The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-31 00:00:00

Mr. Sydney appeared as attorney for the plaintiff,
and the defendant conducted his own case.

The circumstances of this case were of a singular
character. Some three years ago the defendant, a
Polish Jew (a young man), became acquainted with
the plaintiff, Miss Jane Samuel. He was accepted as
a suitor, and after a courtship of about twelve
months he assured Mr. Samuel that he meant to
marry his daughter, on which an odd sort of agree-
ment in writing was drawn up. The plaintiff and de-
fendant undertook to forfeit and pay 201. if they re-
fused to marry within six months. The defendant
did not fulfil his promise in the specified period, but
absented himself. A reconciliation was subsequently
effected between the parties. Again he absented him-
self, and the matter was brought before the Chief
Rabbi, who held several meetings, and the defendant
was asked to sign a paper to marry the plaintiff when
he asked for time to consider the matter, and subse-
quently declined to fulfil his promise. Hence the pre-
sent action to recover compensation. The only wit-
ness called was the plaintiff's father.

Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCUELL said he supposed the
plaintiff wanted 201., according to the agreement.
Mr. SYDNEY—And as much more as the jury will
give. _ _ _

Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL said the plaintiff
had declared on the agreement.
The defendant addressed the Court. He said he
was a foreigner, and by trade a tinman. The young
lady had abused him, calling him a blackguard, and
all sorts of names. He had an accident in conse-
quence of a fire, and stopped away. When he went
again she abused him, and he made up his mind not
to have her, as he knew they would not be happy
together. _

Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL—Then you had
better pay the 201.
The defendant was understood to say that he could
not pay the money as h© Wd3 a poor man.
The Learned UNDBR. SHERIFF told the jury to
assess the damages. They would award the 201. as
agreed upon, and any further amount they thought
proper, as compensation for the breach of promise of
marriage.

The jury assessed the damages at 201.
LEVY V. THE HON. T. H. STANLEY-LEWIS V. THE SAME.
In these cases proceedings under a writ of capias
utlagatum were instituted against the defendant on
a matter of outlawry to ascertain what property he
possessed in the county of Middlesex.
It appeared that the defendant had an annuity
of 250!., payable out of the revenue of the Duchy of
Lancaster.

Evidence was given, and the jury in both cases
found that he possessed the property mentioned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Bartholomew Keating, a—FeCter-carrier at the
Charing-cross branch post-office, was charged with
detaining 260 letters intrusted to him for delivery.
Mr. Peacock, who prosecuted for the Post-office,
stated that the offence was punishable as a misde-
meanour under the Ist Victoria, chap. 36, sec. 25.
Welcome Cole, inspector of letter-carriers at the
General Post-office, said that the prisoner's walk was
in the Soho-square district. He was ques-
tioned by witness and the superintending president on
Saturday last, respecting certain letters which had
been given him for delivery, and asked if he had
any then in his possession. He replied that he had
none, and did not object to be searched. Witness
found ten letters in his hat, but he said they had been
refused or misdirected. Witness afterwards delivered
five of these letters himself, and ascertained that they
had not been previously tendered. The prisoner said
he had no objection to have his lodgings searched, and
witness went to a room occupied by him near Soho.
He found one letter in the prisoner's official coat,
addressed to a lady in Whitehall, and containing, as
it afterwards appeared, a bracelet, the seal being then
unbroken. In and under a set of drawers witness
found 265 post letters and seven newspapers, all
unopened. According to the stamp marks upon
them, one should have been delivered on the 21st of
May, 211 on the 221, six on the 231, 21 on the 24th,
and two on the 26th. The prisoner accounted for
the non-delivery of the letters by stating that they
had been returned, or the persons to whom they were
addressed had gone away. The majority of them had
been since delivered, witness retaining the covers.

It did not appear that the prisoner was actuated by
any other motive than indolence, as most of the letters
were official circulars.

Thomas Gapes, inspector of letter-carriers at the
Charing-cross office, proved that the letters were in
the prisoner's walk, and should have been delivered
on the days denoted by the official stamp, excepting
about fifty circulars or tax notices, issued from
Somerset-house, which were to have been delivered
the next morning, and fur which he was paid as extra
service.

The prisoner, who had been six years in his situa-
ion, admitted his neglect of duty.
Air, He. 1.14 committed him for trial.