The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-05 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Common Jury.)
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.-CRISP V. SMOOTHY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a young
woman aged 24, the daughter of a farmer residing near
Lynn, against the defendant, a farmer and poulterer, at a
place called Linton, in Cambridgeshire.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated the case to the
jury, and said an intimacy sprung up in May, 1859, and in
September of the same year the defendant broke off all inti-
macy with the plaintiff, and refused to perform the promise
of marriage he had given during the courtship. The learned
gentleman then called the following evidence :
Mr. Richard Houlton—l reside at Linton, in Cambridge-
shire, and I know the plaintiff', Miss Mary Crisp. I
am a linendraper, and the plaintiff was in my employ. " I
know the defendant, Mr. Smoothy, he is a butcher, carry-
ing on business in Linton. In the early part of March it
began to be whispered about the town that the defendant
had a kindly feeling towards her. I received a letter from
Mr. Crisp. I afterwards saw Mr. Smoothy, and he
thanked me that T had given him a good character, as I
had written to Mr. Crisp. He afterwards said he ought to
have written to Mr. Crisp before. 'Afta. this circumstance
'the defendant came to my house to tea. Ho came as
suitor to Miss Crisp. I saw them out together. They
were going on quite right. (Laughter.) This state
of things lasted about four months, and after
this there appeardd a little coolness. The plain-
tiff did not think so as it was the first time she had
ever been in a similar situation. The plaintiff had no idea
of the coolness, as she continued to make preparations for
the marriage.. He did not appear different until the
morning before he withdrew his promise. The
marriage was expected to take place in October, 1859, and
the plaintiff left me on the Monday following the refusal.
The plaintiff has been at Linton since the defendant refused
to fulfil his promise. Shp is not at my house assisting in
my business during my absence. She had no objection to
return to Linton, as she said she had done nothing wrong.
She is there now, but will leave on my return.
Cross-examined—She was my assistant. She was a
beginner, and used to reside in my house. The plaintiff
was about 24, the defendant appeared 10 years older. lam
aware that he is one of nine children, and the business which
he carried on was to an extent for their benefit. I don't
know that he has £2B a-year for carrying on the business.
There are 2,000 inhabitants in Linton, and besides the defen-
dant's there are two other butchers' shops. I think the de-
fendant farms about 100 acres of land. I can't be positive
that it is as much.

Re-examined—The defendant's is the best butcher's shop
in Linton. He is considered to be a man well to do, but I
don't really know his position:
Mr. Crisp, the father of the plaintiff, said—l wrote a
letter to Mr. Smoothy in August, 1859, the substance of
which wag, that I had written to Mr. Holton, telling him I
approved of the defendant's offer of marriage to my daughter.
I wrote to her as follows :

" Setch, Aug. 23, 1859.
"My dear Daughter,—l received your letter of the 15th
inst., and you wish me to name the sum I can spare for
your wedding outfit. You say you de not intend to go to
➢Zr. Smoothy in debt, for which I much commend you ; and
as your fortune in money will be but small, you must try
and be as economical as you can, as you will always find"
industry and economy command the most permanent
affection.

"And now about the outfit. I shall be very short of
money until Michaelmas. I will try to spare you £5 at
Michaelmas. You must try to let Clara have part of it for
the occasion. I cannot possibly send it before. . . . And
now allow me to say just a few words. You may take it for
granted that a man of sense will not look at outside
trapping, or appearance, but must again repeat that it
is internal culture, combined with industry, frugality,
perseverance, economy, and forbearing temper that can
command a lasting happiness to the marriage state. I
shall be glad to receive a letter from you. With love to you
and Clara,—l am, my dear daughter, your affectionate
father, "WILLIAM CRISP."
I received a letter from the defendant, in which he said he
did not care about a marriage portion, as money did not
make happiness. After my daughter returned to me she
was in a very desponding state.
Cross-examined—My daughter is 24, and the defendant
is about 30 or 32 years of age. I don't know that the
defendant is one of nine children. I don't live at Linton.
My daughter and:Mr. Smoothy never visited me. My re-
sideaoe was 60 miles from Linton. I had not seen him
before the engagement was broken off. I have five other
children besides the plaintiff. I never heard my daughter
say she did not care whether the marriage came off or not.
I am positive on the point.

