Star.
London, England, 1828-08-19 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTF.LLIGENC6c

-- •
G LOUCESTEII, A IJOUbT 16.
CIVIL Srua --Before Mr. Justice Gasetie.
DEFAMATION.—HALL V ROBEIttSO24.
The plaint:ff in this cause was John Cuthbert Hal,
and the defendant James Robertson. The declaration
steed that the plaineffhad made proposals of marriage
to Ann Rich, the daughter of Wm! Rich ; but that is
consequence of certain defamatory expressions, u'.ed by •
the dehlndant, the marriage had been broken off. •
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the plaintiff, •aid, that this action
was brought by the plaintiff to vindicate his character,
which had been most unjustly attacked by the de-
fendanr. The plaintiff was a most respectable woollen
draper, residing at Bristol, and his character had been
tree from the breath of slander until it was thus most
in justly attacked by the defendarit. The plair,tiff had
beer) a married man, and had lived.happily in that state
with the wife of his choice until her death. They had
no children, and after some time had elapsed, and his
grief had been consequently very much a.stia.: ed, he
chanced to meet a Miss Ann Rich, the daughter of a
respectable tanner in Bristol, anti for her be conceived
an affection. He was received at the hntoe of her father
as a lover, and h,ad re ison to believe he was making
considerable progress in his sui-, when on a sudden
he was forbid.fen to enter the house. Now, if the stnry
told of the plaintiff by the defendant was true, it must
ire admitted that Mr. Rich, in thus breaking off the con-
nection between his daughter and the plaintiff, had acted
the pal t of a moral man and a prudent father, and saved
his daughter from disgrace 'by the alliance. But it
would be proved that a difference had existence between
the plaineff and the defendant, and that the defendant,
seeing the progress the plaintiff was making in t'he
affections of Miss Rich, determined to take measures for
putting an end to his happiness. He therefore went to
a person named Cowley, and told him that the plaintiff
had taken a young woman' from under his (the de.
tendant's) roof, and provided genteel lodgings for her,
where he. had her in keeping ; that is, alleging that the
plaintiff kept a mistress at the very time he was en-
treating Miss Rich to become his wife. Upon hearing
this piece of malicious slander, no course was left to
Mr. Rich, except to put an end to the connection between
his daughter and the plaintiff, nor none open to the
plaintiff except to bring the defendant into a Court of
Law, and either give the defendant an opportunity of
justifying his slander, or, by disproving it, vindicate
his character in such a manner as would enable Mr.
Rich to again sanction his addresses to his dauglner.
What, however, was the.course adopted by the defen-
dant ? Had he justified the attack made upon the
plaintiff, or explained away the imputations upon his
moral character? No. The plaintiff. had generously
given the defendant an opportunity of explainingaway
his unjust accusations, by writing to him through the
medium of leis attorney, and•what was hisanswer ?—a
denial, an excuse, or a palliation of his conduct ? No;
he had added insult to injury, and repeated the.accusa-
don in a manner the most offensive.—(The Learned
Counsel then read the letter in reply to that fiorn the
plaintiff's attorney. The defendant began by expressing
considerable surprise that the plaintiff should think of
proceeding against hire for defamation of character ;
but for the guidance of the plaintiff and his attorney, in
the event of. their bringing an action, he would inform
them that he contracted for the support of the• poor of
a certain.parish, and some of the.paupers were prepared
to swear that the plaintiff was irr the constant habit of
visiting.a girl in that house, and that he was freqoently
locked up with her for a considerable time. He'added',
that these persons bad been so curious as to watch -the
departure of the plaint ff from the house, they
found that he did not go away sometimes until two Or
three o'clock in the morning. He.(the defendant) CQII.
eluded by saying that he had been ascused i f being in
bed with the girl himself, and •fe was, therefore,• the
more injured man of the two; and he desired the plain-
tiff and his attorney to understand, that this information
was derived from some of the paupers, who would
' forthcoming to:prove its truth).—Under thege citeum.
stances, the plaintiff now came f.lward to give the de-
fendant an opportunity of justifying his slander ;..but if
he tailed to du so, then the plaint if claimed at their
hands the damages to which he was entitled, as a re-
paration for a most serious injury. His (the plaintiff's)
object was the vindication of his character; but unless
the Jury marked, by the amount of those damage.,
their opinion of the defendant's conduct, the plaint fi
could not be said to teceive from their hands the seise.-
ration which he deserved.•
The Learned Counsel then' called the following
witnesses:
Mr. William Cowley—l.know bOth the plaintiff 'and
the defendant; I am also acquainted wish Mr. John
Rich, of Bristol.; in the early part of last January I'met
the defendant at a place called the Ctossway.; in the
parish of Thornbury, in this county. We had sothe
conversation about parish business; in the course of 'it
I said to the defendant," Why, Mr. Robertson, I untie/.
stand you have a pretty consorn with. Miss Pen fie
replied, " No, she is gone from Thornblity ; and
report is, that Mr. Hall has takln lodgings for her, and
got her in keeping." I mentioned this Conieritition
aft .rwards to Mr.
In cross.examination, by Mr. Taus:you, the witness
said he was the uncle of' Miss Rich, and he admitted
that Mr. Risk told him, before he mentioned ilk Con-
versatior, that he had put .1 negative upon the plaintiff
continuing his addresses to his daughter.
Mr. John Rich-s-I am *a farmer, of Bristol, and I
have a daughter named Allr, who is as good and duet-
ful a child as ever lived ; I know the ptaisit if,; he is a
woollen diaper in Bristol, but am very slightly ac-
quainted with his affairs. Tim witness then begged to
be. spared any interrogatories, arid he would tall his
own tale, and all he knew about the matter. The plaint
tiff (Mr. Hall) met my daughter Ann in,the street, aad
addressed her ; she went, as she ought to do, into a
shop to avoid him; and when he followed her, she re-
ferred him to me; he then came to me, and.said he
wished to become a suitor to my daughter; he saw. my
daughter hut twice; my wife and daughter ate like
sisters together; I place implicit confidence in Otero,
and GOD forbid I should ever exercise any. severe con-
. noul over them; my daughter never encouraged the
defendant's visits, and after calling twice, he had a most
decided answer before I heard a word of the conversa-
tion between the defendant and Mr. Cowley ; Cowley
is my brother in law, and I have great confidence in
him; I metbim in the Hide Market and tad him Hall
bad been rejected, but I cannot .charge my memory
with what he told me about Miss Perry; I was not
present when the decided negative %tat given. to Mr.
Hall, for I would not hurt the feelings of my daughter
(poor thing) for the world.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Ltintow—l don't
know the plaintiff's Christian name, but. I know he had
a refusal in 'the most positive language that could be
used.

