The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-06 00:00:00

LAwii,NTELLIGENCE.

• • •_ARCHES COURT, kik'Y 5.
TUE EARL OF-FtIEMSpIOUTIL v. LIANSoI, FALSELY CALLING
LIEESELF COUNTESS OF PORTSMOUTH.
In "this case, after .the Xing's Advocate had been
heard; Dr: LUBIIiNGTON replied at considerable
length to the arguments of the Counsel for Lady
Portsmouth. He obviated their objections ait to
the effect of the refusal of the commission by Lord
Eldon in IRI4, observing,that all the facts were not •
before that Learned Judge; there had been, on that
•
occasion, no power of cOmpelling-witriesses to give
evidence; and no power 'of cross-examining those
whO did; that the evidence in chief of several of
the witnesses in this *cause was calculated• to mis-
lead this Court, but for their adiniSSlons in inter-
rogatories :*. he referred to the evidence' of Dr.
Ainslie, Dr. Phillips, ,Mr. Halls, and Swaite, the
bailiff;especiallY,Ae latter. He considered that the
.affidavi ta cOntahreil in:46'lly concealment of ti=utli; but
abundance of falsehood,,and that whet perjury was
poured in upon him,' by the contrivances Of the Han-
sons, Lord Eldon•could not have done otherwise than
he did.:-With'respeet to the fact ofLord Portsmouth's
attending the Hoitse of'. Peers on
and his giving his proxy to Lord ,Liverpocil'ini'seve-
ral occasions, which had been relied upon as evi-
denee Of the Earl's soundness of mind, he , (Dr.
Lushington) could scarcely advert •to the argument
with seriousness. He was satisfied. that if 'Lord
Liverpool had beenperfectly sensible that the Earl of
Portsmouth was of unsound mind, he would.hoe
rejected his proxy. An inference of the•Earrs-sanity
had been deduced from his presiding as chairifilm at
meetings of benevolent societies. He • (Dr. Lush-
traftton) should merely oppose to this the fact' of his
k• having ordered all the boys of a school belonging to
one of those societies to be flogged; Without assign-
ing:any *reason whatever. It had been' objected, that
there was no evidence to support the alleged 'adul-
tery, besides Capy's and the Earl's.. ' (Dr,
tushington). did not care whether the adultery had
been committed or not. • Lord Portsmouth had
rtated the fact with all its disgusting particulars;
that statement was true or false; if false, it afforded
conclusive evidence of unsoundness of mind ; and if
true, it equally proved the Earl's imbecility in sub-
mitting patiently to what no sane man could have
endured; so that quacunqzte via data, his unsound-
ness was demonstrable.
Sir ions NictiOtt said he should consider, be-
tween 'this and next court-day (Saturday), whether
it would be necessary, in .giving his: sentence, to
travel through thiliiminOus evidence, or .whether he -
might not content himself with a summary sentence.
In the latter case, he should probably give sentence
on Saturday.
The Proctor for the Countess prayed. that. the'
Court would not :-give sentence till the costs were
P°d.
Sir .TottN Nrcnoti said that the casts of the 'wife
should be paid ; even if she was eventually 'COn-
demned in the costs,' that was .no reason ,why they
should not in the first instance be paid by the husband.
Dr. LUSHINGTpN stated, that the delay bn the part
of the Committee had arisen from the peculiar situa-
tion'of the affairs of Lord Portsmouth. Applica-
tion had been made fur the costs, .and he had no
doubt they would be paid or guaranteed.