Miss Clara Crisp, sister of the plaintiff, said—l was at
Linton last summer. My sister was there also. I now
hold the situation my sister formerly held. I have seen
my sister and Mr. Smoothy together. They behaved to
each other as accepted lovers.

By Sergeant Parry—l never heard my sister say she
did not care whether the marriage came off or not.
This was the case for the plaintiff, the promise of marriage
not being disputed, the question was one simply of damages.
Mr. Sergeant Parry addressed the jury for the defendant,
and said it was much to be regretted that instead of the
present suit being instituted an attempt had not been made
to reconcile the two parties, as it appeared to him to be sim-
ply a lovers' quarrel. He however was not instructed to
make any such proposition, and indeed had such been the
case the pain the present proceedings had occasioned would,
he thought, prevent anything of the kind now taking place.
The letter from the father which had beea received in court
showed that the plaintiff had been most carefully brought
up, and there could not be a person in court who did not
admire his upright and straightforward conduct. The de-
fendant it was not pretended had addressed himself to any
other female or offered marriage.

The Lord Chief Justice—DO you contend the defendant
offers to fulfil his promise ? _ . .

Mr. Sergeant Parry said he had not such contention ;
but all ho was instruoted to urge in mitigation of damages
was, that the !jury should weigh well the position of the
defendant, being one of nine children, and give only such
moderate damages as he could pay.
The Lord Chief Justice said the present was a very dif-
ferent case from those usually presented to a jury, for it
appeared that the defendant had lost a treasure, for accord-
ing to the careful manner in which she had been trained
a more valuable wife than the plaintiff had never fallen
to the lot of man. It was truly unfortunate that no at-
tempt had been made to reconcile the two; but as the pre-
sent course had been adopted, the jury must award damages
against the defendant for the non-fulfilment of his promise.
After a few minutes deliberation the jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages £5O.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
Before Sir C. Cresswell, Mr. Baron Watson, Mr. Justice
Hill, and a Special Jury.)
ALLEN V. ALLEN AND D'AitCY.

In this case a suit was instituted by Mr. Allen against
his wife for a divorce, by reason of her adultery with the
co-respondent. Mrs. Allen had put in an answer contain-
ing a denial of the charge, and a recriminating plea that
her husband had also committed adultery. She also charged
him with cruelty, and alleged that the adultery on her part,
if any, had been connived at and condoned by the petitioner.
The jury, after a short absence, returned into court with
the following verdict :—That Mrs. Allen had been guilty
of adultery with Robert D'Arcy., or some other person ;
that Thomas Allen had connived at the adultery, and
that he had not condoned the offence. We find that Mrs.
Allen had condoned the adultery of Thomas Allen with
Mrs. Claverton.

The Judge Ordinary dismissed the petition with costs,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(TRIS DAY.)

MARpOROUGH-STREET.

RORDERY AT THICArE DE L'OPERA.—CADTION TO
SILOPKEEPERS.—Thomas Stocker, clad age 17, was charged
as follows :—Sergeant Henry Allen, 20 C, said that at a
quarter past eight on Saturday evening, in Golden-square,
he saw the prisoner carrying a large brass name-plate,
about nine feet long, on his shoulder, wrapped in a counter-
pane. The prisoner was walking at the time very fast, and
his (Sergeant Allen's) suspicions being excited, he went after
him and stopped him, and on asking what he had got on
his should, he replied, "a plate," and that he was going to
take it to Portland-place for alteration." He then told him
he should take him to Vine-street, and he then said a man
put it on his shoulder and told him to carry it for him, and
on asking where he was to carry it to, he said,,'.' wherever
the man went to," but there was no one near at the time,
nor in sight. He then seeing what was on the plate,
"The Cafe de l'Opera," &c., went there, and found that
it belonged to the proprietor, and had been removed from
the front of the house under the Collonado, in Pall-mall.
He had ascertained that it had screws to it, but no nuts were
on at the time.

Mr. George Epitans, proprietor of the Cafe de l'Opora,
3, CoHoned°, Pall-Mall, said the plate was his property,
and of the value of £6. It had been taken from the front
of his house, and he had seen it safe in the course of the
day.

In answer to Mr. Beadon, the prosecutor said that tka
nuts were not on the screws, thus rendering it easy of re-
moval.

Tho prisoner, who said he was guilty of the robbery, was
then committed for trial.

As such robberies are rather frequent at this time of year,
the dark and foggy nights aiding the thieves in their ope-
rations, the above may perhaps prove a useful caution.