The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-15 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Non. 13.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
CRESWELL and a Common Jury.)
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
SUCH V. COBHAM.

This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mares from the defendant, for his breach of promise
of marriage to the plaintiff, under the following cir-
cumstances.

Mr. Montague Chambers was for the plaintiff; Mr.
Sergeant Jones conducted the defence.
It appeared that the plaintiff is the daughter of a
carpenter in Bowling-street, Redcross-lane ; and the
defendant is a 3 oung man about 22 years of age, and
the conductor of his father's business, who keeps an
oil-shop in Bow lane. About eighteen months since
the defendant became casually acquainted with the
plaintiff, and having professed himself a suitor, was
introduced to her family, whom he was constantly in
the habit of visiting, and was received by them as the
plaintiff's intended husband. However, subsequer.:,-Iv
the plaintiff proved pregnant, and was in due flAnie
de-
livered of a female child. Defendant h
match, and got married to another. hake off the
Consequently the present action - young person.
.was brought.
The defendant by his. p/
-do /admitted the protr:
but stated that he was
46'46'1-hied in breakii4 off the
the
match, the plaintiff
•
billing a loose and, immoral cha-
racter.

tinctl-
For th
,oved.
pitsintiff the facts of her case were dis-
A er
re defendant having failed to prove his plea,
' His Lowman'. told the jury, the question for them
to decide was the amount of damages, in doing which
they were to take into consideration the quality and
degree of effect which the defendant's conduct had
ntlicted upon the plaintiff. She was not entitled to
any damages for her seduction, for if she willingly
anandoned herself to immoral courses, she could not
claim any damages for her own trangression. The
defendant having failed to prove his plea, the jury
would give the plaintiff such damages as they thought,
under alt the circumstances, she was entitled to.
The jury, having consulted for a few minutes,
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 100/.
NOTEMBER 14.
NEWTON V. SHERITE OF GLOUCESTER.
This was an action for illegal arrest and forcible
entry. It was one of several cases arising out of certain
family differences, with the particulars of which the
public must be by this time quite sufficiently familiar.
The trial took place in this Court before the Lord Chief
Justice at the sittings of the last term, when the verdict
was for the plaintiff, with damages 501.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD obtained a rule to arrest
judgment.
This day Mr. Newton, in person, showed cause
against that rule, and addressed the Court at
length, observing, amongst other matters,
jat it had
been asserted to his injury by the oP- r side,
that he
was in destitute circumstances, wtereas the fact was,
that in two months of the last I,F, .at• a feesongreat
amounted
to 401.
rge the rule The COURT deckled to onla • for one week,
to wait the issue, of other t
proceedings pending in the
Queen's Bench.

This volut NSON V. LORD LICHFIELD.
%AS al action upon a bill of exchange for 1,2001.,
the
r ..dnce being that the noble defendant bad not made
Le bill, and had not endorsed it. The verdict was for
the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING, for the defendant, subsequently
obtained a conditional rule for a new trial, on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence, the Hon. Col. An-
son, brother of the defendant, and other persons, amongst
whom were Mr. Stevens' his Lordship's secretary, when
Postmaster-General, and also the Inspector of Franks—
all well acquainted with Lord Lichfield's handwriting—
having sworn that they did not believe the signature in
the indorsement to be hip. The Learned Sergeant, at
that time, further urged that the plaintiff had not shown
in what manner the bill came into possession ; whereas,
if his case were a good one, he could have called Mrs.
llfargraerceeed.
til Edmonds, from whom it was alleged to have
been

1 Mr. Sergeant SNEA this day showed cause against
the rule. With respect to the handwriting of the
defendant, he contended that the evidence of the cashier
to Messrs. Stevenson and Salt, who had been his Lord-
ship's bankers for thirty years, ought to outweigh the
evidence offered to support the charge of forgery. That
witness held a place of high responsibility, in which it
was part of his most important duties to make himself
acquainted as well as possible with Lord Lichfield's
handwriting. As to the calling of Mrs. Edmonds, he
contended that it was not incumbent on the plaintiff to
call her. On the contrary, she would be rather a wit•

ness for the defence if the other side relied on their own
case. That lady, as it appeared from some remarkable
proceedings in the Court of Bankruptcy, kept a house
of play in St. James's•place ; and from the
nature of other transactions, it was not very improbable
to suppose that a nobleman of great wealth
had frequented it.
Mr. Justice MAULE -It did not appear that Lord
Lichfield was possessed of great wealth.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA—He kept a large establishment in
the most expensive part of the metropolis.
Mr. Justice MAuLa—That is sometimes done without
great wealth.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA submitted that there seemed no
improbability in supposing that his Lordship might have
made and endorsed the bill in Mrs. Edmonds's house, under
circumstances which would account for his forgetting
afterwards that he had done so. Nor was it at all extra-
ordinary that the plaintiff should, without hesitation,
receive and discount the bill in question, endorsed by a
nobleman holding so high a pest under her itNesty's
Government as that of Postmaster-General. He trusted
their Lordships would discharge the rule.
Mr. Sergeant MANNINO replied briefly, and

The LARD CHIEF JUSTICE said the Court ware of
opinion that the plaintiff had not put to the jury all the
evidence which he ought to have given, and that it would
be well to give the case a rehearing, upon the usual
condition, the payment by the defendant of the costs of
the previous trial and of this application.—Rule accord-
ingly made absolute.