The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-27 00:00:00

practice of this Court was—he believed he said the A, B,
C,, practice.

The Vxcx-Citaxcer.Lou—l am sure that the habit of
reporting the proceedings in Courts of Justice, in all cases
that •are decided, is useful, and I am convinced 'that it

would not be less useful- if, whatever of a personal nature
that may happen to occur in the course of them, were
omitted in the reports.

HIGH COURT .OF EXCHEQUER.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
GOFF V. FARR.

This was an action by the plaintiff, the daughter of a
Dissenting Clergyman, sister to a Clergyman of the Church
of England at Bristol, and formerly Governess for three
years in the family of Lady Byron, against the son of a
rich jeweller, named Farr, at Bristol, for breach of promise
of marriage. The case was tried on last Circuit at Glou-
cester, before Mr. Sergeant Bosanquet, and a Special Jury,
and a verdict of 256/. damages returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW had subsequently obtained a rule
to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
a new trial granted on the ground of excessive damages,
and Mr. C. Phillips appeared to-day, to show cause.—
From the Judge's notes of the trial, it appeared that the
plaintiff, in May, 1826, was visiting at a Mr. Rich's, at
Bristol, and was subsequently invited to the house of defend-
ant's mother, where the intimacy between the parties com-
menced. The plaintiff'was about 24 and the defendant 35
• years of age, and a widower. The latter had visited plaintiff's
brother, and in answer to' his inquiry as to his intentions
with regard to his sister, had replied that he wished to
marry her, knowing that she had no fortune, and would
have the ceremony performed inhis (the brother's) church,
and by him. Shortly afterwards, the defendant discon-
tinued his attentions, and on being questioned by the father
if•he still intended marrying her, he replied " certainly
not,' but without assigning any reason. It was not proved
that the defendant was in partnership with his father.

For the defence it was contended that the plaintiff had
shown snore forwardness in the acquaintance than she
ought to have done, and had written the first letter to the
defendant, who, however, would not have that letter read,
though the handwriting was proved by the plaintiff's fa-
ther. It was also proved that the defendant had no pro-
perty, but was dependant on his parents.

Mr. PHILLIPS now contended that, upon the genera]
question of the power of Judges to set aside verdicts, on
the ground of excessive damages, it would be contrary to
the Constitution of the country for them to exercise that
power on a subject which was entirely •in the province of
the Juries—that of the assessment of damages. He then
cited the case of Jubilee v. Grumming, tried: before Lord
Kenyon, in which, though the Jury returned a verdict,
with 1,000/. damages, he having told them that nominal
damages was sufficient, yet that Learned 'Judge refused te,
grant a new trial on the ground of excessive damages, as the
assessment was the province of the Jury. 1-le would refer them
to a more recent case, that of Dauncey v. Berkeley, in which
the Jury returned a verdict with 1,000/. damages; and al-
though every person who heard the trial must have revolted
at the verdict, yet the Bench, on an application for a new
trial, unanimously refused to grant the rule,, on the
_

