The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-27 00:00:00

Bence of not more than five minutes, returned into
court, and gave a verdict for the plaintiffs upoa all the
issues.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Hereford, March 25.
The business began to-lay at nine o'clock in both
courts. When last Mr. Baron Platt came the cir-
cuit he found that though the petty jury were obliged
to attend here at nine, the grand jury were not sum-
moned till eleven. Tnis arrangement did not meet
with his Lordship's approbation, and he accordingly
this time ordered that both should be summoned at
the same hour. We mention this circumstance, as it
may be a precedent to other judges for giving some
check to that marked tendency in sheriffs to consult
the convenience of grand jurors and special jurors,
and of common jurors to the least possible extent.
There were four causes entered for trial, of which
two were for special and two for common juries. One
of the latter was an undefended action of ejectment
by a mortgagee against a mortgagor. The second was
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
JONES V. TREND.

This was an action for breach of promise of mar-
riage, to which the only plea on the record was that
the defendant did not promise.
Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Gray were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Skinner for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Aszare, in stating the case for the
plaintiff, said she was the daughter of a reverend
gentleman, who had been for thirty-six years curate
of the parish of Much Cowarne, in this county, and
who had eight other children, all of whom were
placed respectably in life. The defendant was a
farmer, living on a farm of his own of about 100 acres,
near Overbury, in Worcestershire. Both parties
were of suitable ages, the plaintiff being about 30
and the defendant 36. A brother of the plaintiff's
went to reside in Fakenham, in Worcestershire, in
1847, and the plaintiff went to keep house for him,
and she soon afterwards became acquainted with the
defendant, who asked leave of her brother to become
her suitor. After that his visits became frequent,
and in June, 1848, he went on a visit to her father's
house to ask the consent of the family to the mar-
riage. This was given, and it was arranged that the
wedding should take place in the course of a few
months. In September be went again on a visit, and
then it was agreed that the wedding should take place
in st.month. Soon after that the plaintiff went to re-
side at another brother's, and from that day to this
the defendant never answered any letter written by
the plaintiff or her father. In short, from that time
the case was wrapped in entire mystery, and the
defendant had not by his pleading suggested any rea-
son for excusing or justifying his sudden and heart-
less violation of his solemn promise. All that he had
pleaded was that he had never promised to marry the
plaintiff. If be, after gratifying his vanity by en-
gaging her affections, thought proper to cast her off—
a slighted thing, injured in reputation, health, and
spirits, and reduced to a state from which she would
probably never recover—the jury, he trusted, would
give the amplest compensation which money could
supply for the injury thus coldly, cruelly, aad heart-
lessly inflicted on her health, hopes, and prospects.
Thomas Edward Jones, examined by Mr. GRAY—
lam an excise officer, living at Droitwich. My
father is Daniel Jones, curate for thirty-six years of
the parish of Much Cowarne, in this county. Plaintiff
is my sister, and is thirty years old. I have four
brothers living and three sisters. in 1847 I went to
live at the village of Overbury, in Worcestershire.
I there became acquainted with the defendant, who
is a farmer, and fermi his own estate. lam not
positive as to the number of acres on it—from 80 to
100, I believe. In April, 1847, I took a house in
Overbury, and began houn kteping, and my sister
came to me in May. In April, 1849, I removed to
Fakenham, twenty-two miles from Overbury. When
I was at Overbury I introduced defendant to my sister.
He used afterwards to visit me occasionally. In January,
1348, his visits became more frequent, and almost
daily. In that month he spoke to me about my sis-
ter, and said be wished to become a suitor to her,
and asked my consent, which I told him I could not
give without some consideration. lie repeated the
request three evenings following. The last evening I
consented. He told me he had spoken to the plaintiff,
and that she had consented provided that it met with
my approbation. He continued to visit the
plaintiff very regularly for some time after-
wards. In April, 1848, on the Saturday
preceding Midlent Sunday, he wished me
to accompany himself and my sister to my father's
residence, for the purpose of asking the consent of
the family. I was not able to accompany him then,
as my business did not allow me. He continued his
visits unremittingly till Whitsuntide. On the Satur-
day before Whitsunday he requested that I should
accompany him and his sister and my sister to Much
Cowarne. I consented, and we four went on the
Monday in Whitsun week, and stayed till the Thurs-
day. On the Wednesday evening, when my father
went to bed, while the defendant and his sister and
my mother and the plaintiff, and a brother of mine,
were present, and the plaintiff and defendant were
sitting by each other near the fire and whispering
together, the defendant turned round from my sis-
ter and said to my mother, " Will you give your
consent to my marying your daughter ?" She said
she had no objection, but would leave the matter in
my hands, as I knew the parties better than she did.
The defendant then asked if I would consent ; and I
replied that he knew what my opinion was on the
subject. The plaintiff and the defendant then re-
sumed their conversation in whispers. We all came
back on Thursday evening. He continued his visits
till the following September, when my sister went
on a visit to my father for three weeks or a month.
Before her return, the defendant came to me, and
said that, if he had known her situation was so un-
comfortable, he would have married her previously,
and he proposed to me that he should fetch her home
with his horse and gig I accompanied him to my
father's to fetch her home. My sister and his sister
went together on a visit into Monmouthshire in Octo-
ber. I and defendant went to Gloucester to meet
them on their return, and bring them home. I re-
moved to Fakenham on the 18th January. Before I
left, my sister went on a visit to defendant's house,
and remained there from the 17th to the 21st Jan.
His mother and sister lived with him. On the 22d
she came to my new house at Fakenham. He
brought her back, and when he did so, he
said she should not remain there much
longer, and that, though separated for a few
months, she should make herself comfortable, and that
happened to him before she saw him
deprive him of life, all he possessed should
againi if a nyttoh
di negp r
be hers. All this time my sister and I visited the
mentioned on several occasions in the
defendant's house frequently, and the subject of the
presencemarriag of marriage was
the
was
defendant's mother and sister, and the
mother often said it would be the happiest day of her
life if she could live to see the day of their marriage.
When I lived at Fakenham, the defendant came on a
visit to my house three or four times, and stayed each
time from three to five days, and was as attentive as
before to my sister. I never spoke to him about his
property, but should think it worth 3,000/.
Cross-examined by Mr. SKINNER—WouId not
swear that his farm consisted of more than fifty acres.
It was a leasehold. It was possible that I was all the
time courting defendant's sister. I was Courting her.
I knew the defendant nearly a year before I knew
his sister. When I used to call it made no difference
whether the brother was at home or not, as I practised
the whispering too.--(Laughter.) I asked her to
marry me, and she at, first agreed to marry me. After
she had knOwn me longer she changed her mind.

