The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—? ay IS.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Mi.
Justice Wightman and Common Juries.)
CLAPPERTON V. CHARLESWORTII.
Mr. Edwin James Q.C., and Mr. Henry James
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C.,
and Mr. Prentice for the defendant.
This was an action in which the plaintiff sought
to recover damages for a breach of promise of
marriage. The plaintiff, Lydia Clapperton, was a
daughter of a bookseller at Salisbury, and her age
was variously stated at from 30 to 40, but it even-
tually settled down, on the evidence of her sister
Agnes, at 42. The defendant, Samuel Charlesworth,
was a somewhat elderly gentleman, of the mature
age of 68, who was secretary to the Moorflelds
Savings Bank, and resided in furnished lodgings
on the second floor of a "periodical shop" at No.
82, Ebury-street, Pimlico. It appeared that in the
month of August in last year Miss Lydia, and a
younger sister named Agnes, went to Margate, and
lodged at a boarding house in that place. Among
the company there was an elderly gentleman named
Lowin and the defendant. The parties all boarded
together, and it was not long before the plaintiff,
Lydia Clapperton, and the defendant, Samuel
Charlesworth, mutually fell in love. From the
correspondence which afterwards took placehetween
them it would seem that while at Margate they
enjoyed " a few happy hours" in each other's
company, and they soon made an engagement to be
married. After a very short stay at Margate the
defendant brought the plaintiff and her sister Agnes
to town, all 'in the same boat, and on the 20th of
September he wrote her an affectionate letter, in
which, after alluding to the few happy hours they
had enjoyed in each other's society at Margate, he
said he looked forward in anticipation of "the
many happy years" which he hoped they might
have together. The letter was as follows :
" Ebury-street, Sept. 29, 1858.
"My Dear Lydia,—lt is with great pleasure I redeem my
promise to write to you, but as it is so short a time since I
last had the happiness of seeing you I have no news to
send.

" I look back with the most pleasurable feelings on the
few happy hours we have enjoyed in each other's company,
and look forward in anticipation of the many happy years
I hope we may have together. Let us, my dearest one, be
all in all to each other.

" I shall be on the tiptoe of expectation to receive from
you a letter, which you kindly promised me at the end of
this week, and hope in it you will send me a budget of
good news.

"The portrait of my unworthy self I will forward to you
as early as possible this week. Earnestly hoping tlict you
arrived home in safety, and are enjoying good health and a
large flow of good spirits,
" I am, my dearest Lydia, yours sincerely and affec-
tionately, " SAMUEL."
The portrait alluded to in the above letter was
produced in evidence. It was duly acknowledged
by the plaintiff, with the assurance that it made
her "quite happy," and that it was the opinion of
her sister that, if the defendant was as good as he
looked, he " would do." The plaintiff went down
to see her father at Salisbury, and the defendant
also went there to obtain the old gentleman's con-
sent to the marriage. The negotiation was set on
foot, and as the lady would eventually have as
much as £4OO from her father, who was old and
paralytic, the latter thought ie defendant ought
to make a settlement upon his intended. The de-
fendant, however, said he did not think of doing
that, but he would make his will to leave her all he
had. This appeared to be satisfactory, and the
intended pair returned to town, and all was con-
sidered as finally settled. The parties were to
be married in a short time and were to take
furnished apartments until they could obtain
a suitable house ; but this happy time never
came, and the only explanatign the defendant
could give for his delay was that he was laid
up and had got a bad foot. The plaintiff and her
sister also noticed a change in his demeanour and a
coldness of manner which induced them to ask for
an explanation of his intentions. He said he fully
intended to marry the plaintiff, and, being ques-
tioned as to whether he had got any organic
disease, he said he had not, that it was only his
bad foot and general debility. On that occasion
he promised to call on the plaintiff the next morn-
ing, but instead of doing so he sent his solicitor.
Evidence was given that the defendant had a
salary of about £250 a-year, ,besides income from
other sources.