lU-examined—l might have received a negative my.
elf .when I was a suitor to my own wife, but 1 don't

•

know that there was; I wish there were many such
wives and such husbands.
Mr. CAMPAILL—I dare say you do.
Mr. TAUNTON objected to his Learned Fliend's ques-
tion as-not quite fair, from its applying to a privileged
seerec--(a laugh.)
Mr. Rich, in continuation, said, that Mr. Hall might
have the appearance of a man, but he had not the heart
of a man. _

Mr. Justice GAMER thought this cause had now
gone far enough, and as the plaintiff had nothing more
to substantiate his charge, he thought he must be non-
slaked.

The plaintiff was nonsuited accordingly.
Mr. Rich expressed a great desire to be permitted to
talk a little mote, and begged to know from the Learned
Counsel whether he and his wife were likely to be
wanted any more ? Mr. Rich, upon being old he
might go home, left the Cotut with a very low bow,
and a look of the most perfect self satisfaction.

DANIEL V. RoNLATSON.
This was an action of trover, for the purpose of reco-
vering certain articles of jewellery and wearing apparel.
Plea--Not Guilty, and non adwinistravit.
Mr. Taunton. Mr. Sergeant Russell, and Mr. Ward,
were for the plaintiff. Mr. Campbell, :Mr. Phillpot,
and Mr. Charles Phillips were fir the defendant.
Mr. TAUNTON, in opening the case to the Jury, ob-
• served, that the plaintiff was a Gentleman of respecta-
bility, practising at the Bar, and going the Oxford Cir-
cuit ; and be now came into Court upon an action of
*troffer, for the purpose of trying the validity of the
marriage of his daughter with the defendant, a person
.named James Robertson. The last titne he (Mr. T.un-..
ten) had seen that daughter, she was in all the pride of
health and beauty, and he was sure the Jury would-
participate with him and with the parent, in the feelings
of regret which they expressed, when he told them that
daughter, thus glowing with yoath and beauty, had
been hurried lama premature grave by the unfortunate
connection which she bad been induced to form with
that defendant. The avowed object of the action was,
to recover from the defendant a considerable number
of trinkets, and a quantity of jewels, clothes, and other
.articles, of which the defendant bad become possessed
by the death of the plaintiff's daughter. Mr. Daniel.
had been for some time a resident at Bristol, but he had
also an estate at Tetbury in this county, where he occa-
sionally spent some time, and during the last year bei
took up his residence in the city of Gloucester. It was
his misfortune to have fixed himself in Brunswick-
-square, close to the Spa, and to a house occupied by the
father of the defendant, who had formerly kept the Spa
Hotel, and then occupied a house which he had fitted up
for those who required board and lodging during their
sojourn in Gloucester. The plaintiff. in the month of
December last, having occasion to go a short time to
the Continent, left Gloucester, but on his return, at
. the latter eud of the same month, he was not a little
surprised to find that his daughter,. who had been at all
times one of the most dutiful and affectionate of chil-
dren, no long.er remained an inmate r f his house, but
had eloped with a man he had never seen, whose name
be had sever heard. and with whose very existence he
. was till then unacquainted. • marriage, it appeared,
•ttad been effected with the defendant, who possessed, he
staderstood, a handsome ezterior, and who was, there-
..foreiVerhaps, qualified to make a conquest ci this des-
cription. The circumstances under which that mar-
..aiage took place, it would be necessary to state aainniely,
as they involved a question both of law and of fact. In
his opinion the mairiagelvas wholly void, but of that
the Jury would fona their own judgment from the ori-
