Star.
London, England, 1822-11-23 00:00:00

think, Mr. Bell, that Counseltneylhe absent two days
next week, on account of ;voting at the Cambridge
Election. I think it would be destrable that' ounsel
should pair off. It certainly will be a greatincon. I
venience if the whole business of the Com't should
stand still for two days, because of the Elelfon. at
Cambridge for a Member of Parliament." .
Mr. shall be absent on the short cause
day, and I will not take briefs for that day. -
The Vice-CuaNcELLott.—l think the Candidates
should give Counsel an opportunity of pairing off.
Mr. HEALD (laughing).--I hope, Sir, we shall be
all on one side.
Mr. BELL.—I believe the Vice-Chancellor of the
University has granted two days for the Election, one
of which is the short cause day. I shall be absent then,
as I am extremely anxious to vote on the occasion.
The VICE•CII A aceLLoa.—But surely you may find
some person who wiil pair off with you. I think your
ti lend is bound to find you the means of doing so.
Here the conversation terminated.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 22.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
ABBOTT V. YOUNG. •
This was an action to recover damages for breach
of promise of martiage. The cause was tried at the
York Assizes, and a verdict found for the plaintiff,

with i.:150 damages.
The plaintiff was a young woman who had lived
servant with the defendant, a corn-factor, at Bram-
well, near Leeds. Under a promise of marriage he
seduced her, and she was delivered of a child. The
defendant finally married a Misi Goselin, and aban-
doned the plaintiff. At the trial the promise of the
defendant to marry the plaintiff was proved by
Emma Abbott, the plaintiff's sister. The defendant's
letters also were read, on which the Jury were in•
duced to find their verdict.
&Ikea HULLOCK, on a former day, moved for a
new trial, on the ground that they had not been able
at the trial to read two letters from the plaintiff to
the defendant, which would have led the Jury to con-
clude no promise of marriage had been made by the
defendant. At the trial it was stated in evidence that
the plaintiff could not read, and consequently the
Counsel for the defendant was not in a condition to
prove the letters. Since the trial affidavits had been
procured, stating' that the letters had been written by
the plaintiff's sister, under the dictation of the plain-
tiff. Upon these affidavits the Court were induced
to grant a Rule to shew cause.
Mr. Itatmt this day sheaved cause against the
Rule. In this case, he said, promise upon promise
had been made to the poor girl, and wedding clothes
bought. There was, in short; no ground to disturb
the verdict.
The COURT wished the letters to be read, for the
purpose of seeing whether they interfered with the
due course of justice.
Mr. RAINE read them. The following are passages:
" Sia—This comes with kind love, hoping you are well. I
cannot say lam very-welt at present. Little Eliza is a very line
girl—you would hardly knw her if you saw her. If you have
forgotten me, you might recollect little Eliza. I shall be much
obliged to you if you will get me a situation. I think if it had
been Miss G-- or Miss A-- you would have written to
them. I hope you wilt write to me, if convenient ;if not, you
may do as you please."
The other letter contained this passage :
" Sia—Mr. Crowther and Thomas insist on my coming to
Wakefield to father my child. I should like you to send word
what you will allot for the keep of your child."
•
Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK, Mr. WILLIAMS, and Mr.
BROUGHAM, were beard in support of the application
for a new trial ; but the Court held that it would be
injustice to disturb the verdict.—New trial refused.