The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-15 00:00:00

NORTHERN CIR COI /..—Liverpool, Aug 14.
CIVIL COUR r.— (13 e fur e Mr. Justice CaEssWELL.)
ATKINSON v. DAY AND' WIFE.
This was an action for breach of •promise of mar-
ridge, to which the defendant pleadkd non assumpsit,
and, secondly, that the contract was dissolved by
mutual consent.
Mrs. Airey said she had known the plaintiff and
Mrs. Day, who was Ann Noble. She lived with her
father, at Boroughbridge, in Westmoreland. Mr.
Noble kept an inn, and his daughter assisted. She
proved the handwriting of a number of letters of
Mrs. Day. She had taken letters from Mrs. Day to
the plaintiff. She once took a parcel, in which were
letters, a gold ring, and some music. At Mrs. Day's
request witness wrote letters on her behalf. She
wrote letters to the plaintiff.
Cross-examined—When the parcel containing the
ring was sent, she did not remember. There was a
portrait of the plaintiff, and that Mrs. Day was to
have her letters back, and the affair to be broken off.
Plaintiff told witness she would have to go to Liver-
pool unless the matter was settled. Witness told him
he would get nothing. lie said he did not care, it
would be fine fun. She did not think he was suf-
fering much mental anguish. It was seven years
since she had delivered any letter of plaintiff's to the
defendant.
Re-examined—They were she believed strongly
attached to each other. Witness (a very pretty wo-
man) was married about that time.
The letters were here put in and read.
The defendants were married some time in the
present year.
W. C. Atkinson said he was a brother of the plain-
tiff. Witness lately had an interview with Miss Noble.
She said she was going to be married to Mr. Day, and
she hoped his brother would take no notice of it, as it
would only make fools of them both. He was at Cam-
bridge some time.
Mr. Sergeant Winurts said they had not been
permitted to see the letters, and he should like to
know on which letter his friends relied to prove the
promise.
Mr. WATSON pointed out certain passages from
which the promise might be inferred.
Mr. Justice CRESWELL said he made a distinction
between a desire to marry and a promise, and it
seemed to him that the passages referred to rather
proved the former than the latter.
Mr. WATSON then put in another letter addressed
to Mrs. Airey, in which Mrs. Day said, "if he
thought her worth waiting for and she lived longer
than her father, she would fulfil her promise, but she
would not marry during her father's life." The letter
had no date.
Mr. Justice CEESSWELL said he thought that only
showed a conditional promise—that is, if the plaintiff
" would come and live a quiet life at Gateside, and
wait till the death of her father," which he never did.
However, he would not stop the case, but, if neces-
sary, give leave to the defendant to move to enter a
nonsuit if the Court above should be of opinion that
there was not evidence to go to the jury, which Mr.
Watson consented to.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINs (Mr. Crampton with him)
then addressed the jury for the defendants.
Mr. Justice CRESWELL summed up. He told the
jury there were two questions for them to decide—
first, was there ever such an engagement as the plain-
tiff alleged ? and secondly, if there was, had it ever
been rescinded ? The allegation was, that the male
defendant, while tingle, had promised the plaintiff to
marry him in a reasonable time, if they could procure
her father's consent, and if not, that she would marry
him after her father's death. His Lordship then read
parts of the letters of Mrs. Day, and recapitulated
the other evidence.

The jury retired, but in ten minutes returned, and
gave a verdict for the defendants.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