dence which he should lay before them. When the
plaintiff went to the Continent, his daughter, Miss Eliza
Eugenia Daniel, a younger sister, and a brother, about
twelve years of age, were left is the house. They were
nor, however, without proper protection, as an elder
sister, who was married to Captain Long, a Gent;eman
of family, lived within a few doors of them. The plain.
tiff is a widower, and dining his absence Miss Lim,
frequently went to dinner at Captain Long's. On the
night of the 2441 of December, it would be in evi-
dence, that after dining as usual at Captain Long's,
Miss Daniel was taken in company with her little
brother into a carriage, which was standing waiting
in a beck lace, and with the blinds down, trans-1
ported between one and two o'clock in the morning,.
with all celerity to the city of Bristol, in the company
of the defendant. •In that city Miss Daniel was mar-
ried by banns to the defendant, in the church of St.
Mary Redcliffe, and immediately afterwards they set
oat 'on ;heir return to gloucester. Before they entered
the city, Miss Daniel, her brother, and Mr. Robertson
ggt pp, and sent the carriage forward without them.—
Mies kaniel then:requited to her fathei's house, and
*Alt a P9rd was said about the marriage for sottle'daiv,
maker by Miss Daniel or the deiendant, until Captain
41 1111.:641.111as received ;ogle private inforination that a
Zoorralliftwai said to km ttien place, mile such in-
.. .
VA?* crip koliss PAK; bs ended in Ter making to
him a watt tintesereed declaration of every thing which
j. tAtsia place betwegn her and the defendent: At
Jye,
znflitot till den, rim the defendant came forward
. pith ¢eelaration of losinaeriage. and barring claimed
hi, auppmed or pretended wife 3 hertrtied her to a cot-
ta ee, Aar, CoOtioued to reside .I'lol she died.
rt teas 14ecessairy now 19 6, LI te why Reconsidered the mar-
riage to be altogether void. The pass of the Lady was
.Lifzasugenia. the one being a Christian name as much
as the other, and Mr. Daniel, the father, spelt his name
without an w s" at the end 'of it; but the banns were
published, not in the names of James Robertson and
Eliza Eugenia Daniel, but between James ifLobertson
and Alias Daniels. Neither of the parties 'resided in the
parish of St. Mary Redcliffe ; and although the law de-
.claled that the mere fact of non-residence did not ren-
• der the Marriage illegal, yet, when coupled with these
'other circumstances, this fact too deserved considerable
weight. When parties were married by license, they
were obligee to appear before the Surrogate, and swear
to these filets which were considered necessary to make
a marriage valid; but when, as in the-present case, that
marriage' took place by banns, the information for
which pas tarnished by the defendant, it was with the
express intention that they should furnish such public
information to ail parties concerned as would enable
them to come forward and wake any objection they
thought fit to the solemnisation of the marline. The
Leaebed •Cnrensel then read the judgment of Lord
Stowell in the ease of Paget v. Page!, for the purpose
of proying that the Learned Lord entertained an
opinion tipon the effect of the names cif one of de
parties net being regularly published, precisely simi-
lar to that which he ttqw advanced in the present ease.
In drat case the Learned Lord laid it down that
any fraud practised on the parental rights mast be,
porptiflereti sufficient to invalidate the marriage. The'r
Learned Croaniel then proceeded to advert to those cis-
eamstanees which succeeded the pretended mai rine of
Miss Daniel, and observed that in March last tile ()ether
was informed that Ins daughter was dangerously
He berried to hei with all the affection of a parent
alarms to witness the last moments of a beloved child.

