Star.
London, England, 1818-07-18 00:00:00

L:51,756 Gs. 6d. to be due. To this report Mr. De
Tastes had taken many exceptioss, but what the re-
sult of them was he really could not inform his Lord-
ship : they were of great imith, but so unintelligi-
ble, that he feared very few could comprehend them.l
These exceptions had been argued before the Vice-
Chancellor, in March last, and it was then found
impossible to understand them. The further hearing
teas postponed to the present period, and this was
the last day for hearing exceptions. Although the
exceptions in this case were put down in the paper, as
it were, to tantalize the plaintiff, yet it now appeared,
.thist the case must remain for several months before
it could be finally settled. Under these circumstan-
ces he really thought it would be but justice, that the
decadent should be compelled to pay into Court a
sum, which the plaintiff would otherwise be deprived
'of until next Michaelmas term. It was also to be
considered that Mr. De Tastet was not now a young.
man; and if death should intervene, the plaintiff
would be wholly deprived of her remedy. Although
the sum now required was large, yet to a man of the
opulence of Mr. De Tastet it was trifling, and, un-
der all the circumstances, he thought it was but rea-
sonable that the sum should be paid into, Court.
On the other side, Mr. Beta, and Mr. PREYS ar-
gued at considerable length against the application,
entering rather minutely into the facts of the case,
d maintaiping that it was impossible for the Court
of Chancery now to determine what sum ought to
be paid into Court. Already the sum of 17,000 had
been paid, and could his. Lordship take upon him-
self to say,. without knowing any of the merits of
the case, shit so large ktum as 01,756 was abso-
tely due tia the plaintiff? It was also to be consi-
dered that Mr. De Tastet had had other partners be-
sides Mr: De Mangin.' Mr. De Paiva and Mr. &c.c.
ink Grellet had both been in the firm, although in
1908 they had withdrawn from the concern. There
was in fact no pretence for granting this application,
when it was considered that in less than three months,
the whole matter would in all probability be amica-
bly settled.
In reply, Sir S. Rostttre argued, that it 'was in the
power of the Chancellor to act upon the report of at
Master, although exceptions might have been taken
to it, so far as ordering a sum of money to be paid
into Court. This had been done in the case of Wa-
ters v.-Taylor; there the Master had made his report,
and exceptions had been taken upon it. His Lord-
ship had ordered that Mr. Waters should retain in
his hands that which the Master had reported to be
due, although exceptions had been taken to it, which
had since been proved to be good exceptions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give his
opinion upon this case tomorrow. In the mean time,
he should wish to be informed what the defendants
considered to be the amount of the sums due to the
plaintiff. •
ASSIZES.—HERTFORD, JULY 17.
The Home Circuit commenced yesterday et this
town, before Mr. Justice Asaorr in the Nisi Print
Court, and Mr. Sergeant LENS in the Crown Court,
who goes the Circuit for Lord ELLENBOROUGH, his
Lordship being. prevented by indisposition from at-
tending
the Assizes.
BREACH OF PROMUE OF MARRIAGE.
HARLEM./ V. CAUSTON.
This was an action against the defendant for a
breach of promise of marriage with the plaintiff, and
the case, which was tried by a Special Jury, excited',
universal interest from its peculiar circumstances...--,
The damages were laid at £sooe. ,
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. Goa-
NET and Mr. CHITTY.
The leading circumstances proved in evidence
were these :—The plaintiff, who was represented to
be a young lady of great personal attractions, singu-
lar amiability of dispesition, and p 'g
ian ac-
complished and well-cultivated mind, s the daughter
of a tradesman residing at Ilatfleld, in this county ;
and the defendant is a gentleman of independent for-
tune, lately retired from the business of a printer,
which he carried on in Finch-'.arse, Cornhill. The
parties are first cousins by the maternal side ; and in
the year 1809, the defendant then about SO years of
age, and the plaintiff about 21, commenced his court-
ship, having known each other from the earliest in-
fancy. From that time down to the month of May,
1317, a voluminous epistolary correspondence was
carried on between them, the defendant professing
throughout the whole the most devoted and tender
attachment towards the plaintiff, whose language in
reply evinced on her part the warmest reciprocity of
affection. The defendant's promise of marriage, re-
lied upon in the plaintiffs case, was expressed in these
terms :--,, I will marry you as soon as circumstances
will permit."
It appeared that the defendant's family were averse
to the match, and took every occasion to discourage
the connexion, imputing the regard of the plaintiff to-
wards the defendant to sinister motives. The de-
fendant had gone the length of proposing to marry
the plaintiff in private, to which she consented, but
although the wedding-ring had been purchased, and
the licence obtained, and the half-brother of the
plaintiff had consented to give her away, the con-
tract was never fulfilled. This intimacy continued
down till May, 1817, when the defendant wrote to
the plaintiff, announcing that the best mode of ter-
minating the anxious suspense which she had al-
ways expressed was to break off the connexion, and
think no more of matrimony, and he submitted the
proposition to her deliberate judgment, declaring his
own intention of breaking off the match. The de-
fendant's father was then living, the former being in
partnership with the latter as printers, with a very
profitable business. In consequence of the defen-
dant's determination to break his promise, Mr. Pal-
-1 mer, a professional friend of the plaintiff's family,
was consulted, and at first he wrote a friendly letter
to the defendant, conjuring him to consider again of
his rash determination ; but this letter having no ef-
fect, the present action was brought. Since the com-
mencement of legal proceedings, the defendant's fa-
ther died, leaving him in possession of real and per-
sonal property estimated at £20,000. These were
the principal circumstances proved in evidence, the
main ground of the case being substantiated by a To-
lame of the defendant's letters.
Mr. Serjeant TARDY, with whom was Mr. CONDI,
addressed the Jury with considerable ingenuity and
eloquence, in mitigation of damages.
Mr. Justice Arson summed up the circumstance's
of the case with great minuteness and impartiality.
The Jury retired for about an hour, and ots their