The Sun.
London, England, 1857-04-25 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—Before
Mr. Baron Watson and Common Juries.)

KING V. WELBITRN.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.

This was an action brought to recover damages
for a breach of promise of marriage, and the de-
fendant pleaded that he did not promise as alleged.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cleasby appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Chambers and Mr. Price were
for the defendant.
The learned counsel, in opening the case, said
the plaintiff, Miss Alicia King, was the daughter
of a Mr. John King, a surgeon at Amplefortti, in
Yorkshire, and the defendant was Mr. John E B.
Welburn, an undergraduate of St. Catherine Hall,
Cambridge, and the son of the curate of Nether
Poppleton, in the same! county. In 1855 both the
fo.rnilies were on a visit to Scarborough, and the de-
fendant began to pay marked attentions to the plain-
tiff; he wrote a letter to her father asking his con-
sent to marry her, and represented himself to be in
a position to get married. The plaintiff's father,
being very intimate with the defendant's family,
gave his consent to the marriage, which was fixed
to take place in October last. For some reason the
wedding was to take place iu London, and at the re-
quest of the defendant the plaintiff's brother, who
lived in London, took lodgings for her in London,
until they were married. The plaintiff according 'y
went to town, but the defendant did not meet her,
and she wrote several letters to him, which he took
no notice of, but eventually wrote the following
letter to her father:—

"Catharine College, Cambridge, Nov. 1, 1856.
"Sir,—A great rumour has been afloat for some time
' that it was my intention to marry. I writs to ask if you
can tell me who are the originators and promulgators of
such a falsehood ? I keep constantly bearing from the
neighbourhood of Ampleforth about it—that though toy
father was unwilling I was going against his wishes. No.
Had such been the case I would never have done it ;
nor much more when the scandalous report is nothing
more than a wilful falsehood.—l am, yours,
"J. E. E. WI LBIIIIN."
The plaintiff, upon bearing of the defendant's
behaviour, bec Arne alarmingly ill, and two me deal
men were in constant attendance upon her ; and
the present action was brought for compmsation
for the heartless manner iu which she had been
treated by the defendant.
Miss Lucy King was then called, and said her
father, who was 'a surgeon, resided at Amplefcrtb,
inYorkshire, with his family. The defendant's father
was a clergyman and had been for a long time the
curate at Ampleforth. She knew the defendant,
who was at college at Cambridge. When he was
at borne he used frequently to pay visits at their
house, and used to ray attention to her sister
Alicia. On theist of erannary he went to their
house in the evening and gave her sister a diamond
and pearl ring. He expressed a wish that she
should wear it at a party which they were going to
at his father's house on the 3d Janu try. At the
same limo he made a proposal of marriage to her.
He asked her if she would marry him in the, follow-
ing May, but she said she should not be prepared
until October, and it was put off until that time.
The detendant was very persevering in his atten-
tions to the plaintiff, and they frequently walked
out togeler. It was arranged that they shou d
be married in London, where the plaintiff went to
in October. She followed her sister in a few days.
She was to have been bridesmaid. Everything was
prepared except the wedding dress, and the defen-
dant said he should buy that himself in London.
All their friends at'Ampleforth knew the reas
why the plaintiff went to London. When she left
she bid all her friends adieu. When witness got
to London she found her sister in a very bad stare
through the absence and silence of the defendant.
The plaintiff had written twice to him, but had re-
ceived no answer. Witness also wrote a letter to
the defendant, telling him how ill her sister was,
and entreating him to come and see her, but the
defendant took no notice of that letter. The pla n-
tiff was ill a very long time, and two medical men
attended her.

Cross-examined—The first proposal made by the
defendant to her sister was on the Ist of January
last, in her father's house. Witness was present at
Vie time. The ring was given at the same time.
Her sister was 25 years old, and the defendant was
22 at the present time. St,o asked the defendant
how he was supported at college, and he said he
was of no expense to his father. The defendant's
mother wa3 alive .at the present time. The de-
' fendant was the eldest son, but he had two brothers
and two sisters, one of whom was called Margaret,
who was 17 years old. Witness did not tell Mar-
gat et of the approaching marriage. Witness did not
know that the whole thing was kept dark. She told
her own father. They went to York in August, and
saw the defendant, and it was arranged that they
should go up to town to be married. Her sister
did go to town in October. The lodgings in London
were taken at 26, Tatchbrook-btreet, Pimlico. They
consisted of two rooms, . and were to have been the
wedding apartments. The plaintiff remained in
London for some time, and then returned to her
father. The plaintiff had been a governess, but
for the last five or six years had kept her father's
house.