To have refused. in such a aviation, to hold any Ryer.
course with the husband, would have only tended to
accelerate that fatal event, which his tenderness end
affection had been unable to avert. lie (Mr. Taunton),
was not prepared to say that the plaintiff did not sit on
friendly tams at the same table with the defendant:
but, upon the death of his daughter be would show that
the defendant himself gave up to she plaintiff the keys
of the b.‘xes in which those articles of jewellery and
those trinkets were placed, which now formed the sub.
ject of the action. With that resignation of the keys the,
plaintiff imagined that all the misfortunes brought
upon him and his family by the defendant were to
cease; but when he proposed to place a plate upon the
lid of his daughter's coffin, describing her as the daugh-
ter of Edward and Mary Daniel, without any allusion
to her being the wife of the defendant, the defendant
immediately made a demand for 3001.. upon the plaintiff,
and when it was resisted, he refused to give up any of
the atticles contained in the boxes, or even to allow the
body to be removed, although the plaintiff had offered ,
to pay the expenses of the funeral. Finding therefore
that he was unable to gratify his wishes in burying his
daughter, the plaintiff left the funeral to be conducted
by the defendant in any manner he th-ought fit, and now'
appeared before a jury in that Cnust to endeavour to
obtain a restitution of that property which belonged to
him as a father, and which the d&endant wrongfully
claimed under the assumlrd title of a husband. If he
was not the legal husband of Miss Daniel, he had no
better right to retain those valuables than if he had been.
a total stranger to her and her family. The plaiotiff
hAd taken out Lettersof Administration to his daughter's
property; the defendant. he believed, would admit a
demand of the at ticle, in question, and the only imme-
diate point for the consideration of the Jury was, who
had really the right to possess the property?
Mr. CAMPBELL, before the witnesses were called,
asked the Leained Judge if the validity of a marriage
was to be tried by an action of trttver ?
Mr. Justice GAsaLEE saw nothing which required
him to stop the cause, and the following witnesses were
then examined :

