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

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 9.

(Sittigain-Banco.)
ROBERTS U. DENIII.3I.
In this case, which was tried before Mr. Baron Parke,
at the last assizes for the county of Surrey, and a verdict
found for the plaintiff for 8001. damages, Mr. Platt moved
for a rule to show cause why -the verdict should not be
set aside and the damages' reduced, or a new trial had.
It was an action for breach of promise of marriage,
brought by Miss Roberts against Mr. Denham, the cap-
tain of a merchant vessel. It could not be denied, upon
the evidence which came out upon the trial, very much
to his own surprise, and that of the gentleman who in-
structed him, that a proiniie of marriage had been made
by the defendant. It apfeared that this young lady had
been taken into the family of Captain Evans. She was
an orphan, and having been introduced into the family
as a sort of servant, had risen to the situation of nursery
governess. It so happened that the plaintiff and the
defeedant met on board ship, in a voyage to this coun-
try ; and after their arrival it,x,:this country, he renewed
the attentions which were,Sotrnerly begun. Captain and
Mrs. Evans lodged in the same house as this gentleman,
at Southampton. Except his stating what he would do
for this lady when he married her, there was not a tittle
of evidence to show that he was a man of property; on
the contrary, it had been shown that he had been one of
a crew who had been wrecked on the Chinese coast, many
of whom were barbarously murdered, and that on that
occasion he had lost all that he possessed. It was very
difficult in cases of this kind to lay down any rule by
which the jury should be.governed ; but he thought the
safest rule was to take into consideration what the injury
of the young lady would be from losing the marriage.
In a court of law it must be taken as a mere contract,
and they must estimate the damages resulting from the
breach of that contract.
Mr. Baron PARKE said the defendant told Mrs. Evans
that he had property, and could settle 501. a year upon
the plaintiff. The conduct of the latter was exceedingly
proper under the circumstances.
Mr. PLATT said there was one very extraordinary part
of this case: Mrs. Evans, when informed of the intention
of the plaintiff, suggested to him the propriety of con-
sulting his relations. Nothing certainly could be more
proper ; because, if all tlarnsband's relations were hos-
tile to the marriage, the wife could not expect to lead a
happy While they were at Southampton, the sister
of the defendant was invited to come over. She did so;
and it was a most remarkable circumstance, that though
the sister dined at the table of defendant and Mrs. Evans
she was never introduced to this young lady. The na
tural inference from this was, that the union would have
been very unsatisfactory to the family. Otherwise why
should the defendant's intention have been kept from her?
Mr. Baton PARKE-11e was two and thirty years of
age.
Mr. PLATT—Yes, my Lord, he was certainly old
enough to know better ; he had arrived at what are
called years of discretion.. (Laughter.)
' Mr. Baron PARKE then referred to the evidence in
reference to the premise of the defendant as to the 50/.
a-year, and observed that,the jury took him at his word.
Mr. PLATT—Yes, my Lord, but then the husband has
not the benefit of his 501. a year.—Rule refused.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 9.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTEsoN.)
THE QUEEN v. MOON.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in this case, moved for a
quo warranto, directed to Mr. Alderman Moon, calling
upon him to show cause by what authority he exorcised
the office of alderman for the ward of Portsoken. The
present motion was founded on the affidavit of Mr. Sa-
lomons, which set forth-Ili election for the ward of
Portsoken, and all the proceedings which took place be-
fore the Court of Aldermen, by which bis election was
declared void. The Learned Gentleman referred at
some length to the decision of the Court of Error, in
the former appeal made by Mr. Salomons, which decided
that the Court of Mayor and Aldermen may regulate
the order of proceedings as to the taking of the oath or
declaration first, yet, if they went to the extremity of
declaring the office void, they should do all they were re-
quired to do—that was to say, they should administer the
oath. They could only proceed to declare the election void
after the oath had been administered. He thought that
this circumstance alone would entitle him to a rule to
show cause. But ho wished to call the attention of the
Court to the form of declaration, and would contend that
the declaration was an oath. The words were, " I do
solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess,
testify, and declare, upon the true faith of a Christian,
that I will never exercise,- and so on. Now an oath,
whatever may be its form, was a solemn appeal to God,
calling upon him to witness.what was said, and invoking
his vengeance if what wits sworn was false. It was so
laid down in Mr. Philip's book, and in Grotius, who said
that
words an. oath consists in re, non in verbis. The form of
_. this declaration was the very same as the oath
aortiratton the 6th or Gee. 111. c. c. 53. There the
words, .* so
help me God," were not to be found. If he
satisfied the Court tha-the declaration in this case
was in form and substance an oath his case was complete,
for it was provided by a loaatet'h
IL:e--the Ist and 2d Vic.,
cap. 105—that where an lawfully
( administered to
Tottitness epent, or upon
any person, as a juryman,
being sworn in to any office or employment,per-
son is bound by the oath administered, provided
shall be administered in Such form and such ceremonies
as souse
as such person may declare to be binding." The Court
would observe that in the declaration in this case, the
words " On the true faith of 41 Christian" were no part

