The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-21 00:00:00

" POSTSCRIPT.

" Private.—l think it fair, as one who would have a right
to be dealt openly with, to inform you that among the in-
discretions of my past life, there is one which leaves a charge
that cannot be overlooked in my expenses. I allude to a
connexion with a person which has long since ceased, but
which leaves her and five children looking to me for support,
which in the scantiest way must be felt on so small a pro-
perty as mine. I feel ashamed at having to expose my folly to
the eyes of a stranger, but hope that you will see I only do so
to account for the necessity of acting as I have above."
Now, gentlemen of the jury, is not that another pretext put for-
ward with the view of dissolving the contract? But can either of
the topics in this letter justify such conduct? Was a man of
his age thus to treat this unfortunate lady, whose affections
were engaged by him—whose promise was obtained—who over
and over again was exhibited to the public as his intended
wife ? I say, and I say again, that there is no cause, and that
she is entitled to heavier damages on this account.
After the examination of witnesses, who proved the fore-
going statement,
Sir. George Bennett, Q. C., addressed the jury for the de-
fence, and in the course of his speech said—Gentlemen of the
jury, the plaintiff is entitled to damages, and I tell you, under
his Lordship's correction, if you are of opinion that she is
not entitled to more than 5001., after we produce the order
made to lodge that money in Court, that your verdict
ought to be for the defendant. I don't dispute—l never did
—the right of this lady to get compensation, and his counsel
advised him to lodge that sum, which he thought would have
brought this matter to an end, and have saved this public in-
vestigation, annoying as it must be to every one concerned.
We may thus sum up the case :—This lady has lost a widower
of 53, whose means we will show you are moderate—who com-
mands, with his demesne and all, something less than 4001. a
year. She has lost him and his fortune, and she gets 5001.
Now, what prospect has she before her ? If he insisted on his
rights he might have left her a young widow without any sup-
port. That is one consideration. He, however, thought, whe-
ther right or wrong—or his Counsel thought—that he was not
worth more than 5001.—( Laughter.) He valued himself at that
much, and I think, if he were to ask her on the day he put the
question, whether she would prefer 5001. in hand, or a wi-
dower of 53, you need not tax your imagination severely to
discover what her answer would have been.—(Laughter. )
In addition to what you were told of this man's circum-
stances, I admit that he had acted wrong at one period of
his life, and that he pays for his error still, for that he has five
persons to support, besides their mother. But I will pass by
this part of the case, for in saying more I might offend the
delicacy of those I see around me. Is there, I ask, a young
lady who sees me now—and, indeed, I wish I had in this case
a jury of pretty girls to address—(Laughter)—and I could
easily empanel them in this Court, my Lord—( Loud laughter)
—Were you, ladies, in that box, to you I would say no more
than this—Would you rather have a widower of fifty-three,
with five little pledges hanging on his back, than a fortune, soy
of 4001. or 5001. in hand at your disposal? Ladies of the j iry,
have you agreed to your verdict ?—( Great laughter.) There
was a famous poet who wrote of a lady. You have read this,
my Lord. After giving a history of the lady, he described
her as being rather fond of the male sex—(Loud laughter)—
indeed, I believe that this a propensity most ladies have.—
Renewed laughter.) Now, she had to draw a comparison
—not between a man of fifty-three and a girl of twenty-
six, but between a man of fifty and one of twenty-five. The
question was asked ; she looked at each, and immediately and
very candidly said, " I'd rather have two of five-and-twenty
than one of fifty."—(lmmoderate laughter.) But, gentle-
men of the jury, the friends of this young lady think differ-
ently. They are of opinion that this widower of fifty-three
should pay—for what ? Compensation in damages for the loss
she sustained! Why, I believe the damage she sustained could
never be estimated at 5001. But the damages were not to be
compensation—vengeance possibly must be gratified—pride
must be fed—l won't go so far as to say that avarice must be
gorged ; but this appears to me, that feelings were brought
into the case to withdraw from the jury the legitimate ground
of action, and make a tax upon the defendant for other motives.
The jury retired, and after an absence of nearly half an hour
returned a verdict for plaintiff-7001. damages, and 6d. costs.
A shout of applause followed, bat it was almost instantly
suppressed by the Sub-Sheriff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Yesterday a clerk from the George Inn booking-office, in
Aldermanbury, attended before Aldermen Johnson and Sir
C. Marshall, to answer the complaint of Mr. Lart, of the
firm of Lart and Son, of Wood-street, wholesale hosiers, for
having neglected to deliver a parcel according to the direction
thereof within 24 hours after its arrival at the inn.

Mr. Lart stated that repeated attempts has been mad, by the
porters from this inn to double the customary charge for porter-
age. At this time of year many parcels were sent into the
country with samples, which were returned, and he expected
the parcels to be so returned from the same inn as he delivered
them. to, and from which the waggon or van actually started;
but to ei.hance the porterage, the packages coming from Kent
were left in the Borough, though the van came on to the City,
and to defy complaint upon this head the charge was not
distinctly made, but mixed up with the carriage. On Saturday
last a porter from the defendant's inn brought in a parcel, but
continuing to keep possession of it, and presenting only the
ticket with " carriage, Is. Bd." on it, he asked if that sum
would be paid. He said, "If you pay my demand, you shall
have the parcel; if you will not pay, you shall not have it."
Mr. Lart replied he should net answer any question ;
t!ne porter must deliver the parcel, and if the charge
was a proper one, it would be paid, and if it were not paid, he
must take the usual course to recover payment. The porter.
ith some insolence of manner, refused to leave it, and it had
not been delivered yet, and the goods might be spoiling for all
the defendant knew. To expose the system he would show
the bill of a parcel brought from the same place, Canterbury,
and delivered half an hour after by the railway company.
This was charged only Is.
The porter stepped forward to answer the charge. He said
Mr. Lart had cheated him out of money repeatedly before, and
he was in the habit of cheating the porters. He was expected
by his employer to take back either the parcel or the money,
and he was doubtful of Mr. Lart paying the money, and there-
fore refused to leave the parcel.
Mr. Lart said it was quite true that be resisted all attempts
of this kind to impose on him.
Sir C. MARSHALL said the public were much obliged to
him for doing so, and he trusted be would persist in that
course.

Mr. Alderman JOHNSON said the porter had used in his
presence unjustifiable language respecting the complainant,
who was well known to be a gentleman of high character.
The porter repeated, that he had often cheated him.

Mr. Alderinan JOHNSON said it was most improper to talk
of being cheated. If he was entitled to what he demanded, it
was very easy to recover it, by applying to a magistrate for a
summons. He need lose nothing by Mr. Lart. The Alder-
man asked if he had any other reason to give for not delivering
the parcel within the proper number of hours ? It was his
duty to deliver the parcel, and seek to recover his charges after-
wards.

The bookkeeper said, he had witnesses to prove that Mr.
Lart refused to pay the charges.
Sir C. MA itsuALL said that could not avail him. If he
understood Mr. Lart, he was willing to pay Is. 4d., which
would include porterage from the nearest inn, though he re-
ceived parcels direct from the railway for Is.
Mr. Lart said it was precisely so.
The Magistrates having consulted, fined the defendant 20s.
and costs.