The defence was, as set forth in the defendant's
plea, that he was too ill to marry, and that to do
so would have been dangerous to his life. Evidence
was given to show that the defendant had been
obliged to absent himself from his office on account of
illness, and a surgeon was called, who stated that
in November he was suffering from inflammation of
the foot. The surgeon also stated that he was suf-
fering from serious disease of the heart, and that it
would be dangerous for him to marry.
Before the trial was concluded it was arranged
between the counsel that the pfaintiff should have
a verdict for £100; but the defendant, who had
at one time given his consent to this arrangement,
revoked it. Considerable excitement ensued •in
consequence, but in the result the defendant gave
his consent, and a verdict was taken for that
amount.
Damages £lOO.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
IN THE MATTER OF MARY ANN WDONNELL, AN

INFANT—THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE.
This case, which was reported in The Sun on
Tuesday, was mentioned at Chambersto Mr. Justice
Hill to-day, when an application was made by
Mr. Leonard, from the firm of Messrs. Graham and
Lyde, for a summons to show cause why a warrant
should not be issued against the Rev. William
Walter Roberts and; Mary M'Carthy for contempt
of court, upon the ground that the return made by
them to the writ of habeas corpus was false in
substance and insufficient in law.
It will be recollected that a writ of habeas corpus
had been servtd on Mr. Roberts and Mrs. M'Carthy
of the Roman Catholic school at Westminster„to
produce a girl named Mary Ann M'Donnell, she
being, it was alleged, detained from her father,
Tames M'Donnell, who had professed the Roman
Catholic faith, but who now wished his child to be
educated at a Protestant school. When the case
was before M. Justice Erle, on Monday, an under-
taking was given on the part of the defendants to
furnish on the following morning the name of the
person and the place where'the child was staying.
The information had not been given, and hence the
present application to his lordship.
Mr. Leonard read the following letter in support
of his application received from the attorney for the
defendants by Messrs. Graham and Lyde :
" 4Loirnincoylno'us.itnhnapheladvsing
" Gentlemen—l beg toin,f
made inquiries both from the Rev. Mr. Roberts and
from Mrs. M'Carthy, I find that neither Mr.
Roberts nor Mrs. M'Carthy know either the place
where, or the person with whom Mary Ann
M'Donnell is residing. When the offer was made
yesterday to give the name and address of that
person (which was made without any previous
communication upon the subject either with Mr.
Roberts or Mrs. M'Carthy), I supposed that I should
be able to give such information, but I find that it
is not in my power to do so.
" I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant.
"May 17, 1859." "F. R. WARD.
On this letter he (Mr. Leonard) applied for a sum-
mons to show cause why a warrant for contempt
should not be issued, as he submitted the return
was false in fact and insufficient in law.

The letter was.handed to the learned judge, and
was to the effect that the child went to the school
in lork•street, Westminster, on the morning of the
sth of April without having been taken or sent to
the school either by Mr. Roberts or Mrs. M'Carthy,
or by any party authorised by them, and that she
remained in the school until half-past twelve
o'clock, having refused to go home to her father,
although at liberty to do so, and that she left, tke
school of her own accord, and not in the custody or
possession of Mr. Roberts or Mrs. M'Carthy, or
any person acting under their authority, and she
might if she had chosen have returned to her
father. The return further stated that she has not
been since that time, nor was then, in the custody, power, or possession, or under the, care, control, or
authority of Mr. Roberts or Mrs..M‘Carthy, or any
person employed by them.
Mr. Justice Hill considered the application of so
much importance that he requested Mr. Leonard to
wait upon Mr. Justice Erle, as he. had heard the
application in the first instance.
'Mr. Leonard accordingly proceeded to Westmin-
ster, and after the rising of the Court renewed the
application in chambers before Mr. Justice Erle,
asking for a summons to be granted for contempt.
Mr. Justice Erle at once entertained the applica-
tion, and ordered the summons to be returnable on
Friday, the offices being closed to-morrow (this
day) on account of her Majesty's birthday.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
IN. RE THE METROPOLITAN SALOON OMNIBUS COM-

PANIC (LIMITED).
This was nn adjourned sitting for hearing a peti-
tion for a winding-up order against the above corn-

Sargood appeared for the petitioner, Mr.
Roxby for the company, and Mr. C. E. Lewis for
the shareholders.

A voluminous mass of evidence comprised only a
very few statements of the slightest public interest.
It appeared from the examination of Mr. Pope,
secretary to the company, that the company did
not owe £5,000 for borrowed money. A bill had
once been discounted at the rate of 20 per cent.,