William Rourke was again brought up and placed
at the bar before Mr. Alderman Finnic, charged with
being concerned with others in the murder of a man
named Hourigan, at a place near Bluff, in the county
of Limerick, about three years ago;
The officer Webb staid that information had been
forwarded to the head of the constabulary at Bruff,
relative to the detention of the prisoner on the above
charge, and requesting an answer, stating the circum-
stances of the murder and a description of the parties
concerned, together with any further information
they might be in possession of. To which was re-
ceived a very vague reply from the sub-inspector,
saying he had referred it to the Inspector-General.
A subsequent communication had been made by
this court, at the suggestion of the Alderman, to the
Inspector-General in Dublin, but no answer had yet
arrived from that quarter.
Alderman FINNI4 said it was very extraordinary
conduct on the part of the authorities in Ireland to
take no notice of the communication from this court,
although a whole week had elapsed since it was made.
Here was a man detained in custody on suspicion of
being concerned in a murder that was committed
some time ago in Ireland, and the authorities there,
who were iii possession of information relative to it,
show very little inclination to bring the offenders to
justice, and do not even appear to trouble themselves
to return an answer when written to for information
respecting such a serious charge.
?Ir. Beard (from Mr. Buchanan's office) appeared
and conducted the defence on behalf of the prisoner.
He said he hoped the worthy Alderman would not
remand the prisoner again, the silence of the autho-
rities in Ireland was sufficient to show that there was
nothing on which the charge could be longer main-
tained. In addition to that he would show, if the
Aldermen would allow him, that prisoner was at work
during the time the murder was committed, in
London ; and, in order to lay before tke Court such
evidence as would justify the Alderman in discharg-
ing the prisoner, he would call his witnesses.
Alderman FINNIS said he thought he could not do
otherwise than remand the prisoner till some kind of
an answer could be obtained from Ireland. He was
loath to take upon himself to discharge the prisoner
under the suspicious circumstances he had appeared
before in this court. Had the prisoner given a correct
aidress in the first instance, instead of prevaricating
in the way he had done, or had his wife given up the
letter to the officer on his demanding it, instead of de-
stroyirm.it, the difficulty would not have been so great.
But, taking all the circumstances into consideration,
he feared ne should not be doing his duty were he to
discharge the prisoner; he would, however, hear any
evidence Mr. Beard might be able to lay before him
in favour of the prisoner.
Mr. Beard then called and examined—

William Flynn, who stated he was working in the
next gang to that in which prisoner belonged, in the
month of April, 1847, on the railway works in the
Vauxhall-road. Prisoner was at work there fur some
months before and after April, and was never absent
a day during that time. Witness had to book the
men's time, and could swear prisoner was never ab-
sent at the time the murder was said to be com-
mitted.

Thomas Rine worked with the prisoner from the
3d of March, 1847, to the 25th of the following May.
Patrick Murrigan knew the prisoner in 1847. He
(witness) went to Ireland a Tevv days before the
murder was committed, leaving the prisoner in Eng-
land, and returned soon after.
Michael Kinnealy said he was in London on the
sth of April, 1847, and prisoner dined with him on
that day, and gave him a sovereign to send to his
(prisoner's) mother, who lived in Ireland in great
distress. Witness saw prisoner on the 6th, the day
on which the murder was committed, at work in the
Vauxhall-road.

Alderman i'mas said he would have liked to have
had the answer of the Inspector-General before dis-
missing the case, but as the evidence seemed to prove
so fully that the prisoner was in London at the time
the outrage took place, he would discharge him, but,
at the same time, he would like to have some secu-
rity that the prisoner would appear when called to
answer the charge, should any more evidence' ar-
rive to strengthen the suspicion already attached
to him. _

Mr. Beard said he could assure the Alderman that
the prisoner should he forthcoming when required.
He was perfectly innocent of the charge.
SOUTH IVAl? K.

Mrs. Cobhett att;nded f.r the purpose of soliciting;the magistrate's advice with respect to an alleged
c°rn
Governorljl''lit of° nt
the theQ upeaern%ofß erlii o
husband,
'ri sn against the
and to apply
fora warrant against the officer.
The applicant said that she attended on behalf of
her husband, who was prevented from being present
himself owing to his being an inmate of the Queen's
Bench Prison. The object of her application to the
magistrate was, thathe might issue his warrant against
Captain Hudson, for altering certain documents hav-
ing reference to proceedings in the Court of Chancery
and the imprisonment of her husband. She then pro-
duced an Act of Parliament, and, handing it to the
cogitate, said that if be examined it be would per-