. -
Ann Simmons, a servant of the plaintiff, proved the
number of the plaintiff's family, and their leaving their
country house for Gloucester ; she remained behind,
and did not see Miss Eugenia again until she went to
her at Cardiff, when she was dying; that was by the
order of her. maste •; Mr. Robertson and her master
were both there; Miss Eugenia died on the 11th of
April. and on the Monday following my master asked
Mr. Robertson to return the trinkets, as they were ta•
mil,' ornaments, and ought to go to the youngest
daughter ; Mr. Robertson said he had no wish to keep
them, end gave my master the keys of the trunks in
Which they were placed. My master then said some-
thing about the clothes, and Mr. Robertson brought a
trunk to pack them in, as they were placed in the chest
Of drawers, which stood in the room where my young
mistress lay dead; I heard high word' between my
master and Mr. Robertson after that, and my m rater
went away the next morning. I have seemed the family
four years, and have generally heard my young mis-
tress called Pip Eugenia; some, however, called her
Eliza, and some Eugenia.
Cross-examined—She was generally called Eliza,
bat she signed her name Eliza Eugenia.
Mr. Cxs(peaLL here ebserved, with extraordinary
appearance of emotion, that this was one of the most
extraordinary proceedings he had ever heard or seen.
Here was a father endeavouring to prove his child to
have been a prostitute!
Coos-examination continued--My master called her
Eliza; I do not know that the high words between my
master and Mr. Robertson arose from my master's re-
fisipg to allow the name of RObert,on to be put on the
coffin, but I heard my master say the coffin should not
be carried to Bristol with the name of Robertson upon(
the plate; my mistress was afterwards buried at Cardiff,!
by Mr. Robertson; when I went to the cottage, she was.
called Mrs. Robertson, but I never heard her father
call her by that name; when 'I went first, my master!
and Mr. Robertson seemed to be on very good terms,
and sat at table together ; I never, however, saw them
shake hands ; I believe Mt. Daniel had been there about
a week before me ; my master had, however, paid a
visit to Mr. and Mrs. Robertson before, although I do
not know how long that visit lasted. (Several letter.
were here handed to the witness). She said they 111911
all in her master's hand-writing, and addressed en Mrs.!
James Robertson; they began with the words, A kr
dear 'Eliza.*

Re examined—l heard my maw say that Mr. ite.
belt on made a demand of Mi. from him. and that he
refused to allow him to put the name of Robertson en
the lid of the coffin.

Mr. Edward Moreton Danis)--I am the eldest son if
the plaintiff, and now twenty-three years of age; my
sister was four years younger ; spell our name with-
out the s ; my sister was called by various names as
substitutes for 'Eliza, such as Betsy, Betty, and Bet;
my father called her Eugenia, and she signed her name
Eliza Eugenia ; I have a younger sister, and a brother
fourteen years old.
Captain Long—l married the eldest daughter of Mr.
Daniel in November last; I lived in Montpellier-place,
and Mr. Daniel in Brunswick-square; Mr. Danid was
in London and France in December; I did not knew
there was such a man in existence as Mr. Robertson,
until I made inquiries on the 28th of December, in con-
sequence of some information which I received ; up to
that moment .1 had not the slightest idea of her mgr.
tinge. as I saw her almost every day; she dined with
us the very day before she was married; in consequence
of the conversation I had with Miss Daniel, I went to
Brunswick-square, and discharged the cook ; Mt. Daniel
returned on the 31st of December, but Miss Daniel
had gone away before that with Mr. Robertson ; I
never saw Mr. Robertson until he came to my door to
demand his wife; I.told him she was at perfect liberty
to go, if she desired to do so; she did not, however,
go that night, for she was too ill to be removed ; she
had told me that dayshe was married to Mr. Robertson.
Cross-examined—Mr. Daniel, I believe, made two
visits to Fairivater Cottage, where Mr. and Mrs. Ro-
bertson resided ; at first he staid only a few hours ; I
never heard that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Daniel had
diued at the same table, and shook hands ; I don't
remember Mr. Daniel saying he dined with Mr. Robert-
son, but I heard there was a settlement about to be
drawn up.
Re-examined—Mr. Daniel told me
.he went at his
daughter's request, to see her,...and her alone. Or his
way•to see his daughter, Mr. Daniel passed thtough
Bristol, and examined the register of the mama e; he
said, upon seeing it, that he was 'sure the marriage was
net good, and he then gave orders toatep the prepara-
irons for the settlement; this was about a fortnight after
his return from France.
Henry Maddox Daniel, a boy of 14—I recollect going
with my sister to Bristol, on the day before Chrtitmas'
Day ; my sister was taken to the coach-house behind
• Mr. Hales's, in Brunswick-square; Mr. flobOtson wa„
the person who took her there; I knew him to he the
sob ale person who kept a boarding mad lodging-hum

