The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-22 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGBNCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, March 20.
(Before Mr. Baron Wilde.)
lIANLEY V. SMITH.—BREACH OF PROMISE OW
MARRIAGE.—" MAY AND DECEMBER."
Sergeant Piggott and Mr. Wade for the plaintiff;
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., for defendant. The damages
were laid at £5OO, but the defendant admitting the
breach of promise, pleaded that £5O was sufficient
damages, and therefore paid that sum into court.
In opening the plaintiff's case, the learned ser-
geant stated that the plaintiff, Marian Hanley, was
about twenty-one years of age, and the daughter of
James Hanley, a farmer, under the Earl of Brad-
ford, at Brancote, in Staffordshire. Defendant
occupied an adjoining farm of 180 or 200 acres, was
about seventy-five years of age, and had been all
his life a bachelor. The fact that defendant was so
old only concerned the plaintiff; and he (Sergeant
Piggott) thought defendant ought to pay rather
more damages than less on that account, because he
had made a fool of a young lady who could not
have had so much experience of the world as hb
had. He began by paying plaintiff attentions,
familiarly "chucked" her under the chin, and called
her his little wife. He drove her to Handsworth
to see some of her relations upon two occasions, and
in September, 1859, he made her an offer of mar-
rage.
He visited her regularly afterwards, and in
January or February, 1860, he asked plaintiff and
her mother to come and see the residence he had
prepared for plaintiff, and which she was soon to be
the mistress of. He then said they should be mar-
ried in a month, and he would make a settlement
upon her so that she might be independent of her
family. He went to a tailor's to be decked out in
the most comely way; the wedding dress, wedding
cake, and ring were bought, and he went with plain-
tiff's father to buy the license. Thus all things
were ready for the wedding ; but when the ap-
pointed day came the defendant postponed it,
and continued doing so time after time till Novem-
ber last, when plaintiff's parents called upon him
to marry her, or say he would not, in order that
they might know in what position they stood.
The learned counsel then went on to compare the
ITo That
case with " Bardell v. Pickwick, stating that de-
fendant tried to produce an effect, and came into
court with dishevelled hair, unshaven, unwashed,
and with no collar on, in order that by. looking
wretched, he might induce the jury to behere that
Npvlaasinhtiisff
"little had not
gamelos (
t muchl a u
hoped it would not succeed, after he had deliber-
ately chosen to play with plaintiff's affections for
(laughter) ter) losing
gt
lo
it him.
was
two years, and had put her to great expense in
purchasing the necessaries for the wedding.
She
was a very respectable young woman, was fit in
every way to be a farmer's wife, and it would have
been a great improvement in her position to have
been transferred to a farm of two hundred acres of
land, and to have a husband—if she did not object

to his age—who would make a settlement upon
her.

Ann Hanley, mother of plaintiff, was then called.
She stated she was the wife of James Hanley, a
farmer, of Brancote, where he had lived ten years.
Defendant during that period had lived on a farm
about 150 or 200 yards off, and had been on terms
of intimacy with the family. He had paid atten-
tions to her daughter, and had called her his little
wife. Witness recollected her daughter going
to Birmingham in September, 1859, upon which
occasion defendant drove her to the A lbrighton
station in his gig. On her return he sent a servant
with a shawl and cloak to cover her with. Defen-
dant talked to a man named Weston about the
plaintiff, and said he would marry ber if he lived.
He also said he would settle something ou her in
order that she might not want after he was gone,
as, being a poor-law guardian, he had seen so
much distress and want. Witness went through
defendant's house, in company with her daughter,
in January, 1860, and, in answer to defendant's
questions, expressed her satisfaction with the
house and its appointments. Upon that occasion
defendant gave his word that the wedding should
take place in a month, Witness then took defen-.
dant to her tailor (laughter) to be measured for
some new clothes; and the wedding drese, cake,
and ring were also bought. They afterwards re-
turned home together. Witness's daughter was
twenty-one years of age last May.
Cross-examined by Mr Huddleston—Mr. Smith
(the defendant) had been an" old boy" ever since
she had known him ; but she did not think he was
75. She had known him ten years. Her tailor's
name was Crosby. (Laughter.) She declined to
say whether he ever measured hoe' for clothes.-
(Renewed laughter.) Did not take defendant
there to be " dressed up," nor did she recommend
him trousers, nor choose the pattern of the waist-
coat. As defendant put the wedding day off, they
" made use" of the wedding cake; that is, she and
her friends ate it. (Laughter.)
In re-examination witness said she went to a
tailor's because defendant asked her.

James Hanley, father of plaintiff, deposed that
he did not assent to the match at first because of
the disparity of age, but ultimately he did. Plain-
tiff was the youngest of seven children. Defendant
was a churcnwarden, and a poor law guardian.
John Hanley, plaintiff's brother, stated that he
went according to defendant's wish to look at a
farm which he proposed to purchase and settle on
the plaintiff.
Cross-examined—Defendant had suffered from a
bed leg, but not for the last two or three years.
Eliza Green, wife of the surgeon who attended
defendant for his leg, stated, in cross-examination,
that she had never heard plaintiff call defendant an
old fool. (Laughter.)
No other witnesses were called.

Mr. Huddleston made a very humorous address
to the jury, remarking upon the anxiety displayed
by Mrs. Hanley, when she took defendant to her
tailor—(laughter)—as to how he was to be dressed.
If she had the dressing of him, no doubt his learned
fiend would have had no occasion to call attention
to his appearance as he had done. Considerable
merriment was also occasioned by the learned
counsel reading the following imaginary delibera-
tion as to bow defendant was to be attired when he
was married :
" Pray, how was the suitor to be dressed P
Oh T he was to be drecised in his Sunday best ;
His coat to be blue, and his peg-tops, too,
And pockets there for his hands to go through."

Mr. Huddleston went on to make fun of the as-
sumption that the loss of such an elderly man could
be a serious loss to the plaintiff, and characterised
the whole affair as a mercenary proceeding on the
part of the parents.
The Judge, in summing up, remarked upon the
fact that the counsel on both sides had made fun of
the defendant ; one with the idea of increasing, and
the other with the idea of decreasing the damages,
It appeared, however, to be a regular straightfor-
ward affair, and he did not think there was any
justification for accusing the parents of any merce-
nary feeling.
After a short deliberation, the jury returned a
verdict for plaintiff—damages £lOO, iu addition_to
the £5O paid into court.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—TAUNTON, MARCH 21.
(Before Mr. Justice Wines and a Special Jury.)

TREWMAN V. SCRIVEN.—SLAT DER.
This was en action brought by the plaintiff, the
Rev.A. F. 'crewman, the vicar of llminster, against
the defendant, a youth who had been discharged
from his employment, for slanderous words, imput-
ing to the plaintiffconduct towards him of the most
revolting description.

Sir F:Slade, Mr. M. Smith, and Mr. Cole ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Collier and Mr.
Kingdon for the defendant.
Such was the disgusting nature of the case that
his lordship suggested before going into it, that
some other means should be taken of bringing it to
an issue than going into the details in open court.
This suggestion, however, could not be carried out,
as the plaintiff was anxious for a full and public
vindication of his character after the charges which
had been brought againt him.
The case was then gone into, and lasted the entire
day.
We learn by electric telegraph that the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £5OO.