The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-07 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, March 5

The `ice•Chancellor of England took pleas and demurrers to-day.
His Honour, in comequence of the extreme cold, sat in a private
room: • . _ _ _ _ _

The Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce was occupied the whole morn-
ing with the part-heard ease of " Goodson v. Ellison."

SHERIFFS' COURT, March 6.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
SOTEE t'. DE EOINVILLT.

The parties to this action are both Frenchmen. The plaintiff, who
Is a shoemaker, and resided at 126, Strand, the premises lately burned
down, sought to recover 141. for goods delivered to the defendant, M.
De Boinville, at various times between April and December in 18.14.
In defence a set-off was urged, amounting to-nearly 401., for services
which it was alleged the defendant had perfoi med for the plaintiff in
negotiating loans of money and other matters of busi,iess which the
latter was incompetent to, front his inability to speak English,
There was, however, no satisfactory evidence adduced to support
the set-off, and the plaintiff's claim bein r- proved, with the exception
of one Item, which was doubtful, a verdict was given for 121. 18s.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
IJOME ClRCUlT—Chelmsford, Much 5.
The Commis-ion for the county of Essex wits opened
at eleven o'clock to-day by the Lord Chief Justice, and
at once both Courts proceeded to dispose of the business
of the assize, Lord Denman presiding on the Crown
Side, and Mr. Baron Alderson at Nisi Prius.

CROWN COURT.
THE CASE OF MISS RICHARDSON.

It will be recollected that at the last assizes a charge
was preferred • against a young lady named Richardson,
the daughter of a gentleman residing at Brentwood, of
stealing some silk, the property of a tradesman at that
place ; and the case, from the station of life of the se-
ens: d, and the circumstances connected with it, created
a great deal of interest in the county. Upon the appli•
cation of the counsel for Miss Richardson, grounded
upon the fact of her being too ill to take her trial, the
case was postponed to the present assiz,s. It should be
stated that the charge was originally preferred at the
quarter sessions, and a true bill found against her, but
the trial was postponed to the assizes, when it was again
put off on the ground above stated.
Mr. Straight, the deputy clerk of Assize, now called
upon Ellen Mackrel Richardson to surrender in discharge
of her recognizances. No answer, however, was re-
turned, and the defendant did not appear.
Mr. RYLAND then rose and said that in this case he
appeared for the third time in support of the prosecu-
tion ; the lady was out on bait, and as she had ni-t
th•pught proper to surrender in accordance with the con-
ditions of her rt.cognizances, be submitted that they -hould
be estreated.

Lord DENMAN inquired whether the Learned Counsel
had rveeived any communication uron the subject of the
trial from the friends or legal advisers of the accused.
Mr. RYLAND said he had not, and he believed no coun-
sel had been engaged fir the defence. All he knew
upon the subject was, that his witnesses were ail in at-
tendance, and he was prepared to go on with the pro-
s: cution.

'I he defendant was then formally called upon her re-
cognizanees, and as she did not surrender they were
ordered to be ectreated.

Thursday, March 6.

CIVIL SIDE.--(Before kr. Baron ALDERSON and a
Common Jury.)
HOWARD •V. SCUDDER.--BREACII OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mary
Elizabeth Howard; to recover compensation in damages
tro:n ttie defendant for the breach of his promise to
marry her. The defendant pleaded that he never made
the promise, and also that reasonable time had not been
allowed to keep it, if it had been made.
Mr. E. Jimes and Mr. Wines were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Peacock for the
defendant.