in Brunswick-square; my sister and Ann Seymour, and
Mr. Robertson, got into a carriage, and then I got in,
and the blinds were polled up ; some men then pulled
the carriage out of the coach-house, and horses being
put to, we went off on the road to Bristol; when «e
got there, we breakfasted, and then we went to St
Mary Ratcliffe c' well, where the ceremony of marriage
was pet [primed ; I put my name to the book, as a wit-
ness, and Mr. Robertson's brother was another witness.
(The Register Book was here shown to the witness, and
he pointed out his name.) Mr. Robertson was so artful
as to get his brother to drive the coach to Newport; I
have written my mime with the S, although I never did
Iso before or since, hut I was so confir,ed I did not
know what I WAS doiug; when we returned to Glouces-
ler my sister and I got ow and walked borne; I pro-
mised tot to tell I had been at Bristol; and Mr. Ro-
bertson slid he would trust me; that was the reason I
did not tell. _ _

True Rev. Martin Richards then proved the publica-
tion of the banns and the solemnization of the mart iage.
Cross•examined—l showed the register to Mr. Daniel
about a fortnight after the marriage; Mr. Daniel told
me he ha.l permitted his daughter to give a gold watch
to Mr. Robertson, but that a negociation which had
begun was broken off; when he said this he had been
somewhere in Wales to see his daughter.
Evidence was then given to prove that the name of
Eliza Daniel in the body of the register of the marriage
was in the same handwriting as the entry of the banns
fir publication.
A copy f the baptism of Mrs. Robertson was then
put in ; she was baptized by the name of Eliza Eugenia,
second daughter of Edward and Mary Daniel.
Tnis was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Cameseti then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and said, that although he must regret making
use of any observation which could bethought to wound
the feelings of Mr. Daniel, yet it the painful duty he bad
to discharge required such a course, he was determined
not to shank from the responsibility of making these
observations. He must say then, in the very outset,
that a more sordid, a more unfeeling action than that
they were now considering, was never before brought
onto a Court art Justice by any one bearing the character
of a Gentiemaa. The wealthy Mr. Daniel was here seen,
for the sake of a few paitry trinkets, endeavouring to
blast the tame of that daughter who was at rest in her
grave, and who had lived and died the wife of the de-
fendant. Here he was as a father labouring to have
her marriage declared void, and prove that he had suf-
fered her to live with Mr. Robertson as a concubine,
while he actually believed the marriage to be viAd. Was
this, he would ask, the conduct of a Christian father,
whose feelings oh enmity should have ceased with the
life of his
-daughter ? There might be some reason for
his being displeased at the outset, but when he had par-
doned his daughter's offences—when he had become
reconciled to her husband, and received her back to his
bosom—when he had acknowledged her marriage in
her life time, what motives could justify his attempt to
invalidate that marriage when her body was not yet
laid in its grave ? It could be from no other motive
than spleen and revenge ; and although his Learned
Friend had described Mr. Daniel as a man of high
hononr and unblemi.hed character, he (Mr. C.) would
rather be James Robertson, the son of the humble
,boarding-house-keeper, than the hih and mighty Coon-
'aellor,'Daniel. Mr. liehertson wags not defending this
action because he cared for the pos'ession of the paltry
baubles claimed by the plaintiff, but because he felt
hound to defend the memory and reputation of his wife,
and because be would not allow Mr. Daniel to declare
