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

T II I?, S IT N 1

EX CHEQUER.-(THIS DAY)
(Sittin;-,s in Banco.)

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE- MILWAED

LITTLEWOOD.

This was an action for brasch of promise of mar-
riage, tried before Mr. Baron Parke at the late
at <Mester, and in which a verdict was found fur the
pliviatiif for 2001.
Mr. Sergeant H. JONES applied for a rule to set aside
the verdict :said tor anew trial, or to arrest the judgment,
an the ground of the bulk of the evidence hying against
the verdict, and of excessive damages. It appeared
if at the plainta, who was a widow, and the mother of
two children, kept the Wheatsheaf public-house, in
Isitteclesfield, to which the defendant, who was a corn-
broker, carrying on business at Huddersfield, but at the
time an entire stranger to the plaintiff, repaired as a
guest on Saturday, the 3:l of November, 1819, in com-
pany with a friend named Wilson. An acquaintance
soon :sprung IP) between the parties, and as mu ly as the
followint Monday the defendant made an offer of
marriage to the landlady, which was accepted.
Fie remained at tlae ‘Vheatsheaf nearly three
weeks, during which time, it appeared, he co-
habited with the plaintiff. He then left somewhat
abruptly.. She foliowad him to Otdr.ate, anti went to
the Royal Oak, which was kept by his brother; she
there inquired tor Harry Littlewood, noel was told both
by the detendant's sister and sister-in-law, that he was a
married mss, and was then in Yorkshire with his wife
and family. The plaintiff at first disbelieved the infer-
,' 'nation. In Oldham she met with a friend of the de-
feadant's named Davenport, who told her that he was at
Manchester, and at her request ho aceompaaied her
thither, she paying all the expenses. At Manchester
they succeeded in finding the object of their pursuit,
and who took 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 he said he was unable to do so then,
promising to visit her again very shortly. He
accordingly returned on the 19th of December, and in a
few dass afterwards the plaintiff shut up the \V heutsheaf
and took a private house, which she furnished, in the
expectation 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 nut entitled to so large an amount of da-
m ages.

Mr. Baron PARKE—The jury found that the promise
was accepted in imiorance of the defendant's marriage.
Mr. Sergeant JoNF:s —A witness who was a friend of
the defendant cold her repeatedly that he was a married
man, but she said, " Married or not, she would keep his
company." The Learned Counsel then argued that even
if a boLa fide promise had been made and accepted, it
was a general promise, and not that the marriage sln,uld
take place on a particular day. It a•as possible that
the proutise was to marry the plaintiff on the death of
his wite.

The COURT refused to grant a rule o❑ any of the
grounds mentioned, considering that it was entirely
within the province of the jury to judge of the amount
of damages. As to the right of s mut to make a pro-
mise to msrry a woman at the death of his wife, the
Court entirely ugraed with the decision to the case of
" Wilde v. Harris." Such a practice was quite incon-
sistent with the devotedness and love which ought to
exist between ti 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 importar:ce or interest was
transacted in this court during the thoraing.

BAIL COURT.-(TIIIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)

EXECUTORS OF PETRE V. DIJNC INIBS.

Mr. JAMES, Q.C., applied to the Court for a rule to
show cause why the damages in this caw should not be
reduced from 9,7531. to 6.308/. The question involved
in the ma:ter for the consideration of the Court was,
whether or no interest was recoverable on piym, nt
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 evi-
-1 I.liity, aid in his lifetime Mr. Petre pad up the ar-
rears, to the extent of 6,3081., for the recovery of
which his executors brought the present action. The
jury, howev,sr, who tried the case, not only found fur
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 titne ; but_ in a case like this no such pawer
exist!ici, because wheq Mr. Petre paid each instalment he
ought, as he bad a right to do, so to have at once called
upon the (:!4fencient to refund him the money. The
Court would pcceive that if interest were recoverable
in cases of this natu,- a surety would have the option
of allowing a long perioi, !'s) elapse before he called upon
his principal to refund, in order" to obtain a large amount
of interest.—Application granted.