Star.
London, England, 1824-12-22 00:00:00

•
•
stibjec inaltek foi diet* bliiiithottisi &Alia
into four points of time. nit grit wit that which
commenced in muse, iris, 4.4% the dafendint hid
applied for tickets for the plahltirsabefit ; some id=
terviews • followed that applicatlist, and it was that
clear that Alin Note could not have serious!), conteml
plated a marriage with Mr. Haync, for at the time she
was evidently Maintaining an intercourse with Colonel
Berkeley. The second point of time was that which
commenced in January, 1824, when Mr. Hayise re-
newed his acquaintance, and made a formal pioposal.
of marline. They would recollect that at that very
time Miss Foote was pregnant; and they would see
how far her mother's testimony was deserving credit,
when she assigned, together with the other Members
of her family, as the reason for not encouraging Mr.
Hayne's proposals, that Miss Foote was Obliged to wait
until the end of the Covent-garden season, to see if
Colonel Berkeley would redeem the pledge he was re-
pi esente I to have given to this Lady; they would judge
whether the reason assigned was the real one, or whe-
ther, on the contrary, it was deemed advisable to dis-
guise the fact of her pregnancy at the time, and wait
until after the bitth of the child in the Month of May
—a time closely approximating to that when she thea-
trical season o as expected to close, and whet she could
be expected to have recovered from the indisposition
caused by her pregnancy. So far, supposing that they
thought it was intended to disguise the pregnancy, there
would be a charge of misrepresentation brought home
to Miss Foote's family. The third point of time in the
case was that in the Month .of June following, when Mr.
Hayne renewed his proposal of marriage, and had it •at-
cepted, on the ground that the time had arrived when
Col.Bei ke.ey's pledge was either to be redeemed or aban-
doned, and when the defendant had accompanied Miss
Foote and her family to the Opera, where he was sent
for by Colonel Berkeley, and in the end had announced
to Miss Foote, that be was ender the necessity of
breaking off all further acquaintance with her. So fat,
continued his Lordship, all appeared to have been right
on the part of Mr. Hayne and Wise had never resented
the acquaintance, and repeated the promise of marriage,
the Court would have been bound to have told the Jury,
that any man so placed Would have been justified in
breaking off the acquaintance. It could not be endured,
that a man should be held botind to mart y a Lady. by
virtue of a promise made antecedent to a discovery that
the Lady had had two childien by another Gentleman.
It was quite clear that if the Lady meant to have acted
honourably towards a Gentleman coming forward With.
matrimonial proposals, she was bound to have disclosed
to him, before she,accepted his over, the particulars of
her previous situation. Where the defendant, however,
had committed himself, was in the renewal of the inter.'.
course,after hebecame in possession oftheLad y's situation;
was still not correct to say; that the defendant bace
on all these occasions pressed the revival Of the at..
quaintance, for Miss Foote had done that herself'
she had done it by the letter of the 4th 9f July,
which she sought the interview at Marlborough. The
last point of time in the case was in the month of
September last, when, after the execution of the bond
with Colonel Berkeley, respecting the future e.u.tody
of the children, she received Mr. Hay ne's' proposal,
and the day of marriage was then fixed fur the 6th
of September.; the preparations for the ceoniony were
all made, the settlement engrossed. but the promise
not kept on the day of the intended marriage; al-
though made with a full knowledge of the Lady's
previous situation. The defendant, by law, was re-
sponsible for a breach of promise so given, and the
plaintiff was so far entitled to compensation. Notwith-
standing the absence of Mr. Hayne on the day he had
appointed for the marriage, a second appointment (re-
newed, indeed, by ;he plaintiff herself by het letter of
the 11th of September) was made, and the 28th or 29th
of September was fixed for the nuptials. The day ar-
rived, but. Mr. Hayne was again misting; he Was re-
proached for this fresh breach of his promise, and he
,retorted upon the Lady in a letter.sshich was certainly
not penned in the style of those letters written to
him by the Lady herself, and which ought to have
protected her from a spit it of angry retort. The
final breaking off then took place, and as pro-
bably occasioned by the perseverins dislike of the
defendant's family to the proposed contiexioi. How-
ever, be that as it may, he had incurred a legal
responsibility throughout the latter putt of his i 'ter-
course with the plaintiff The defendant had eel re-
presented as a very young man of great eea th, his
presents to the Lady had been liberal, and were by her
valued at 8001. or 1,000/. and he. had . also bee.s liberal
in a loan to her father. The Jury were called upon to
say, from a calm and dispassionate review of the whole
case, what damages the plaintiff ought to receive by
way of compensation for the injury she had sustained.
They ought not to overlook her previous situation, and
the probable effect it was likely to have against her ma-
trimonial prospects. It was likewise extraordinary, if
what they had beard were true, that the promise of
marriage made by Colonel Berkeley should nut have
been prosecuted as well as this. The question of da-
mages, however, was oae exclusively for the considera-
tion of the Jury, and with them he would leave it, alter
merely recommending a temperate, and, at the same
time, a just estimate.
The Jury retired to consider of their verdict, and
were absent about ten minutes. On again entering the
Court, they returned a verdict for the plaintiff.Dao
mages THREE THOUSAND POUNDS.
The announcement of the verdict was received with
great applause, mixed with a few hisses, by the persons
who crowded the Court in every part.
The following Gentlemen were the Special Jurors in this case
Richard Hitchcock, Esq. Charles Millington, Esq. George F.
Phinn' Esq. William Slaughter, Esq. Henry Dixon, Rig. Thomas
Tead,Rsq. James Rogers, Esq. John Gilmore, Esq. Henry Beck-
with, Esq. Samuel Harding, Req. Thomas Coomer, Esq. William
Kensett, Req.

THE LETTERS PRODUCED IN EVIDENCE BY THE
PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL IN THE CASE OF FOOTE
HAYNE.

On the 30th December, 1823, Mr. Foote, who was
then in London, received the following letter from
Mr. /Lune:

No. I. (Post mark, Dec. 304
Mr DIAZ FOSTI—I do hope you will not prolong your stay in
town longer than is necessary for you to accomplish your view*, as
I this morning received a letter from Burnaby, who dines here to-
day, with his friend Colonel Holmes. I hay,. my reasons cur wish-
ing you to meet them, which, when you return, I will Acquaist
you with. When you write to your lovely daughter, rentumber me
most kindly to her, and believe me to remain—as ever, your sin.
we Friend, J.
Sunday morning.
P.S.—By the bye, call at Joe Manton's, and tell him not to lose
any time with the completion of your gun.

No. II.—FROM'MR. HAYNE TO MR. FOOT&

MT Dsas Foovs—l wish you to understand that I approve of
the plan adopted by Mrs. F. and shall be anzioualy looking forward
to the period. 1111 thea you will see the propriety of out ►alpd