, COURT OF' KING'S BENCH, Ma 5.
WOODMAN 11, BMITI'I.
This was an action for ~a breach of promise of
marriage, brought by Mrs Elizabeth' ;Woodman,
widow, aged s.sogainst, Mr. John Smith, widower,
the King's blacksmithotged 60.
. Mr. GURNEY stated the case for the plaintiff.-Mrs.
Woodman was formerly a dress-maker, but kept a'
tea and coffee-shOp in Denzil-street, Clare:inarket,
from' 1821 until 1825. The defendant lived in the
neighbourhood, and, besides being the King's black-
smith, he was the proprietor of an extensive iron-
mongery, warehouse. The parties were oh 'terms of
intimacy for aboat 30 years.. Srs.-:WoOdman lost
hit klistaid in Nevember,l224, and Mr; Smith lost
Ins Wife- ih February, 1825, and they were both at
liberty to choose new partners. Mrs. Woodman at-
.tended the defendant's wife in her lase illness, arid.
coptitv.rettlier goo4offices in the management of the
64.4 m% household after his Wife's death. In the
course of the summer of 1825 he made proposals ofmar-
riage to' the plaintiff, whn `objected to qinitiimediate
union, in consequence of the affection she bore her ,
de-
ceased husband; but it was proposed the marriage
should take place as soon as ghe should complete the 12
months of her widowhood, according to the usage
in such .Catles. It, was proposed that Mrs. Wood-
man should dispose of her-, business in .the tea and
coffee establishment, that she might be the better
enabled to attend to the domestic comfort of the
King's.blacksmith, who appeared to be as inconsol-
able for the loss of his late partner as-Mrs. Wood-
man was for the loss of • her good man. ' An oppor-
tunity soon presented itself, in that memorable year
afjoint stock speculation, 1825, for disposing of the
house, according to the wishes of Mr: Smith, and it
was • assigned to Major'Close, for 1201. premintn.
The defendant merwith accident after, and
.he was attended by.lllrs. Woodrati, whose solid-
' tilde for his recovery was very creditable to the in,.
tended bride. It would be proved that the defend-
ant made repeated declarations of his intention to
marry Mrs. Woodman, and they were looked upon
by the neighbours as future man and wife. Mr.
Smith, however, changed his mind, and refused to
keep his proMise,with the plaintiff, whose prospects
were thus unexpectedly blasted, for she gave up her
business at his solicitation. No letters could be
' supposed to pass between the partie, because they
lived so near to one another that a correspondence
was rendered unnecessary. The defendant's conduct
was, without any palliation, and the Jury Would, he
bad no doubt, give the plaintiff ample damages.
George Woodman examined.--I am' son to the
plaintiff. She is a widow. In 1825 and •1826 Mr.
Smith visited my mother: they were on habit's of
intimacy for many years. Mrs. Smith died in
February, 1825, My mother attended Mrs. Smith
during her last illness. ,
Lord TENTEREIEN.—Is this an action for work
and labour?

Mr, Ciraziry.—No, my Lord.—(A. laugh.)
Witness, in continuation.--Mr. Smith told me,
w,bs.p.nkv.-apprentice.ahip expired, he would do some-
ihing for me, for he intended to marry my mother in
a few days. Mr. Smith at other times said some-
thing to the same effect, that he was going to marry
her.
• Cross-examined by Sir JAMES SCARLF:TD.--My
eldest brother is about thirty years of age.. My
mother had. sixteen children altogether. She is
about 54.. She dOes pot look more than fifty. The
bia4cmiib is aboht sixty, amt be hits no children,
My mother 'made arrangements to quit the eoffee
shop soon after the intended marriage was talked of.
My mother lived in the house with Mr. Smith when
he met with an accident. She used to dine with
him every Sunday, but she never took me nor any
of the children with her. Mr. Smith promised tp
marry mi'Mother about 'twenty times. I advised
her to make haste, for:I thought the matter Was too
long on hand.
Louisa Norman--I am a daughter Of MN. Wood,
man. pef9.f*rny m49-14ge went one 4E4' into the
room Stnith'andl' my Mother' were ;
asked what they were doing ? lie said they were
settling a secret, that my mother was going to run
away, and it would be on, some Sunday, and my
111964- would tell me all about it. I was asked if I
should like Mr.. Smith for u.:fitther, and I sail yes,
and called himfather.' _ Ira* checked me;
and he said, "That ii:right,'for I am going to marry
-our mother,"
Mrs. ti.mOinson and William Woodman, two
children of the 'plaintiff, corroborated the above tea-
timoity. • • •
Ann Showerdett_j am acquainted . with the
parties in this case. In October last I. called upon
Mr. Smith by the directions of Mrs.. Woodman.. ;1
told him Mrs. W. was very ill, and she was very
much surprised lie did not call to see her. I asked
it' he intended to make her his wife, why be did not