Re•esamined—Her sister was dangerously ill for
some time.

John King, the plaintiff's father, said he was a
surgeon, at Amplefortb, where he had resided for
30 years. The defendant's father had been curate
of that place for 23 years, and their families were
intimate. Iu January, 1856, witness received a
letter from the defendant, asking his consent to
marry his daughter, which he eventually gave. He
was aware that they were attached to each other
before that. Witness saw the defendant's father
in August, and he said he knew all about the
affair.

Cross-examined—Witness had not always been
prosperous. He had lost all his money in a Dur-
ham colliery swindle. lie was insolvent in 1847,
and had become so for the purpose of clearing him-
self of those transactions. He could not have given
his daughter any money
at her marriage.
Re-examined—Defendaut's father was now per-
petual curate of Nether-Poppleton in Yorkshire,
where he bad a very nice house.
The plaintiff's brother said he had taken the lodg-
ings in London at the request of the, defendant.

He had known of the engagement between him and
his sister.

A medical man, Ttho attended the plainiiff
ing her illness, said that she was suffering from an
attack of dysentery, which would be caused by the
atmosphere being in a vad state.
This was the plainsiff s case.
_ _

Mr. M. Chambers then addresse I the jury for
the defendant, but called no witnesses. He admit:
ted that the plaintiff was entitled to the verdict,
but submitted that merly nominal damages would
be sufficient to meet the justice of the case. The
defendant at the time the promise was made was
only 21 years of age, and was sent to college by his
father. During the vacations be fell 'in love with
the plaintiff, as foolish youths would do—who was
much older than he was He was induced to make
the proposal, but great care was taken by the plain-
tiff's family that the defendant's father was not in-
formed of it, which was exceedingly improper on
their part, and ought to be considered by the jury
in giving the plaintiff damages. As to the defend-
ant's position, whichever way the verdict went he
would be ruined, as he had nothing at all. He sub-
mitted that the damages should be very small in-
deed.

His lordship summed up, and left it to the jury
to say what amount of damages the plaintiff was
entitled to for the breach of promise by the de-
fendant.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff-
Damage 3, 1501.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Mr.
Justice Williams and a Common Jury.)
COCKSHAW V. CRIIIKSHANK.

The plaintiff in this case is a stationer and printer
in Horseshoe-court, Ludgate-hill, and he brought
his action against Mr. Cruikshank, the artist, to
recover 501. 9s. 6d., the price of goods supplied to
a life and fire insurance company fora the working
classes, in which Mr. Cruikshank was formerly a
director.

