The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-20 00:00:00

ASSIZE ENT EZZWENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, JULY 18.
(Before Mr. Baron Watt. .)
MIDDLETON V. WHEATCROFT. —SEDUCTION.
Mr. Hill, Q C., and Mr. Jones were for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Overend, Q.C., for defendant.
Mr. Jones opened the pleadings. Sarah Middle-
ton was the plaintiff, and Thomas Wheatcroft the
defendant. The action was for seduction, and the
declaration alleged that the defendant seduced the
plaintiff's daughter. The defendant pleaded not
guilty, and that Rachel Middleton was not the ser-
vant of the plaintiff.
Mr. Hill stated the case. The plaintiff is a widow,
who was left with three daughters, and she brought
this action against the defendant for the injury he
had done by seducing her youngest daughter. The
two eldest daughters reside with their mother, the
plaintiff, but are able to support themselve?, as
milliners. The youngest. girl, Rachel, who was
the person seduced, was educated at Saint
Philip's School, Sheffield, where she afterwards
became teacher, at a salary of 201. a-year. She re-
sided with her mother, and when not at school she
assisted her mother in the household work. The
defendant formerly carried on business at the town
of Sheffield, as a butcher and baker. In Nov., 1855,
he formed an acquaintance with the plaintiti's
daughter. He proposed marriage to her, and was
receivod in the house of her mother as the approved
suitor of her daughter. In this case the jury eon! d
not inquire into any loss which the plaintiff's daugh-
ter had sustained by reason of the breach of promise
of marriage, but the promise became material as
showing the footing on which the defendant was re-
ceived into the house, and as showing that he was
base enough to take advantage of his position to
effect the ruin of this girl, when she was only 19
years of age. In the spring of 1856 the defendant had
effee' ed the ruin of the plaintiff's daughter, who was
delivered of a child on the 12th of Nov. following.
An order of affiliation upon the defendant was obtain-
ed fi om the magistrates of Sheffield, and the learned
counsel for the plaintiff said. that this ac'ion would
possibly never have been heard of had not the de-
fendant, in the 4pring of the present year, gathered
up his property, intending to proceed to Australia,
and thus avoid the payment under the bastardy
order. Upon this, the plaintiff was induced to take
proceedings, which resulted in the apprehension of
the defendant, who was compelled to give bail to
answer this action. The plaintiff's counsel did not
ask for vindictive damages, but for such a reason-
able sum as should recompense the plaintiff for the
injury she had sustained.
Mr. Overend, for the defendant, contended that
there was no ground whatever for the suggestion
that Wheateroft was about to proceed to Australia,
and so rid himself of the responsibility of sup2ort-
ing his child, the fact being that this action was
brought some time before a word was ever said
upon that subject. No doubt the defendant was the
father of the child, but he bad hitherto done all
that was necessary to support it, for when the plain-
tiff's daughter went before the magistrates, he did
not require h er evidence to be corroborated, but sub-
mitted to an order, on which he had regularly paid.
The defendant was in a small way of business, andthe
learned counsel entreated the jury not to give heavy
damages, and that they would not at all events give
the plaintiff anything for the consideration of the
MA that the defendant had promised to marry her
daughter. The defendant had already been dragged
before the magistrates, andnow there was an action
brought against him by the mother, and in all pro-
bability there would be another action at the next
assizes, brought by the daughter for the breach of
promise of marriage. He did not wish to say a word
against the character of the plaintiff or her daughter;
on the con rary he grieved for their condition, and
admitted that the mother was entitled to damages
in respect of the loss of her daughter's services, but
he asked the jury not to let those damages be other-
wise than reasonable or temperate.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 1201.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—WORCESTER, JULY 18.
(Before Baron Bramwell.)
HAZELDINE V. HAMPTON AND WIFE--BREACH OF
PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
This cause presented the novelty of an action
brought by.a d:sippoint-d man against a lady and
her husband for breach of promise made by her to
marry h:m.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr, Byrne, for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and dr. Phip-
son, for defendants.
• Mr. Huddleston stated the case. The plaintiff
was a farmer and butcher at Stourbridge, and the
male defendant was a lime and coal merchant at
Brattel-1 me. Mrs. Hampton (formerly Anis Darby)
had been sued successfully by plaintiff, and mar-
riage had been agreed upon ; but she afterwards
jThe I him for her present husband. A le:ter to
plaintiff from the lady was read, dated Sept. 14,
1855, in which she said, "I am sure I have been
crying all the time I have been doing this letter,
for I have thought so much of you. I love you
far Letter than woman ever loved, and some-
thing makes me think you love me, so 'I may
say there is no love lost. I will not think any
more of G. W., but I will think of you, so do
not say anything about him to me." There were
two or three other letters, down to February, 1856,
written in terms of moderate affection, but in one she
askel plaintiff to lend her 101. or 201., in another
she agan desired him to •`try and bring that
money," and said—" T am much surprised to think
you should put yourself so much over that young
man. lam sure I was not with him the other
Sunday. I was up at Brierly-hill on Sunday week
at night, but I -am sure I did not see him, for a
married man brought me home, because it was late.
It was Mr. Grove, a grocer, but if you like to be-
lieve other people you can. I don't care how I
have written this, fur I am so hurt in my mind
about things."
Winesses were called. Mist Parkes proved that
the wedding was twice fired, but on both occasions
a death in the family put it off. Mr. Haseldine,.
father of the plaintiff, gave similar evidence, and
said that he had arranged to give up his business
to his son upon the marriage of the latter. It ap-
pea:ed, however, that the plaintiff had got Miss
Darby's watch as security for rho money which she
hail borrowed of him, and that he had also brought
an action against her for the money, and received
301 or 401.. of it. Mr. Vernon, draper, pioved that
the plaintiff had engaged a house, bought furniture,
• and given the. lady presents for her marriage.
Mr. Skinner, in addressing the jury for the de-
fendants, ridiculed the idea of bringing such' an
action as this. He called the defendant's sister,
Miss Sarah Hampton, Mr. Hampton, the father,
and Mr. Luau Hampt. n, the brother, who proved
that plaintiff called upon Mi.,s Darby at their house
and had an interview with her, after which he was
heard to swear at her, and say to her, " Now go
to --, I've got all I want from you ;" ho then
went away, taking her watch with him, and leaving
her with her Mouth bleeding. This was five wet ks
before the defendant, Mr. Hampton, paid his ad-
dresses to her. Some prope;ty was left her, and
plaintiff's father had been heard to say, "It'll be a
good thing for our Harry ;" but when it was known
that the will secured the settlement of it upon her-
self at her marriage, he was heard to say, "She's
worth nothing without her money." Plaintiff him-
self had talked very coarsely, and said he never
wanted her.
His lordship, in summing up, asked what on
earth bad been the man's loss ? Why, he had lost
a wife, and if there was but one woman left in the
world, there might be some reason for complaint
in this respect. There had been a contract, but it
had been broken. He concluded by saying that
he should not be disappointed if the jury did not
find a verdict for the plain ift at all ; or if so, for
more than the lowest coin of the realm.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant..