coil to see her. He said hoc family was too large,
and he would not marry her: •
Cross-examined-,-Mrs. Woodman tried to carry
on the dress-making in Somers-tewn. She was in
the business before her husband took the coffee-shop.
What was the cause of her illness—disappointed
love=aye ?-4Litughter.)—Oh dear no. I sup-
pose disappointment for her business.
was the plaintiff' 3 ca,e.

'Sir- hilt& `SCARLETT, for the defendant, ad-
dressed the Jury.• This was- evidently a question
of pounds, shillings, and pence. Here was an eld
woman'who: kept-a coffee. Shop froth 1821 until 1825,
when she sold the. house at lt premium of 12014
by which she exonerated herself from the liability
of 60/. a year rent in her old days, she having lost
her husband. Her daughter; who was,.to be sure;
a pleasant piece of •furniture in the house, 'got mar-
ried, 'arid ail. inducements to continue the business
*ere at in end. She disposed of her house to ad-
vantage in her old-ige, in those happy times of Joint
Stock speculation; when a Major Close was, to be
found 'at ' the corner of evety street, and When she
was no longer 'able to serve the customers with tea
aridcoffee. Ohl. but yon- are told. she was induced
to do so in the hopes of marrying an old blacksmith,
who had scarcely buried his wife, the plaintiff's
cousin... Scarcely two months after the funeral he
proposes marriage ! It reminded' him of Handel—
"----That it should come to this!

But two months dead ! Nay not so much, not two.
, • s atg ae•
And yet within a month,

: Let me not think on't :—Frailty, thy name is woman!
A little month ; or ere those shoes were old' with which
she followed her poor husband's body, like Niolse, ail teats."
--(Laughter. )
Here was a ay old beau of 70, with money, and'
no family; talking' of running away With a young
lady of 60—for there was only a difference of 'ten
years between them. Only think of such a runaway
match, to the •blacksraitles -at Gretna-green.—
(Laughter.) What would their guardian say ?
The-King's blacksmith was, to be sure, a post of
great distinction, and no doubt this young lady's
ambition was to be raised to the dignity of wife to
the'King's blacksmith !—(Great laughter.) , Would
the. Jury believe that the old gentleman did inp:
thing more than cracking a joke With the mother of.
sixteen children, when they talked of a runaway
match in the presence, of one of her grown up,
daughters. Yet there was no running away, and,
the poor lady was left languishing all the time, from.
September 18.5, until. 1827. She was no doubt
much injured; -and her judicious son, thinking her'
too long about the matter, urged her to bring the
affair-to a close, for all their benefit. Did this much-
injured. lady languish for the gay old blacksmith,
and, at the 'end of nine months, did she expect a'
baby to dandle so ?—(Here the Learned Gentleman
dandled his brief, to the great amusement of
Conrt.). Had she . not lamUsement sufficient in all
her children and, grand-children, enough, at least, to,
fill both their' houses ? The united ages of the par-
ties in this ease' exceeded at least 11.5 years, and
what blessings must they not have anticipated ?
There Was no distinct proposition of marriage made,
and the Jury would look upon all they heard as the
jesting of an old man.

The Learned Gentleraan called no witnesses for
the defence. %.
The Jury consulted for about ten minutes, and
returned a verdict for the plaintiff Damages, 1504