The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-06 00:00:00

THE SUN,

E.X.CtIL QUER.-(THIS DAY)

(6o ;Lags
BREACH OF PROMISE OF NAREIAGE—MILWARD V.

LITTLEWkiOD,

This w.s an ac'ion for bmach of promise of mar•
tried bjore Mr. Parhe at the late as:.izes
at Chest,r, and in which a vdic. was found for the
plaintiff !or 2001.
Mr. 6,rAeatit 11. JONES applied for a rule to set aside
the verdict and for a new trial, or to arrest the judgment
on the ground of the bulk of the evidence being against
the verdict, and of excessive damages. It appeared
that the plaintiff, who was a widow, and the mother of
two children, kept the Wheatsheaf public-house, in
Macclesfield, to which the defendant, who was a corn.
broker, carrying on business at Huddersfield, but at the
time tin entire stranger to the plaintiff, repaired as a
guest on Saturday, the 3d of November, 1849, in com-
pany with a friend named Wilson. An acquaintance
soon sprung up between the parties, and as early as the
following Monday the detencLnt made an oiler of
marriage to the landlady, which was accepted.
He rk mained at t..e Wheatsbeaf nearly three
weeks, during which time, it appeared, he co-
habited with the plaintiff. He then left somewhat
abruptly. She Ll.orved him to Oidbaw, and went to
the Roy-. 1 Oak, which was kept by his brother; she
there inqaired tor Harry Littlewood, and was told both
by the de:undallt'S sister and sister-in-law, that he was a
married man, and was then in Yorkshire with his wife
and faintly. The plaintiff at first disbelieved the infor-
mation. In Oldham she met with a friend of the de-

feudant's named Davenport, who told h,:r that he was at
Manchester, and at her request he accompanied her
th:tner, st:e paying all the expenses. At Manchester
they succeeded in finding the object of their pursuit,
and who t,)ok them to a public-house, where
they all regaled themselves with tea at the defendant's
expense. She entreated him to return with her to
Macclesfield, but be said he was unable to do so then,
promising to visit her again very shortly. He
accordingly returned o❑ the 19th of December, and in a
few data afterwards the plaintiff shut up the Wheatsheaf
and took a private house, which she furnished, in the
expectatio❑ that the defendant intended to fulfil his pro-
mise. Great intimacy continued to exist between them
until she gave birth to a child, when plaintiff deserted
her. The Learned Counsel now contended that as the
plaintiff knew well that the defendant was a married
man she was not entitled to so large an amount of da-
mages.

Mr. Baron PARKE—The jury found that the promise
was accepted in irmoranee of the defendant's marriage.
Mr. tiergeaLt JONES —A witness who was a friend of
the defendant told her repeatedly that he was a married
man, but abe said, •' Married or not, she would keep his
company." The Learned Counsel then argued that even
if a bona fide promise had been made and accepted, it
was a general promise, and not that the marriage should
take place ou a particular day. It ~.as possible that
the promise was to marry the plaintiff on the death of
his wife.

The COURT refused to grant a rule on any of the
grounds mentioned, considering that it was entirely
within the provicce of the jury to judge of the amount
of damages. As to the right of a man to make a pro-
mise to marry a woman at the death of his wife, the
Court entirely agreed with the decision in the case of
" Wilde v. Harris." Such a practice was quite incon-
siiteut with the devotedness and love which ought to
exist between a man and his wife; and nothing but the
decision of the highest authorities in the kingdom would
compel the Court to think it was the law of the land.
Rule refused.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
No business of any general importance or interest was
Tansacted in this court during the morning.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTEsoN.)

EXECUTORS OF PETRE V. DUNCiMBE.

Mr. JAMES, Q.C., applied to the Court tor a rule to
show cause why the damages in this case should not be
reduced from 9,7531. to 6,3081. The question involved
in the matter for the consideration of the Court was,
whether or no interest was recoverable on payment
made by a surety to an annuity deed. In 1823 the de-
fendant granted an annuity of 6001. a year to a Mr.
Downes, and the Hon. Edward Petre, deceased, became
surety for securing its due payment, while the de-
fendant himself granted Mr. Petre an indemnity deed.
The defendant made default in payment of the an-
nuity, tii,d in his lifetime Mr. Petre paid up the ar-
rears, to the extent of 6,3081., for the recovery of
which his executors brought the present action. The
jury, however, who tried the case, not only found for
that amount, but awarded interest, which they had no
power to do, making the total damages no less than
9,753/. It was true the 3d and 4th Wm. IV., chap.
42, authorised juries to award interest on debts between
debtor and creditor, where debtor contracts to pay at a
particular time ; but, in a case like this no such pawer
existed, because when Mr. Petre paid each instalment he
ought, as ho had a right to do, so to have at once called
upon the defendant to refund him the money. The
Court would perceive that if interest were recoverable
in cases of this nature, a surety would have the option
of allowing a long period to elapse before he called upon
his principal to refund, in order to obtain a large umount
of interest.—Application granted.