The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-03 00:00:00

LAW IN TELLIGENCE.-JuNE 1.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—Before
Mr. Justice Hill and Common Juries.)
WALKER V. BARKER.--BREACH OF PROMISE.
This was an action for a breach of promise of
marriage. The defendant pleaded five pleas. First,
he denied the promise; secondly, that a reasonable
time had not elapsed; thirdly, that the plaintiff
was not ready and willing to marry him ; fourthly,
that the plaintiff had absolved him from his pro-
mise ; and,: fifthly, that the plaintiff had behaved
in such an indecent and immoral manner as to ex-
onerate him from his promise.
Mr. Pearce was counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Sergeant Parry and Mr. Joyce were for the de-
fendant.
The plaintiff is a young woman about 22 years
of age, and the defendant is the manager of a pub-
lic-house in Charlton-street, Somers-town, the
plaintiff's residing in Camden-town. In 1858 the
plaintiff was in the habit of visiting her uncle and
aunt, who resided opposite the defendant's, and
they became acquainted, and that resulted in an
intimacy and a promise to marry. Several letters
and presents passed between the parties, the latter
including the defendant's portrait in a case, and in
a brooch with the plaintiff's and defendant's hair
entwined. On Valentine's day, Feb. 14, 1859, she
received from the defendant a valentine, with the
usual amount of Cupids, flowers, and the printed
words, "My heart yearns for thee"—laughter—
and the following poetry in his handwriting:—
" Art thou not dear unto my heart?
Oh search that heart and see ;
And from that bosom tear that part
That beats not true to thee.
But to that bosom thou art dear,
More dear than words can tell ;
And if a fault be cherished there,
'Tis loving thee too well." (Laughter.)
On the envelope was written, "I love thee true."
After the parties had been acquainted for some
time, they visited Oxford, where the plaintiff's
parents had gone to reside, and there defendant held
himself out as her future husband. Whilst there
he purchased a wedding ring and presented to her,
saying, " Here's the wedding ring and one to bind
it, and you will soon want me to bind yourself."
He also purchased a keeper. The plaintiff at this
time was a cook in Guildford-street, Russell-square,
and upon the faith of the marriage she left her
situation and went to reside with her uncle and
aunt for the purpose of preparing for the marriage.
Several articles of furniture were purchased,
when it appeared the defendant had been at•
tracted by another young lady in the same street,
and became cool and afterwards left the plain-
tiff. With regard to the fifth plea an applica-
tion was made to chambers for the defendant to
supply the plaintiff with the names, &c., of the per-
sons with whom the plaintiff had acted immorally,
and he gave the names of three persons, one being
the tradesman from whom the furniture was pur-
chased. The plaintiff and defendant had not seen
each other since August, 1860. The defendant
returned his letters and presents, but they had kept
hers. In a conversation with her uncle as to his
intentions the defendant said, " She knows what it's
for ; I've done with her altogether." The uncle, in
cross-examination, denied that he had boasted he
would get her £5O damages. The aunt stated that
when the letters were to be burnt the defendant
asked for both or one of the rings. Plaintiff refused
to give them up, and the aunt said, " Why do you
wish to part man and wife ?" Plaintiff turned
round and smiled.
Mr. Balderson, furniture dealer, proved the plain-
tiff and defendant coming to his shop and purchas-
ing articles of furniture. He never took liberties
with tile plaintiff. He had never patted her on the
back and kissed her. He might have touched her
on the back, as any other customer, to call her
attention to some little article. He did not do Tit
with any improper intention. The defendant was
present all the time.
Several letters were put in and read. One dated
3d November, addressed to the plaintiff's aunt, was
as follows :
Dear mother,—l have taken the pleasure of
this short note to you, hoping to find you all quiet
well, as it leave all as at present. I told Sarah
about not writing home, and she said she had not
had time yet. Uncle Martin is not much better.
He was a little better about a fortnight a go.
Wether is against you much. I told him last Sunday
that I like to see him out again with his poney and
chaise and Harriet is has got a nice company to play
with her cousin baby, and it is a fine, girl, and
will you ask father whether he has got a squax—
(laughter)—to spare for her. If you have I should
be very much oblige if you give my best respecks to
to Jack—(laughter)—Polly and Bessy, Dick and all
the little ones—(laughter)—and would you be so
kind as to tell Jack that I tried to get. what he
ask me. I could not for love nor money. So no
more from your affectionate son-in law, THOMAS
BARKER." On the 30th June he wrote the aunt—
" Dear mother ;" he spoke of their coming together,
and concluded—" Your affectionate son and
daughter, Thomas Barker and Harriett."