Mr. Digby Seymour appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Ogle were for the
defendant.
Evidence was called for th. plaintiff to prove that
the goods had been supplied to the company upon
the order of Mr. Howell, the secretary, and it was
also proved that Mr. Cruikshank was one of the
directors.
Mr. Sergeant Shea then addressed the jury for
the defendant, and submitted that the mere fact of
Mr. Cruikshank having consented to become a di-
rector would not make him liable unless he gave
authority to order the goods in question, and they
would find from Mr. Cruikshank's evidence that he
had not given any authority at all.
Mr. Geo. Cruikshank was then called. He said
—I am the defendant in this action, andlave been
for many years endeavouring to improve the condi-
tion of the working classes. Howell applied to me
to become a co-trustee of the company with Sir J.
Shelley, about June or July last. He told me that
a number of benevolent gentlemen were desirous of
establishing a life insurance company for the lento-
fit of the working classes. I consented to become
a trustee with Sir J. Shelley. Howell told maafter-
wards that Sir J. Shelly was to have been the chair-
man, and recommended me to take the office of
chairman; as I was better known. I said I would see
Sir J. Shelley, but he said be was out of town. After
a good deal of solicitation I consented to act provi-
sionally. There was a list of directors with Sir J.
Shelley's name attached to it. Most of the names
were fictitious, or had been used without any autho-
rity. The Bank of London was named as the bank
where the funds of the company were kept. I ascer-
tained that neither Sir J. Shelley nor the Bank of
London had authorised their names to be used.
The whole of the directors repudiated it. There
were no directors, in fact. The only one was a man
whom I afterwanis found out was a journeyman
bricklayer. (A. laugh.)
Mr. Ogle.--Oh, the journeyman bricklayer con-
sented to honour the company and become director.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Cruikshank.—Yes ; I discovered the fraud
and exposed it. I inquired of Mr. Howell how the
expenses of the company were to be provided for,
and he told me that Mr. Nicholl, the solicitor, was
to provide for all the expenses of the company. I
had not known Howell previous to his making this
application to me. He was a perfect stranger to
me. I attended two or three of the meetisgs.
After the last meeting, in the early part of August,
I went to Scotland, where I remained about three
weeks. Before I left for Scotland I might have
seen a prospectus of the company, but I never read
it. (A. prospectus of the company was here handed
to the witness.) I see Mr. Howell is here described
as the manager and as a director, but he was only
the secretary. On one occasion I went to the office
of the company by the invitation of-Howell, and I
waited then an hour for the directors, but none
came. I said, " There are no &rectors." Nicholl
sai&there were sufficient to make a bolrd, but I
said I would not be a party to any such hole-and-
corner meeting as that. Mr. Nicholl said that it

would all afterwards be brought before-tile public,
and I said as that was so I did not mind, as I was
always for everything being brought before the
pubic. I never on any occasion gave Mr. Howell
authority to order any-goods for the company, nor
did I know that any was ordered. I did not know
that any order had been given on account of the
company. On my return from Scotland I said 1
should inquire int ► the legality of the company. I
found that their plans were illegal, and the signa-
ture of Mr. Tidd Pratt to a paper which Mr. H,)well
showed me was a forgery. I then told Mr. Howell
that I would have nothing more to do with it, and
I watched my opportunity and withdrew entirely
from the company.

Cross-examined—l cannot say that I saw the
copying machine supplied by the plaintiff at the
office, nor that I did not. Ido not recollect seeing
a date box there either. I cannot say whether
there was one or not. I was there only three or
four times. I did not see any ledgers lying on the
office counter, nor any books at all. I mean to say
that I s►w no forms and policies in the office.
Th-re might have been some prospectuses lying
about the office.

Mr. Seymour—ln this book you see there is a
confirmation of the minutes, and all that.

• Witness—Oh, yes ; there was all that humbug
of course for a particular purpose. I did not order
any prospectuses to be sent to me to Scotland, but
Mr. Howell said be would send me some down,
though he never did. I told Howell I would use
my influence in Glasgow, Manchester, and Edin-
burgh, if he seut me some down, and he promised
to do so.

RP-examined—Tho.re were some other prospee.
tuses, and there are those iii which my name is not
mentioned at all as chairman.

Mr. Sergeant Shee—fLy state as a fact to
your lordship that iu one of those prospectuses I
find the name of my learned friend on the other
side—Mr. Digby Seymour. (Liughter.)
Mr. Seymour—l never knew anything at all
about it until just now, my lord.
The case was part heard yesterday, and his lord-
ship, upon taking his seat upon the bench this
morning, suggested that some arrangement should
Le come to between the parties. There was no
doubt that the plaintiff was a loser, and that Mr.
Crnikshank had been made a dupe.
Mr. Cruikshank was willing to abide by any-
thing which his lordship might suggest.
The learned counsel then withdrew from the
court into the judge's private room, to endeavour
to arrange the matter, and upon their return into
court,

Mr. Seymour said his client bad agreed to terms.
The verdict would, therefore, be entered for the
plaintiff, subject to the terms agreed upon.
Mr. Ogle concurred with that.

His Lordship said he was very glad that the par-
ties had come to terms. Mr. Cruikshank had been
a great benefactor to the public and to the working
classes, and he had read with great pleasure many
of his works.

The verdict was then ent-red for the plaintiff,
subject to the terms agreed upon between the par-
ties, which our reporter was informed were that the
plaintiff was to receive 251.
The only two other cases baying been disposed of
the Court rose at about a quarter to 11 o'clock.