NORTH WALES CIRCUIT. -...NEWTOWN.
JULY 17.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.)
• rtonEßTs V. EVANS. —BREACH OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.
The only civil cause fur trial at these assizes was
the above, is which the damages were laid fat 2001.
Mr. Wintyre and Mr. Vaughan Williams were
counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Morgan Lloyd for
the defendant.

The defendant was a small farmer and horse-
dealer living at Cwmyrannel, near Carno. He
courted the plaintiff for seven years, and even went
so far as to procure a marriage license. She was the
daughter of a small farmer, and her brother had
married one of the defendant's Sisters. In Nov. 1855,
the defendant suggested that they should be married
in the ensuing December, and he went to a mercer's
shop in Newton to buy things for the wedding,
which, however, did not tak place. Unfortu-
nately the plaintiff had, in an unguirded moment,
yielded to the solicitation of the defendant, and in
the February following she gave birth to a child.
After this he did not marry her. It was now con-
tended by his counsel that only a condition il pro-
mise was made, and that a reasonable time had not
elapsed. The promise was made upon the under-
standing that they could agree as to the amount of
dowry, but the plaintiff's mother would give no-
thing, and would have forced the defendant to
marry her daughter.
The judge said the defendant himself had fixed
the day, and it was his place, having broken it off,
to name another day. It was not a sufficient
reason for breaking the promise to say that they
could not agree as to the dowry, unless it could be
shown that that was part of the original agreement.
It was alleged that the plaintiff alone was to blame