The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY E‘ENING, JANUARY 27, 1844.

105
3131
65

7,
:36
1(.4%

101)4

21
3
17
3
24
20%

72%
17%
5%
15%

6%
6%
5%
400

11.-1-oe.

114
46
184

11
16
2
406.
186.

4%
170
205

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 26.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a Com-
mon Jury. )
FEROCIOUS DOGS—ANDREWS V. SIMPSON.
Mr. Jervis and another appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Thomas for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, against the de-
fendant, to recover compensation for the injuries which he had
sustained, by having been bitten on the arm by a ferocious
dog belonging to the defendant. Both parties are hair-dressers,
the defendant being a master, carrying on business at No. 7,
Lower Marsh, Lambeth, and at two other places. The plaintiff
is a journeyman, and was employed by the defendant to
assist him in his business, at the rate of eighteen shil-
lings a week. A few days after entering his service,
he bad occasion to go to the back of the premises, and
knowing that a ferocious and malicious dog belonging to
his employer was kept there, he desired a lad, who
was in the habit of feeding the dog, to go out and secure him
in a shed. Immediately on entering the yard the plaintiff was
seized by the dog, which fastened its teeth closely in his right
arm, and was dragged, without relaxing his h-old, into the
shop, where the plaintiff bled profusely, and the wound be ng con •
sidered dangerous he was taken in a cab to Guy's Hospital, where
he remained fora considerable time. On leaving which, though
cured, he was totally unable to gain his livelihood as a hairdresser.
The plaintiff's mother applied to the defendant for redress, or to
give her son some pecuniary aid, as her son, from the severe
injut ies which he had sustained, was incapacitated from filling
his usual avocations. He told her she might "go to h-11 and
seek redress." The dog, for which the defendant gave 5/. 55.,
had bitten a chill in the hand, and was well known in the
neighbourhood as a ferocious and dangerous animal, and had
been ordered to be destroyed by the Magistrates- of Union-hall.
Or. the part of the defendant it was contended that the dog
had seized the plaintiff whilst running across the yard, believ-
ing him to be a thief ; that the dog was not at large, and that
considning the extreme poverty of the parties, a very small
amount of damages would be amply sufficient.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 25/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 26.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice COLTMAN and a
Common Jury.)
HONE V. WINSTONE.

This was an action for breach of promise of marriage, the
plaintiff being a widow of the name of Hone, residing at
Merton, Surrey, and the defendant a shoemaker and owner of
a number of houses in the Waterloo-road.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE (with whom was Mr. Charnock) stated
the case to the jury.
The facts are sufficiently detailed in the following evidence
Joseph Hayes, examined by Mr. CfIARNOCK, deposed-1
keep a beer-house at Merton. In the sprinc, of 1843 Mr.
Winstone called on me, and inquired if I could' introduce him
to some one who would take care of a sick child belonging to
his son. Having known Mrs. .hone for six years, I recom-
mended her to him for that. purpose. I had long been ac-
quainted with her husband, who was bailiff and steward to a
gentleman of the name of Payne, living in the neighbourhood
of Merton for many years. After an interview with Mrs.
Hone, the defendant said to him he thought she would do very
nicely, being to all appearance a very comfortable soi t of woman.
Mr. Winstone came down to Merton frequently afterwards, and
always used my house. Mrs. Hayes and I took supper with
him at Mrs. Hone's on one occasion after their return from the
Moulsey races. Mr. Winstone has several times inquired of
me as to her character, and afterwards, when I mentioned her
name' he has said to me, " Don't call her Mrs. Hone, call her
Mrs. Winstone that is to be." He said so several times in pre-
sence of Mrs. Hone.