ground of excess, although they afterwards granted it on
an affidavit that the plaintiff was a bankrupt, and his
assignee was one of the Jury. Upon that principle, there-
fore, he submitted to their Lordships, that by disturbing
the present verdict, they would act contrary to the spirit of
the Constitution, and the stream of precedents which had
been determined by the good sense of ages. He then ad-
verted to the course which had been pursued upon the trial,
in which not satisfied with deceiving a woman, he had
taken every means to persuade he could never deceive,
he had endeavoured to defame her and her respectable
family, by holding up a bundle of letters, not one of which
would be suffered to be read, and attributing to her im-
proper conduct in having written to him the first. Large
as the number was, however, they could not select
a single one of them which would tell against his
unfortunate ,client. To, show, however, that the
defendant had acted in every possible way, upon the fami-
liarity attendant upon her first writing to him, and had
expressed the greatest affection for her. He would produce
a letter he had written to her on the 18th of May, 1826.
In that letter he had stated that he had discovered in her
a similarity of manner and disposition,to his former wife,
that he considered her destined to fill up the blank
which the cruel hand of death had left in his
affections, and that her confidence in him should
never be misused. He concluded his letter by say-
ing, that he would he entirely devoted to her if she would
consent to share his happiness and misfortunes with him,
and ended with these words, " may that Being who con-
trouls all things forget me, when I forget my love." This •
then was the man who had first deserted her, and had
then attempted to injure her reputation as well as feel-
ings, by throwing out insinuations to the Jury, not
one of which he could justify. It had been con-
tended at the trial, that he had said he could not
marry without the consent of his parents, but in answer to
the plaintiff, enquiring by a former note whether his pa-
rents were acquainted with their attachment, he had said
in the letter he (Mr. P.) had just read, marriage was the
only subject on which he never would consult them. At
all events, he (Mr. P.) thought a man of from 35 to 40 years
of age, was old enough to chuse a wife.—(A laugh.)---It re-
minded him of an old woman in Ireland, who though seventy
years of. age, always prefaced her petition for charity by
declaring that she was an orphan.—(Great laughter.)

Mr. Sergeant Lunrow contended that the defendant
had been brought into the measure' by the plaintiff's for-
wardness, and that he had no property.
Mr. Baron GAR OW considered that nothing but the
defendant's poverty had been urged against the excess of
damages, and if. he was forced to draw an inference from
the first letter, he should draw one in favour of the plain-
tiff, as if it had contained any thing against her it would
have been read at the trial.—Rule refused.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE ZINC V. THE CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL.

The question in this case was, whether certain property
belonging to the defendants, which was appropriated for
building-docks, was liable to the poor-rates. It came be-
fore the Court on a special case from the Sessions, which
determined the question in the negative.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Air. GRECSON, for the
defendants, contended, that inasmuch as the public enjoyed
the beneficial use of the property, and as no profit resulted
from it to the defendants, they ought not to be liable to
poor-rates.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. J. WILLIAMS,
contra, argued that as the Corporation levied duties to pay
the expence of the docks, and as in common with the rest
of the public they enjoyed the advantages arising from the
docks, there was nothing to take the case out of the statute
Of Queen Elizabeth, and therefore that the decision of the
Sessions ought to be reversed.
The COURT determined that the case did not come
within the statute of Elizabeth, because, though the de-
fendants were legally vested in the property, the public en-
joyed the beneficial use'of it, and therefo. e their. Lordships
affirmed the decision of the Session.

' COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
ADMISSION OP NEW SERGEANTS.
Messrs. SCRIVIN; STEPHENS, and BUMPUS, baying
been appointed Sergeants at Law, took their seats this
morning, after going through the usual farmalities.

TWHAITICS V. FORSTER.
The defendant in this case appeared in person, to pray the
Court for a rule to show cause why a verdict had by the
plaintiff, who is an attorney, should not- be set aside, on
the ground that .tha plaintiff had sued out an execution
without giVing the defendant any notice of trial.
An' affidavit ' was put in and read, on the part of the
defendant, and in support of his application.
The CouaT granted a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict sho►►ld not be set aside, and a new trial had, upon
plaintiff's paying the costs.

THE MARKETS,-(THIS DAY.)

CORN EXCHANGE.

There are moderate supplies of most kinds of Grain this week,
and a fair quantity of Flour. The Wheat trade remains dull, at
the reduction reported on Monday, but prices cannot be quoted
any lower to-day. Barley, Beans, and Pease, are evidently fall-
ing articles, in the prospect of the bonded Corn coming into the
market next week. There is little doing in the og tirade to.day,
and prices remain as last reported.

English
Irish

Oats. Flour.
550 cgs . 3,7005 ck s.
710 ---
1,930 6,750 ____

ARRIVALS.
Wheat. . Earley.
4,300 qrs. 250 qrs
70

Fore*p