of the declaratory portion of the oath, but of the binding
portion—in fact of the form which was required to give
the oath validity; and here Mr. Salomons offered to
make the declaration, those words being omitted.
Mr. Justice PATTEsom—Does' the affidavit state in
what form he would take the declaration ?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he had no doubt the
offer was made. He proposed to make and sign the de-
claration contained in the 9th of Geo. IV. in such a form
as would be binding on his conscience, but being of the
Jewish persuasion he had conscientious scruples as to
the words " On the true faith of a Christian.'

Mr. Justice PerrEsoN—ls there any case or in-
stance in which a person of the Jewish persuasion has
been allowed to make that assurance under the statute of
Geo. IV. ? _ _

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL—Gontlemen of that per-
suasion had served in the office of sheriff, but there was
a particular statute passed with regard to the sheriffs of
counties,which relieved them from the necessity of taking
the oath in the particular form required by the statute,
but there was no such relief' in the case of sheriffs of
boroughs.
Mr. Justice ParrEscort—That is rather against you ;
for it shows the necessity of an Act of Parliament. to
afford relief. _ _ _

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--BUt the Act relating to the
sheriffs of counties was before the Ist and 2d Victoria.

Mr. Justice PATTESOX—Yes, but that is with regard
to oaths.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL was contending that the
declaration here was in form and substance an oath, and
was precisely in the words of the oath of abjuration.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said it was ono thing to declare
on the faith of a Christian, and another thing to invoke
the name of the Almighty, and say, " So help me, God."
The SoLicrron-GENza.u. • said, that the 9th of
George IV., was not an Act passed for the relief of
persons of tender consciences, but was intended as a
substitute for the Sacramental test, and was more im-
mediately intended for the relief of Romon Catholics.
But he rested his case on the. Ist and 2d Victoria, as-
suming that this declaration was in substance and form
an oath.

Mr. Justice ParrEsoN said, that if a man wished to
be sworn without his coat and waistcoat, he would cer-
tainly not submit to it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that of course extreme
cases of that kind must be left to the Judge.
Mr. Justice ParrEsoN asked for the .Ist and 2d of
Victoria, and after looking at it for some time, said that
he did not know what it meant, any more than half of
the Acts of Parliament which were passed.—(Laughter.)
The SOLICITOR• GENERAL said, that the question was,
whether the words, "On the true faith of a Christian,"
were material or not, That point was not at all dis-
cussed in the former case ; becanse in that case it was
considered, that Mr. Salomons hadsleclined to take the
declaration. Here he offered` o take it, omitting the
words before-mentioned.

