl,—I hope dear, you got home gaffe safe
last
last•night. It was better, indeed, dear girl, to tell you
night. Ido so hope, dear, you do not doubt me—do you
now, my girl ? I love you as much as ever, dear and I
think of you the sane day by day as I am the same Robert,
&ar Clara, as I always was.
" Good bye dearest Clara,
- ' " With best love, your affectionate,
• "ROBERT."
"Dear Clara,—lf you leave England, dear, I must and
Will see you before you go, to tell you, dear, that I am the
garde to you as I ever was. I love and honour you, dear
good heart, and truly think, dear, there is not a better
woman on this earth. I am afraid, dear, I have sunk much
in your love ; 0, but do not for a moment think it is for
any cause I would not marry you, but the one I have told
you, dear girl. You have not thought so of my sisters
and 'mother, as they have not a word or thought in it.
Pardon me, dear, for writing this to make it painful
to you, but I must do it, and wish I could bear the
pain for you. Why do you say I shall not know where you
go, and how you are, dear ?
" Good bye, dear girl, with' best love, your ever affec-
tionate " ROBERT."
In consequence of these letters and what was com-
municated to me, I called on the defendant, and
asked if it was true as to his inability to marry. He
said it was true. I told him I did not believe it, and
that I should watch him very narrowly. I asked
for his doctor's name, and he gave me the name of
O'Neil, Alderseate-street. He said nothing about
the plaintiff's having rescinded the contract. I said,
" Young gentleman, if I find vou have been deceiv-
ing my niece, I'll punish you." 111 y niece has been
living at home about 12 months, ever since she left
her situation at Highgate. The defendant is about
26 years of age.
Cross-examined—The plaintiff was assistant to a
pastry-cook. She left the arcade about two years
ago, and went to another situation at Highgate. In
September, 1358, the plaintiff and defendant met
last. I cannot say I have seen them together for
the last two years, as I do not interfere -with that
department. (A laugh.) He never represented to me
that the business in the arcade belonged to his
father, nor do I know it. It is a small shop, but a
very profitable one.
Re-examined—The defendant was in the Artillery
Company, and sent my niece his portrait in the
company's uniform.
The defendant's photograph in the uniform of the
Artillery Company was then put in in evidence, and
also an invoice describing the business as the de-
fendant's.
Martha Pearse—l am sister to the last witness,
and aunt to the plaintiff. I was introduced to the
defendant as the gentleman . who was paying his
addresses to Clara. Since the match was broken off
the plaintiff has been very different to what she was.
In fact she has been ill. ' They appeared partially
attached, and he always behaved as if he intended
to make her his wife.
Alfred. Willein—l am a cousin of the plaintiff.
I became acquainted with the defendant through
the plaintiff. He told me that the rent and taxes of
his shop cameto about £l5O per year. He is now
living in rather a handsome eight-roomed house at
Forest-hill. I have seen him riding on horseback
and in a chaise, his own, I believe:
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff—The defendant was
rather fond of show, was he not ?
Witness—Well, I think he was rather fast. (A
laugh.)
Mary Ann Wilkin—l am a cousin of the plain-
tiff. I went to Forest-hill once to the defendant's
house there, with my cousin, who presided at the
table. The defendant was two years and nine
months pdying his addresses to the plaintiff, and I
considered that they were engaged persons, and
that he was going to marry the plaintiff when he
was in a position to do so.
Cross-examined—The house at Forest-hill was a
small cottage, not the same as that in which he
now lives.
Margaret Wilkin, another cousin of the plaintiff,
gave similar testimony to the last witness.
John Fisher—l am a baker and confectioner at
Highgate. The plaintiff came as shopwoman tome
in Nov., 1856„ and left at Christmas, 1858. In the
latter part of the service she fretted very much, and
did not attend to the business. I did not know the
cause, and told her she had better leave.
John Chandler—l was at the defendant's wed-
ding breakfast, and heard him return thanks.
Mr. James—l believe it was a very gay one ?
Witness—A gay one !It was very much after
the fashion of my own.
Amelia Spackman—The defendant married my
eldest daughter. On the 26th Jan., 1858, the de-
fendant asked my permission to pay his addresses to
my daughter. My daughter had been previously
visiting in London for about six weeks, at the Chap-
lins, among others. My daughter has received
£1,200 since the marriage. I belieVe the defen-
dant rents the house at Forest-hill of his father.
The following was put in evidence as a specimen
of the defendant's letters to the plaintiff:—
"My own dear, dear Clara,—lf you only knew the great
anguish of my mind you would forgive me, I know, for
causing so much unhappiness to one rao— so dearly love,
and ono I know to fie the best and dearest girl on earth.
I say this coolly, dear, for I am the same as always, and
would not tell you a falsehood. I know, dear, lam greatly
to blame in letting you go to Highgate; but I thought of
what you said on my first love and respect for you, that you
did not mind waiting for some time tbr -me, and I am cer-
tain you will not find any one who would thick and make it
his duty to do mere to make you happy, Sce.
P.S.—My dear girl, do receive this as it comes from me
from the very depth of my heart; and do not think, because
I let you go home alone by yourself, I love you any the
less, but more and more every day, and my only wish is I
was near you now to ask your forgiveness in person, and
give me one dear kiss."
Mr. E. James :then addressed. the jury at the
close of the plaintiff's case, and said that the de-
fendant's answer to this action would be a mere ap-
peal to them in mitigation of damages. It was a
mere pretence to suggest that the business belonged
to the father, as he was in court, and did not deny
that it belonged to his son. AS an act of justice to
the plaintiff, something like a reason or suggestion
should be given in palliation of the defendant's con-
duct, but the defendant gave none. It was clear,
said the learned counsel, that he had seen Miss
Spackman, and intended to throw the plaintiff off
when he set up the pretence of inability to marry
her.
Mr. Sergeant Petcrsdorff addressed' the jury for
the defendant, and said that other parties were in-
terested in the inquiry besides the defendant, and
p'73131111
einm
exhorted. the jury not to give such damages as
effectou tofb
tehteo f
ew make the
hundreds defse.hnedahnatd's
rlvciefie.
vetdo
ea her marriarA,arid he farth •
theremdinded them that
zhl propt:r test Wal to toosicleeitefendant's posi
teem before his carriage, and tl
the plaintiff had lost by the b ion cstirnate what
reach of the engage-
ment. Of that the plaintiff's
present house and
meaws were rot the criterion.
The learned Judge having summed up the ease'
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
Damaggs, £l5O.
The common jury, at the sitting of the court,
cemplained that they should be summoned every
day, and detained the *hole day, and suggested to
the judge that a part should be summoned on alter-
nate days. • • ,
The lorned judge said he felt the hardship, but