.---..
Cross-examined by Mr. lIUMFREY—I lodge with the plain-
tiff now. She had two other lodgers, one of whom has since
left. Part of the 4/. 10s. the plaintiff owed to her landlord, but
he did not take any part of her goods away. She was not
aware that the plaintiff was addicted to gin and water. She
had been recommended by a medical man to smoke, being trou-
bled with water on the chest.
Anne Payne, who had agreed, at the request of the de-
fendant, to act as " bridesmaid," and J. Mills as " father,"
gave evidence to that effect.
George Higgins, nephew of the plaintiff, deposed to several
c,nversations with the defendant, in which the latter declared
his determination to marry Mrs. Hone. After making several
inquiries as to her circumstances, and ascertaining that she had
no property, he said he did not want money, he had enough to
make both comfortable. All he wished was a respectable
woman, who would make him happy at home for the remainder
of his life.
Cross-examined by Mr. lIUMFREY—I think it was my
aunt that told me the defendant's first wife had only been dead
a fortnight when he proposed marriage. I did not remonstrate
with my aunt on the impropriety of marrying a man so soon
after his wife's funeral.
William Poile, a pig-dealer, was next examined—He stated
that he had called on the defendant and remonstrated with him
on his cruel conduct towards the plaintiff in refusing to marry
her after inducing her to break up her establishment at Merton.
The defendant, however, said he had become acquainted with
another widow with some property, whom he had since mar-
ried ; but be was willing to allow the plaintiff 401. or 501. in
consideration of the disappointment she had sustained.
Mr. HU MFREV' in a very humonrous speech, commented at
some length on the facts adduced in evidence, and contended that
the proposition which the defendant had made through the last
witness was a just, fair, and reasonable satisfaction ts• the
plaintiff for any injury she might have sustained by the break-
ing up of her little establishment. It was ridiculous to suppose
that any affection could have existed between the parties, and
no reparation could be necessary to wounded feelings in such a
case as the present.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, observing that the
plaintiff was clearly entitled to a verdict; the only question was
as to the amount of damages. Undoubtedly this could not be
considered a romantic case, there was no love between the par-
ties, but still there had been great misconduct on the part of
the defendant, who had deluded the plaintiff with false hopes
of a settlement in li:e, which in her circumstances was a matter
of great importance. She was entitled to a reasonable com-
pensation for the actual loss she had sustained by the breaking
up of her establishment, and, although no great injury had
bees done to her feelings, for her disappointment of a com-
fortable establishment in life.
The jury, after having consulted for a few moments, found
a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, 2001.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 26.
( Before Mr. Commissioner WILLIAMS.)
IN RE WILLIAM BROMLEY, OF GRAY'S-INN, SOLICITOR.
The meeting for the choice of assignees was held this day
when

Mr. E. I. Blunt appeared for Dr. Lushington and other
creditors; Mr. R. Palmer for Mr. Blair and others; and Mr.
Reed as the solicitor to the fiat.
The bankrupt was called at eleven o'clock, but did not answer.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS said, it was most improper that the
bankrupt should not be present at the proper time ; in future
he would not wait. He knew enough of this case to know
that the presence of the bankrupt was absolutely necessary.
Dr. Lushington nod Archdeacon Brymer, as executors of Mr.
Wilkinson, appeared in Court in support of their proof, and
were quite willing to be examined viva voce.
The Counsel for the petitioning creditor was about to state
that the great question would be, whether the creditors had
other securities, and as no account had been rendered by the
bankrupt, when
Mr. Brumley appeared, and was reminded by the COMMIS-
SIONER that, although he was in ill health, he ought to appear
at the early part of the meeting.
Mr. Blunt said that, in his case, Mr. Bromley was co-
executor with the Doctor and Archdeacon, and they swore that
they had no security whatever. Money had been paid off on
mortgages which the bankrupt had pretended to advance to
other parties, and till the last quarter the bankrupt had paid
the interest as if the mortgages were in existence, although he
had never advanced a farthing. The Doctor's and Archdea-
con's proof this day
would be for 17,0001., and there was also a
private proof of the Archdeacon for 3,340/., money received by
the bankrupt for mortgage money never paid over. An order
of the Court of Chancery had been made for the repayment of
this money, brit the fiat had first issued.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS suggested that the proof should he taken
do Lene esse, and, if necessary, that there should be a private
meeting, which was the best place for a searching inquiry.
Mr. R. Palmer appeared for parties who would prove for
27,0001., and was willing to acquiesce in his Honour's sug-
gestion.
Mr. Reece said that he did not intend to propose any as-
signees. If a party had security, and erroneously swore that he
had none, he would lose his security, and this was the case with
the petitioning creditor; he did not know whether he had er
had not a security.
The private proof of Archdeacon Brymer was then admitted.
Mr. R. Palmer proposed to prove for Mr. Blair, of the city
of Bath, as administrator of 1% r. Blair, deceased, 6,7004, and
in his private character for 4,000/., and himself and brother
for 14,700/., and 1,078/. interest, trust money of Thomas
Blair's estate.
Mr. Reece objected to Dr. Lushington's and Archdeacon
Brymer's proof, as executors, against a brother executor,
without an order of the Court.
Mr. Blunt said it had been expressly decided that one exe-
cutor could prove against the estate of another executor, though
a trustee could not.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS thought there would be ample means
of investigating the proof at the private meeting ; if these
technical objections were to be made now, a week, and not a
day, for the choice of assignees, it would be a great delay of
justice if he could not take proofs, subject to searching inves-
tigation, if uecessary, hereafter.