Mr. Justice PerrEsoN—lf you take a rule to show
cause, you take it upon that ground more particularly,
yet I would not wish to limit any further argument you
might use, so far as it is competeni for the Courk_to-en-
tertain it ; but it is a difficult thing for us to say, after
the decision of the Court of Error, that they were not
bound by that decision.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL only desired that the Court
ould have a full knowledge of the case.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Tho - former case was not
akin before the House of Lords.
'The SOLICITOR-GENERAL-A Bill was then pending
i Parliament, which prevented that case from being
*ken there ; but if the present motion were granted,
ips i if it became necessary, they would take the present
e to the highest Court of appeal.
Mr. Justice ParrEsoN—l. think the present case so
ar different from the furmer as to entitle you to a rule
fo show cause.—Rule granted accordingly.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
__

, Mr. Driver, wholesale stationer, of No. 28, King-
street, Cheapside, and another respectable and exten-
sive tradesman, applied to Sir Peter Laurie, in con-
sequence of the active exertions of a gang of depre-
dators, one of whom was named John Simonds, who
represented himself as a dealer in East and est
India produce, and whose office was at 13, Great St.
Thomas Apostle.
Mr. Driver, it was stated, had been victimised to
the amount of 18/: Mr. Simmons, who is a person.
of respectable appearance, called in the absence of Mr.
Driver, and gave an order to his son for two reams of.
paper, and for the engraving of two plates, with 1,000
copies of each. The order was executed, upon the
understanding that ready money was to be paid;
but, unfortunately, Mr. Driver's servant was pre-
vailed upon to leave the goods without receiving the
cash; and, as might be expected, all applications were
fruitless. There was the appearance of real business
in the purchasing counting. house, for there were
several real hams about the place.
Sir PETER LAURIE—Are you sure they were real
hams ? For these fellows have's° much ingenuity
that they ern stock their premises with all sorts of
imaginary goods.—(Laughter.)—The witness said
there was, be believed, no doubt as to the reality of
the hog's flesh. There were, however, several
packages on the shelves very neatly arranged, which
corresponded with Sir Peter Laurte's description of
some of the London swindleis.

Mr. Boyd, a very intelligent station clerk, stated
that upon hearing the representation of the gentle-
man relative to Simonds, he went to the counting-
house in St. Thomas Apostle, and saw there a num-
ber of packages, which upon examining proved to be
filled with chaff and sawdust. The owner of that
property, however, had absconded, and the fem6e
who had let the counting-house to him was in
.great
alarm. There were several persons, no doubt, in the
firm, which bad been traced to Thames-street, where
they had taken in all they could.
Sir PETER LAURlrdeClared that he would feel the
greatest satisfaction in coming in contact with every
individual of the firm. 1E 4reniever, would have
the satisfaction of meetinfMr. Simonds out of the
City by means of the press, the exposure of such
casesrendering infinitely more service to the public
than the diluted trials at the Old Bailey.
Mr. Boyd stated that every exertion should be
made to secure the person of the accused.

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY MO.RNIG, NOVEMBER 11 18414

complainant, however, would not accept the offer, but
said they were all a set of swindlers, and had cheated
the public. The complainant afterwards called her
father, a thief, and then her father struck him.

The complainant declared, on his solemn oath,
there was no truth in the statement that the defendant
had offered him a two-guinea print for his ticket.
On the contrary, the defendant was downright saucy
to him, and, in quite an off-hand way, said the public
were never satisfied. He (complainant) replied, they
had got the public money, and that was all they
wanted. He thought the public had been hum-
bugged, and he, thought so still.
Mr. HARDWICK said it was clear some little provo-
cation had occurred on the part of the complainant.
The complainant felt himself aggrieved and had used
strong language, which had provoked a retort.
The defendant declared that a valuable Russell
print was offered to the complainant. This was
peremptorily denied by the complainant.
Mr. liaanwicu said he could not see why the de-
fendant should take upon himself to be the champion
of the establishment. If the complainant had really
used the expressions attributed to him, all the de-
fendant had to do was to say he was only the servant,
and not accountable for anything presumed to be
wrong or objectionable. He could not see whit
right the defendant had to step forward and assault
the complainant in such a violent manner.
The defendant said he certainly struck the com-
plainant ; the complainant made some infamous re-
marks with reference to Mrs. Parkes.

Mr. HARDWICK said the complainant had not
seen his way clearly in his venture ; the parties had
put their own value on the prints, and this had dis-
appointed the complainant's expectations. The com-
plainant had used some strong language previous to
the blow, and this circumstance would go in mitiga-
tion of the punishment.
The Magistrate then inflicted the fine of forty
shillings and costs.