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

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

At the Sheriff's Court, Liverpool, on Tueday, the
case of Heywood v. Bleackley was tried. This
case, the merits of which hare been before the
Queen'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.
Abmit 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 iniury
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 probribly have
gained if the 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 returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £2OO.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—.Dec. 21.

GUILDHALL.—Alderman Copeland attended
before Alderman Salomons, the presiding magi-
strate, and made the following statement :—" it
will be in the recollection of the Court that on
Saturday last I made a communication with re-
ference to the Equitable Investment and Rever-
sionary Company, limited, of which Captain Hob-
son, of the Ron. EP,st India Company; had been
offered a spat in thri direction by the promoter, Mr.
Harris, 'who at the same time referred Captain
llobse'n to Alderman Sir James Duke, Bart., M.P.,
Samuel Haya on, Esq., a banker of Guildford, and
Juncan Dunbar, Esq., as persons who had con-
sented to become directors of the scheme. On that
occasion. I studiously avoided all mention of Mr.
Hayden, beyond relating it in the letter ; but
with regard to Sir James Duke and Duncan
Dunbar, Esq., I had their positive assurance that
they not only had nothing to do with the proposed
company, but that they did not even know any-
thing about it. On Tuesday last Mr. Harris and
a person named Smith called upon me. The former
was violently excited, and I will not say that he
threatened me, but his language and manner inti-
mated law proceedings. He said that Mr. Smith
was about to proceed to Guildford, to see Mr. Hay-
don on the subject, and that I should hear some-
thing further that would satisfy me that Mr. Hay-
don had permitted his name to be used as it had
been; Since that interview I have received the fol-
lowing letter from Mr. Haydon, which will show
how far Mr. Harris's statement was correct :

" Guildford, Dec. 19, 1859.
" Sir,—Having noticed in the Times of to-day
your mention of my name (rather mis-spelt) in con-
nexion with those of Sir James Duke and Mr. D.
Dunbar, I think it right to inform you that I have
been canvassed to join the company named, those
gentlemen with others having been mentioned as
cognisant of and favourable to the project. Like
them, however, I have given no sanction for the
placing of my name on the direction, and though
of small value as a public lure in comparison with
them, I think it right to join my protest with theirs
against the unauthorised use of any one's name.
"I am, sir, your obedient servant,
" S. HAYDON.
" Mr. Alderman Copeland, M.P."
When Mr. Harris and Mr. Smith waited on me,
the former said he had every reason to believe that
Mr. Duncan Dunbar would become a trustee, and
I thereupon put myself in communication with that
gentleman, and I received from him the following
answer :

" 50, Porchester-terrace, Dee. 21, 1859.
"My Dear Sir,—l never heard (as far as I know)
of the E. I. and R. Company until I received your
note from Captain Hobson, and saw my name, to
my astonishment, in the letter. I certainly never
gave my consent to become a director and trustee.
Indeed, I invariably refuse all such applications, as
I will not act a part in robbing the public, with
which intention nine-tenths of these companies are
started. I thank you very much for publicly
denying my connexion with this scheme.
" Sincerely yours,
" D. DUNBAR.
" To Alderman Copeland, M.P., &c."
On the receipt of these letters I wrote to Mr. Har-
ris to inform him I should not let the matter rest
there, and to give him the opportunity of attending
to-day to hear these letters read.
Mr. Harris here stepped forward and said—l
wish to make a simple statement, and I have to ask
the indulgence of the Court, in order that my ex-
planation may go forth to the public with the
worthy alderman's observations.

Alderman Salomons—Will the statement you are
desirous of making tend to refute the assertions of
the gentlemen whose names have been used ?
Mr. Harris—lt will, sir. I had, directly from
some and indirectly from others, their sanction to
use their names. When I received Alderman Cope-
lancl'Es letter I went off to Guildford, but was unable
to see Mr. Haydon. I had, however, indirect per-
mission,from a responsible person to use his name.
I have the permission of all these gentlemen, with
the exception of Mr. D. Dunbar, to use their names
conditionally. I had an interview with Sir James
Duke and Mr: Haydon on the subject. Capt. Hob-
son applied for the secretaryship, and mentioned
Sir James Duke's name, and, by mistake, I admit,
I improperly made use of their names. Captain
Hobson's name having been placed to a letter not
intended for him, I was justified in using the names
of the parties alluded to by the conditional permis-
sion I had received.