When was it that sbe told you she did not like you
as much as she had ?—I cannot charge my memory.
It was in May or June, 1849. It was about the
same time that the intimacy between the families
ceased.

Nhat prevented you from continuing to visit her
.A decision between ourselves.—(Laughter.)
Do you mean to sue her for breach of promise of
marriage ?—That remains for more mature conside-
ration. The result of this action Would not affect my
decision in the least. I have not heard that defend-
ant has had a paralytic stroke. I see the defendant
in court, and he is greatly changed, esp-cially his
countenance, I adhere to the statement that I do
not know when I first courted defendant's sister, or
when she and I broke off. We lived at Overbury,
about 500 yards from each other. It was more than
twelve months between my first knowing him and
visiting him at his house.
Re-examined—Defendant never gave any reason
for breaking off the intimacy with my sister. In
June, 1849, defendant was complaining, but there
was little or no alteration in 1.. s appearance. I have
not, to the best of my knowledge, threatened to bring
an action against his sister. It was not I who broke
off the engagement with his sister.
Elizabeth Jones—l em the mother of the plaintiff.
She is about thirty. I have seen the defendant, and
remember in Whitsuntide, 1843, his corning to my
house with my son and daughter and his own sister,
and there staying till the following Thursday. His
conduct during that time was that of a suitor or lover.
On the Wednesday he asked me if I had any object
to his marrying my daughter in a month. I answered
that I had no otif;!tion, and that at present she W:l9
under her brother's protection. In September, 1848,
I saw him at our house again, and his conduct was
the same as before. Since that time I have not seen
him. The plaintiff has written to him repeatedly,
and my husband has written once to him. My
daughter has been rather ill since.
Dr. Bull, examined by 3lr. GRAY—I practise us a
surgeon in Hereford. Have attended plaintiff from
August to November last. She was ill. She was
suffering from great derangement and nervous de-
bility, which induced me to tisk if she felt uncomfor-

able, or had any anxiety of mind.
Cross-examined---I :ice defendant. He !eems to