Mr. JANIS addressed the jury, and said that the de-
fendant in this action was a corn-merchant and baker.
eariying on an extensive business at Rayleigh, in this
county, an.l the plaintiff was a young woman, very re-
spectably connected, and whose friends reside l at S,•uth
Marston. In 1843 the wife of the defendant died,
leaving two young children, and shortly afterwards,
through the instrumentality of a gentleman named
Clark, who was acquainted with the plaintiff's family,
the plaintiff entered the family of the defendant as
housekeeper, and to take the charge of his children. It
would appear, that in less than two months afterwards
the defendant first made her an offer of marriage, but
the pleintiff; having more regard to the usages of society
and the. memory of the defendant's wife than he himself
appeared to possess, refused to marry him until a decent
period had elapsed, when alone she could appear in pub-
lic with propriety as his wife. The offer was afterwards
a t
renewed, and things went so far as that the ring and the
wedding clothes were actually purchased, when the de-
fendant, on a sudden, arid without, as he was instructed,
the :lightest ground for such a proceeding, declined to
deliberatelycommapdeenstaotitohn:s
plaintiff ; and, under these circumstances, she was corn-
:led:l elel the P
to comer ud
se%hi
before‘c
ah
jury he had n d
ask for
in damages, for the gross insult and the outrage that had
been put upon her feelings. The Learned Counsel then
called the following witnesses :
Mr. W. Clark said he resided at Rayleigh, and he
knew the defendant, who carried on the business of a
baker and corn dealer at that place. His wife died in
May, 1843, leaving him with two children, one aged
seven, and the other five. Shortly after his wife's death
the defendant told him that he had been advertising for
a housekeeper, and witness said he knew of one that
would just suit him ; and he recommended the plaintiff
to him in that capacity. The plaintiff is a fine-look
ing girl.
Baron ALDERSON—HOW old is she ? Witness—
Thirty- two. •
Baron ALtsFalsoN—Girl I a young woman you mean-
Examination continued--. She was a person of good
. education and quite competent to take the charge of a
family. She first went inte the defendant's service it.
August, 1843, and remained there until the beginning
of July, 1844 ; and during that interval he frequently
heard the defendant say that she suited him very well,
and the children appeared very fond of her Towards
the month of July, in consequence of what hid been
said upon the :subject, witness told the defendant that
the time was drawing near, and asked him when the
wedding was to take place, to which he replied that he
could not het a bridesmaid. Witness told him, if that was
the only difficulty, he would soon get him a bridesmaid.
A short time before this witness and his wife, accom-
panied by the plaintiff, had been to London fur the pur-
pose of purchasing clothes for the wedding ;
and, very soon after they returned, the plain-
tiff one day called vvitness into the parlour,
and told him that the defendant would not
have her. Upon this witness asked the defendant how
it was that he did not intend to marry Miss Howard,
and his reply was, "I will not marry her now, after
what has happened." The plaintiff was present at the
time, and she said that the defendant had been trying to
get her ring away from her, and that he had gene into
her bed-room and endeavoured to break open her box.
The plaintiff's mother, at the same time said she was
sure that the defendant never intended to marry her
daughter, and that his only object was to ruin her. Wit-
ness then told the defendant that he had put the girl to
expense in buying clothes for the wedding, and the best
be could do was to pay the girl what money she had
laid out, to which he replied that he would see her
firer, and she might do what she liked.
Mrs. Mary Howard deposed that the plaintiff was her
daughter. In the month of June, 1844, she was staying
at the house of the defendant, and, in consequence of a
communication that was made to her by her daughter,
she took an opportunity one morning to ask the de-
fendant what his intentions were respecting herd %tighter.
He replied that he did not know but what everything
was right. The wedding clothes were bought, and she
had seen the tailor measure him for his wedding suit.—
(A laugh.) Witness said—" Don't you think lam beg-
ging you to have my daughter ; she has been here long
enough for you to know whether she will suit you fur a
wife or not." The defendant replied that be liked her
very well, and better than anyone else. She had seen
so many " shades" with the defendant, that she doubted
his word, and she again pressed him as to his intentions,
and he said he could give no better proof of his inten-
tions than the purchase of the ring and the wedding
clothes. On the same day this conversation occurred
she heard a noise up stairs, and, on going out of the
room, she saw the defendant coming down stairs very
fast, and followed by her daughter, who seemed very
excited and angry. The defendant ran towards the bake-
house, still followed by her daughter; and when witness
came to them, she saw the defendant looking very fierce,
and holding her daughter by both her wrists, and he
seemed as though he was going to give her a blow.
Witness said to him, "Pray, don't strike my daughter,"
and he then ran through a glass-door into the bakee
house, and stood laughing at her daughter, at the same
time charging her with having broken some windows.
Witness's daughter then packed up her things, buebefore
she left the house the defendant said that ha would
marry her in a month. She then took her daughter
home, and told the defendant that if he wanted her, he
'
could come and fetch her. The plaintiffs feelings ap-
peared a good deal hurt at the defendant's. conduct,
and she bad since suffered a good deal in her health in
consequence.
Cross-examined—Her daughter wse present when the
defendant said he would marry her in a month. Wit
ness did not say that if she were her daughter, she would
that if she were in
not have him at all, but she did say,
nor yet a furt-
her place, she would not wait a month,
night.—(Laughter.) The plaintiff did
‘-_.!iot
.say, that if
he would not marry her then, she Ire's". not have
scene she him
at all. It was after this conversation. that the
•
had described took place on the stair* and in the bake-
house. The defendant came down star rs first, and the
plaintiff was following him apparent!?
I. _endant was en-
as fast as she
a
could, but she could not say that the
deavouring to get away from her. Ha ran into the
bakehouse, and she followed him there, a, td broke the
window with some keys which she had ill her hand.
WIWII witness went into the baite4ouse t. 4 defendant