Alderman Copeland said—l havo done what I
consider a public duty, and have, therefore, nothing
further to say in the matter.
The worthy alderman then retired.
Mr. Harris was about to enter upon another
rambling statement, when he wos reminded by
Alderman Salomons that the business of the day
had now been disposed of, and that the public wore
waiting to be released from further attendance.

BOW-STREET.—Mr. Wheatstone, music seller,
of Conduit-street, Grosvenor-square, appeared to
answer a summons, at the instance of the autho-
rities of the British Museum, charging him with
omitting to forward to that institution a copy of a
piece of music, entitled " Warren's Harmonium Se-
lections, No. 13."
Mr. Wheatstone objected that the work was not
copyright, and therefore, he submitted, could not
come under the provisions of the Copyright Act.
Mr. Heury overruled the objection. A copy of
every publication, whether copyright or not, must be
supplied to the Museum. The library would be very
imperfect, if it included only copyright works.

Fined £3, and £2 costs.
Mr. Hering, of the firm of Hering and Reming-
ton, of Regent-street, yablishers, appeared to a
similar summons, for not supplying a copy of a work
entitled " Marshall's Photography."
Mr. Hering complained that he had received no
notice to supply the work. He considered it a hard-
ship that he should be summoned for a mere over-
sight.
Mr. Henry said no notice was necessary. Such

oversights would be avoided, if every publisher
would consider the Museum as his first customer,
and send his first copies there.
Fined 20s. and 40s. costs.

TION OF MRS.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET. RE-EXAMINA-
has been in custcdy from the 29th Nov., underwent
TYRIVIIITT.—Jane Tyrwhitt, who
a fourth examination, before Mr.Beadon, on various
charges of obtaining goods from tradesmen by false
pretences, and by forged requests, also withendea-
Touring to obtain goods by similar means.
As on prior investigations, Mr. Dod, on the part
of the Society for the Protection of Trade,
for the prosecution, and Mr. Lewis, of Ely-place,
for the prisoner, who was led into court by Bendall,
the gaoler, from a cab from the House of Detention,
in exactly the same state as she has seemed in all
along. for
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Marlborough-street, said
the case intrusted to him against the prisoner vies
of minor importance compared to the others, and
he was not instructed to proceed in it.
The depositions in the already two completed
cases, of which particulars have been fully given.
having been read over by the chief clerk, gr.
Leadley,
Mr. Dod observed that he had only new to call
sufficient evidence to complete the case prosecuted
by Mr. Heath, the hatter, of Knightsbridge, end
then would ask for a committal.
Mr. Robert heath, St. George's place, Knig.hts:
bridge, deposed—The letter produced was received
"
by us on or about 17th October, by post, and f
Clare
warded, as it ordered three fancy hats to
House, Richmond, South Western Railway'
directed, " Hon. Mrs. Vernon." I identify the hats
produced by Cole, the detective, as those I sent, an
also the box. The value is between £4 and £5.
Mr. George Robertshaw, of Oxford-street, wog
well acquainted with the prisoner's handwriting,
and was of opinion that the letter adverted to Was
written b her.
Remanded till next Wednesday, pro format °ll
which day, on the evidence in the three cases eow.
made known to the public, she will be
for trial, Mr. Beadon remarking that it seemed
him useless to go into the very many other ohar,get
which Mr_ Pod. had said could be brought again:3
her. with
The court during the hearing was filled
West-end tradesmen and their witnesses, and
the finish of the case the prisoner, whose inaisposvti
comraittetdo
t
tion in the opinion of the Court and most who
her, was entirely assumed, was taken back ."1_
Bendall, the gaoler, and the female warder to her
quarters in the House of Detention.