The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-01 00:00:00

SECOND COURT.

(Before Mr. Bliss, Q C., and Attorney-General.)
RADCLIFFE V. BENTLEY.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF

MARRIAGE.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the
breach of an'alleged promise of marriage.
The defendant simply denied the promise.
Mr. Pope was for the plaintiff; Mr. Monk,
Q.C., for the defendant.

In opening thecase Mr. Pope said that the plain-
tiff, Elizabeth Radcliffe, was a young woman of
humble: parentage, her father having been for some
time a Skilled mechanic, in the employ of Messrs.
Musgrave, keepers of a foundry at Bolton. When
the plaintiff was about 16 years of age she went
into domestic service at the Globe Inn, Farnworth,
near Bolton. The defendant, Isaac Beetley, is a
keeper of the Cross Guns public-house at the same
place, and it would be proved that he was a man
of considerable substance, he being the owner of
some realised property. Some time ago there was a
vacancy in the defendant's public-house, and the
plaintiff, accompanied by her mother, applied for
the situation. She had been known to the defendant
while she was at the Globa, and an arrangement
was made by which she entered into his service.
AlthOugh considerable difficulty arose in these cases
in proving the promise to marry, he believed he
would be enabled to show that not only were there
circumstances from which they might infer such a
promise was made, but that there were circum
stances which had arisen to show, on the defendant's
own admission, that he had entered into a distinct
promise of marriage; and under that promise had
effected the girl's ruin, she being now a mother by
him. When she discovered her state she did the

most natural thing for a girl in her position to do
—she explained to her mother the whole matter.
'rho mother then went to Bentley and asked what
he was going to do. She said he had effected her
ruin under a promise of marriage, and although he
did not deny the statement, he made an excuse for
its performance by saying she was too young, and
that he could not marry her. The defendant had
also made presents to the girl in contemplati n of
marriage; but he had since been married to another
woman ; and the question for the jury would be, he
thought, simply the amount of compensation to
which she was entitled.

James Radc iffe, plaintiff's father, said he worked
at Messrs. Musgrave's foundry, at Bolton, and de-
fendant kept the Cross Guns public-house at. Farn-
worth. When she 16 years of age she went into
service at the Globe, and after being there about 6
months she went to the defendant's place. About
two years ago witness was about to leave Bolton
for Liverpool,and told defendant his daughter would
have to go with them. Defendant said it would put
him very much about if she left, and witness replied
that he could easily get another servant. He said
she was a very good servant, that he liked her very
well, and that he could trust her with anything.
They did not go co Liverpool, and his daughter con-
tinued in defendant's service. When he went to the
place he saw that he always treated her very well.
In cross-examination by. Mr. Monk the witness
said that when his daughter wasl3 years of age she
was a servant in Pease's liquor vaults in Liverpool ;
then she went to Leed's beerhouse at Birktnhead,
afterwards to the British Queen at Bolton, then to
the Globe at Farn worth, and last to the defendant's
house. The Cross Guns is a roadside public-house,
and much frequented by carters during the night
as well as day.

Elizabeth Radcliffe, plaintiff's mother, said that
after her daughter told her the condition she was in
she went to him, and asked what he was going to
do about the matter, to which he replied that he did
not know. The plaintiff had told her that the de-
fendant had bought her a silk dress as a wedding
dress, and the defendant said as to the dress it cost
a good deal of money.
This being the whole of the evidence,
Mr. Monk submitted that there was .no promise
proved, and that even if he did make the promise
there was nothing to show that the plaintiff agreed,
as the contract must be mutual.

His Lordship thought there was sufficient evidence
upon which to allow the case to go to the jury. • •
Mr. Monk then addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendant, urging the most proper way to in-
vestigate the case would have been to affiliate the
child, in which both parties might be examined
upon oath, whereas in this inquiry neither could be
called. He pointed out the very uncertain nature
of the evidence adduced, contending that there was
no proof that the defendant had ever promised to
marry the girl, and dwelling, upon the probable
conduct of a girl who had been engaged in such
occupations as those in which the plaintiff had beer,
employed.
The learned Judge, in summing up the case.
observed that the question for their consideration
was whether the detendant had made a promise to
marry the plaintiff; and explained that whatever
might be their decision it did not affect the,
right of the plaintiff to affiliate the child, if the de
fendant were liable to support it.
After a prolonged consultation out of court the
jury returned a verdict for the defendant.