The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-10 00:00:00

T.HE SPRING ASSIZES.

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE.—A peculiarly interesting I
case was tried before Mr. Justice Mellor at the Manches-
ter Assizes on Monday. It was an action to recover £lO4,
money lent and interest. The plaintiff, an old man
upwards of 80 years of age, it appeared, keeps a dairy
farm at Blackley, near Manchester, and the defendant is
a cattle jobber. The plaintiff's case was that the defen-
dant bought a cow from him on the 29th May, 1866, for
which he paid him £l9 in gold. The defendant then
asked him to lend him £lOO for a month, which the
plaintiff agreed to do, and went and " fetched brass out
o' t' parlour drawer, and all in whole sovereigns." The
plaintiff can neither read nor write, and took no memo-
randum, as he thought the defendant was an honest man;
but his daughter Adelaide was present and wrote a memo-
randum on the almanack opposite the day, the 2nd of
June, when she believed the money was lent, that her
father had lent Lund, the defendant, £lOO. He had been
paid the money a short time before by the Co-operative
Society. The cause was tried once before, and a new trial
haAdtg been granted on the defendant's application the
cause came down again for trial, but shortly before it
came on the daughter Adelaide, who was to prove what
she had seen and the entry in the almanack, droppeddown
dead, and the trial was in consequence postponed. Her
handwriting of the memorandum on the almanack was
proved. The defendant denied the whole transaction, and
said he was in Scotland on the 2nd of June. The plaintiff
now said it was the 29th of May. The jury, after a con-
sultation of about an [hour, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

INJURY DONE BY NOXIOUS VAPOURS.—A case has jtlo
been concluded at Worcester—Jenkins v. the Copper
Extracting Company, and Davis and Wife v. the Same--
which were actions for injury done to the houses and
gardens, as well as the health, of the plaintiffs, by the
noxious vapours emitted by the defendants' works. The
plaintiffs stated that their papering in the house had
changed colour; the shrubs in the garden would nct grow;
and one witness had lost his teeth by the falling in of the
gums, caused by the vitiated air. Chemical evidence was
called denying the possibility of the vapours emitted doing
what was alleged. The jury, however, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff ; damages, £l5O.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.-21,000 DAMAGES,
—A case of breach of promise of marriage was tried on
Monday, before Mr. Justice Hannen, in which the
plaintiff was the daughter of a farmer and butcher named
Reynolds, and the defendant was manager of his grand-
mother's farm at Worksop, Notts. From the evidence of
plaintiff's father, it:appeared that the defendant was the son
of Mr. Topham, of Alfreton. About two years ago his
daughter went to Miss Nicholl's school at Worksop. In
February 1866, he (plaintiff's father) saw the defendant in
Mansfield market. Witness said that he was very angry
indeed at defendant's walking out with his daughter.
Defendant said what he meant was honourable. After
that he came to witness's house and was received as his
daughter's lover. When his daughter was ill, defendant
used to send almost every morning to inquire about her
health. In July 18G7 witness found his daughter was in
the family way. Sent for the defendant, and told him he
was very much pained at his conduct, telling him if he had
taken a pistol and blown her brains out he (witness)
should have thought better of him. Witness then asked
him if he intended to marry plaintiff, and defendant replied
he had no money, and had nowhere to take her. Witness
replied that she could remain with him, and defendant
then said be should not like his wife to live separate from
him. His daughter afterwards came downstairs, and at
defendant's request they were left alone. Defendant
promised to go down and settle things, but he never called
again. Witness afterwards met him, and upon telling
him of his promise, defendant said he must refer him to
his solicitor. Plaintiff was confined on the 28th September,
As regarded defendant's position, he drove a fouP-wheeled
carriage, and appeared like a gentleman. His father lived
in very good style. Plaintiff would be 18 next July.
When plaintiff was in the family way her mother said
to defendant, " What trouble you have brought upon us ;
I hope you will behave honourably and marry her." He
replied that he would. Several other witnesses were
examined to prove that the defendant was considered as
the lover of the plaintiff, and evidence was adduced that
the defendant's grandfather had left him a fortune of
£4,000 or £5,000. There was virtually no defence. The
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages,
£l,OOO.
THE LATE DEVON DREAD RIOTS.— At the Exeter
Assizes an action was brought by a confectioner at Tor-
quay against the hundred of Hayton, in which he resided,
for damages during the bread riots. Having proved his
case and the injury done, the jury returned a verdict for
£62 10s. ; and in another case a verdict for £66 2s. 3d. was
, returned.