Mr. Sergeant Parry addressed the jury for the
defence. He said it was to be regretted this action
had been brought. In August or September, 1860,
all intimacy ceased between them, and it was not
till March, 1861, that the present action was
brought. The defendant was only a barman and
not manager, and the plaintiff's father was only a
paviour, and it was not likely the plaintiff would
be much benefited by this action. He should call
witnesses to prove the fifth plea so far as regarded
her romping and kissing with young men. On one
occasion she went out with a young man and desired
a female friend not to tell Tom, and under these cir-
cumstances the defendant thought it was desirable
for them not to come together. There was a regu-
lar understanding between them that the arrange-
ments about the marriage should cease. He called
Mrs. Porter, who deposed that at the latter end
of the autumn of 1860, she saw the plaintiff at Mr.
Baldersbn's shop, It was between nine and ten
o'clock, and she was speaking to him and Mr.
Young, a fishmonger. Afterwards she saw the
plaintiff and Mr. Balderson in the shop. She heard
a laugh, and on looking round she saw plaintiff
kissing Mr. Balderson.
Cross-examined—Balderson's shop is an open one
with windows to the ground. She saw Mr. Bal-
derson put his head into the plaintiff's bonnet and
kiss her. (Laughter.) They were at the further
end of the shop. It was done for witness to notice
it. Anyone passing could have seen it. She
thought nothing of it at the time, and did not men-
tion it for some time after. Plaintiff told her she
was to be married in September, 1861. Witness
told the defendant of it about too months ago.
Catherine Gibbs saw the plaintiff, in Along,
1860, with a young man named M'Millan, and. she
desired her not tell Tom of it. She saw her with
him on Palm Sunday, and he kissed her twice.
She had seen Mr. Balderson put plaintiff's back
and squeeze her hand. (Laughter.) The kissing
took place at the uncle's street door. She resided
at the public house opposite plaintiff's aunt's house.
Robert Muntze, barman at the Victoria, in Charl-
ton-street—On the 13th August, 1860, he saw the
plaintiff at Ler uncle's door with George Hubert.
They were larking and kissing. It was 11 o'clock
at night. Witness took plaintiff's letters back to
her and asked for the rings. She declined to give
them up, and said, " If Thomas wants them he must
come for them."
Cross-examined—Defendant was with witness in
the bedroom when they saw the kissing. The
Victoria was opposite the plaintiff's. Defendant
saw them together first, and called witness's atten-
tion to them. They were merry. Playing together.
(Laughter.)
George Russell deposed to the plaintiff and
M'Millan being at the uncle's door on Palm Sun-
day evening. M'Millan had her hand in his. They
kissed before parting and after. (Laughter.) They
both kissed each other, but he did not hear the
smack. (Laughter.)
Henry M'Millan deposed that he was a butcher.
In August, 1860, he took the plaintiff to Hamp-
stead, with her uncle and aunt. They returned
home about half-past nine o'clock. On the way to
Hampstead she said she was to be married to Tom
in about a twelvemonth from that time.
Mr. Joyce—Did anything pasas between you that
evening ?
Witness—Nothing but a kiss. (Laughter.) He
could not go all day without having a kiss.
(Laughter.) He paid for the donkey-riding on the
heath, and she repaid him with a kiss. (Laughter.)
He kissed her on Palm Sunday.
Cross-examined—He told plaintiff's attorney that
he had only kissed her once—on Palm Sunday.
Defendant might have told him that he had been
served with a writ in this action. Defendant did
not ask him then to go and kiss her. (Laughter.)
Re-examined—She made a trifle of resistance
when he kissed her. (Laughter.)
George Hubert deposed that he kissed the plain-
tiff on the evening of the 13th August.
Cross-examined—He had only a slight know-
ledge of plaintiff. It wasgeis sister's wedding-day.
Plaintiff asked him for some cake, but instead of
that he kissed and larked with her. (Laughter.)
Mr. Pearce---What do you call larking ?
Witness—He caught her round the waist and
kissed her. (Laughter.) He only kissed her once.
He was a little fresh on account of the wedding.
Defendant said witness would be doing him a ser-
vice to come and give evidence. As it was a trifling
matter he said he had no objection. (Laughter.)
The jury 'ound a verdict for the plaintiff;
damages, 420.