did not_see the remedy. However, to-morrow he
would not call on any of those gentlemen who had
already served, until all the- names of the others had
been called, and the defaulteri fined.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)

PIKE V. THE POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION._

This was one _of several actions which have
arisen out of the lamentable fall of the geometrical
stone staircase at the Polytechnic in January last.
In one action, tried at Kingston. a verdict of £lO
was recovered. In another, there was a nonsuit.
In the present instance (in which the trial com-
menced on Saturday) the evidence was lengthy and
contradictory. The declaration charged that the
defendants, the directors of the institution, had so
carelessly constructed and maintained the staircase
that it fell, the plaintiff being one of the injured
parties.
The evidence for the plaintiff was heard on
Saturday.
The evidence for the defendants was now heard,
and took up the greater part of the day.
It was admitted that the building was erected
before it was leased to the institution in 1838 ; so
that they had nothing to do with the original con-
struction of the staircase. The staircase was found
in 1858 very much worn, and it was deemed neces-
sary to repair the steps, which was done by letting
in an iron trellis into each step, cutting away the
stone to the depth of an inch and a quarter, and
filling up the interstices of the ironwork with con-
crete or cement. On the evening of the 3d of
January, while people were descending the stair-
case, it broke away from the top-landing, all the
steps breaking off close to the wall. The witnesses
for the plaintiff stated that the stones had been
weakened or split by the operation of cutting them
to let in the ironwork. The witnesses for the de-
fendants stated that the cause of the catastrophe
was the want of a proper "joggle-joint" at the point
of junction between the top stair and the landing,
which was an original defect in the construction of
the staircase before the building came into the pos-
session of the defendants. They also spoke to a
defect in the stone itself (by reason of fossils in it),
both defects being latent, and not discernible by
ordinary care. Part of the case for the defendants
was that the cutting into the steps to let in the iron
could not have caused the break, because stone
staircases in various public buildings had been
safely repaired by letting in stone slabs of greater
thickness than the ironwork in the present instance.
One of the defendants' witnesses, Mr. M. Nelson,
an architect of eminence, expressed his decided
opinion, which he said he had entertained for
years, that geometrical staircases were unsafe and
improper for public buildings, because sudden jerks
or vibrations struck hidden flaws and produced ac-
cidents. He added, however, that the most
eminent architects were of a contrary opinion, and
continued to erect such staircases for public build-
ings.
The Lord Chief Justice laid it down that if the
accident arose from an original defect, either in the
material or the construction of the staircase, the
defendants having taken it as safe would not be
liable. His lordship left it to the jury, on the
whole case, whether that was so, or whether, if the
mode of repair adopted was improper and was the
cause of the catastrophe, there was any negligence
on the part of the defendants in allowing it to be
adopted.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, £l5O.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. J. T. Clark were for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. J. Brown
for the defendants.
Two similar actions by the same person on behalf
of two of his children were tried at the same time
by the same jury, and a verdict of £25 in each case
was given.