Cross-examined by Mr. HUMFREY—My pipemaker, Mr.
Swingean, introduced Mr. Winstone to me. My pipemaker
may also supply pipes to the plaintiff. I believe the lady does
smoke a little.— ( A laugh.) I do not know that she is also
very fond of gin and water. She sometimes comes to my Tom
and Jerry shop for beer. She does not drink there. She
smokes at her own shop.—( A laugh.) In the middle of April,
vs hen I first saw the defendant, his wife was living ; she died, I
believe, in May, and the bans for his marriage to the plaintiff
were published on the 4th of June. The plaintiff kept a school
at 'Merton, and a small confectioner's shop. She also kept
lodgers. She still resides where she did, but her school is
broken up. I have nut seen her smoking lately, not for the
last two months. She smoked not cigars, but tobacco—
" shag," I believe.—( Loud laughter. )
Catherine Glass, examined by Mr. Sergeant SHEE—I knew
the plaintiff well, and knew her husband many years. He
died about eighteen months since. I lodged with Mrs. Hone,
and saw the defendant when he called to know if she would
take his grandchild to nurse. Two or three weeks afterwards
he called again, when 1 heard him say to Mrs. Hone he
" had come on another subject ; he had lost his wife, and
the breath was scarcely out of her body before his mind was
directed to Mrs. Hone." He stayed to tea that afternoon,
but went away in the evening. He came again next Sunday,
and wished Mrs. Hone to go and take a walk with him, but
she declined, observing that what he had to say he might
stay at home. What passed between them then I did not hear,
but on the occasion of another visit I heard him ask her to go
to town and see his property. He wished her.. to part with
some of her goods, dismiss her lodgers, and break up her shop
and school. Looking over her furniture, he desired her to
sell various articles, but sold her to keep her own bed, and he
would have chintz hangings for it. The attentions of the de-
fendant to the plaintiff were always particularly kind. The
defendant is more than sixty years of age ; the plaintiff is about
forty-four. He has called Mrs. Hone " Mrs. Winstone" seve-
ral times in my hearing. He said he had no one to do any-
thing for him, not even to make his bed, and he would come
and take Mrs. Hone to London as his wife. I remember Mr.
Winstone taking the plaintiff to Moulsey races ; when they re-
turned, Mrs. Hone, Mr. Winstone, Mr. and Mrs. Hayes, and
I supped off some salmon and mackarel the defendant had sent
to Mrs. Hone's. The defendant seemed to be very comfortable
and agreeable on that occasion ; he said he meant to make Mrs.
Hone his wife ; and as he was determined she should wear
something that belonged to his former wife, he had twelve shil-
lings' worth of gold added to her ring, and she should be mar-
ried with it. He told her to get all her bills in by the time he
came down again ' • and when she told him that all she owad
amounted only to 41. 103., he said he should pay that, and take
her out of the parish in triumph.—( A laugh.) He said he
had 19 houses in Southwark, and sufficient property to make
them both comfortable. He first proposed that the marriage
should take place at Fulham, because he had friends there ;
but it was afterwards arranged that the ceremony should take
place at Merton. According to the directions given by the
defendant, Mrs. Hone sold her furniture, broke up her school
and shop, and parted with her lodgers. Finding she was de-
ceived she seemed very unhappy and mortified. Her contem-
plated marriage was well known in the neighbourhood, and she
had not resumed her school.