upon her coffin that she did not bear towards him that
relationship. Mr. Robertson was determined to spend
his last farthing in defending his title to be consi-
dered her husband. Such conduct was creditable to
his feelings ; and if Mr. Daniel did belong to the
'Oxford Circuit, although he did not remember him,
he must say that Mr. Daniel had studied law to
very little purpose, it be supposed that with such a case
he could succeed in obtaining a verdict. The Learned
cogintel then referral! to the case of Paget, cited by Mr.
Taunton, and contended that the marriage was not set
midi from any omission of a name, but because the
• arms were published in a name by which the parties
were not known, thp banns having been published in
the mane of William Paget, while he was known by
the patine of Peter. After contending that the omission
of the s was not material, as it was not to be found in
many names, and as it appeared that one of the Daniel
family wrote the name with the s, the Learned Counsel,
proceeded to argue that Eliza was the name by which'
the I.eslp was -generally koowo—Py which she was
ashiresried by her father, and tinder which be had even
reengnised the marriage. In support of this argument
he read the following letters :
Mir alma gLIZA—By the.permission of Heaven, I am come
to see you wirtin this transitory world. Ido not approach with
anj other feelings than those which nature and the mercies of
Heaven towards myself inspire. Notwithstanding this declaration,
which is true, I cannot at present consent to an intestines with
your husband. What good conduct towards yourself, &c. may in
time effect, if I should live much longer, is a subject rather of
wish, than of immediate anticipation.
" With sincerity, your's affectionately,
" EDWARD DANIEL.
Cardiff Arms, Sunday. March 9,
Let the bearer return to me before I go to the house."
Addressed—" Mrs. James Robertson.
° Brunswick-square, March le, ISM.
6' Mr mot Etas—Your letter, which I received on my re-
turn from Malnisbury, afforded ut great pleasure; and we sic.
cerely hope that you may daily gain strength, especially as the
weather is mild; but as it is prematurely warm and oppressive, I
would advise you to be extremely cautious, and not expose your-
self to its influence at present. [After mentioning some further
particulars cc-vetting friends of Use randy, it concluded]. With
best wishes to you and pure, I ant, my dear Eliza, most sin.
cerely Tome, " B. D."
AtWresscd to " Mrs. James Robertson, Fairwater.
cottage, near Cardiff, South Wales."
These letters, the Learned Counsel contended, showed
a very different feeling from that which now prevailed,
and evidently proved that the plaintiff recognised his
daughter', marriage. After explaining the circumstance
'of the three hundred and fifty pounds to have arisen
from an offer of the plaintiff to pay a part of the ex-
penses of his daughter's maintenance, a promise which
he had afterwards broken front the dispute about the
coffin, the Learned Counsel concluded by declaring the
only fault of Mr. Robertson might be found is the
words of Othello—
" That I have taken away this old man's daughter,
It is most true—true I have married her;
The very head and heat of my offending
Hash this extent—no more."

Mr. Daniel Davis was then called,. and proved that
the defendant and his wife lived most affectionately at
the cottage in Wales. I attended Mrs. Robertson in her
last illness, and found she had broken a blood vessel in
her youth. I recollect seeing Mr. Daniel at the cottage ;
At. Robertson and Mr. Daniel sat at the same table,
and seemed perfectly reconciled to each other.
Etna Miles, the aunt of the defendant, recollected
seeing Mr. Daniel shake hands with Mr. Robertson,
• when they parted at night. They seemed to be on the
moot ft-mildly terms with each other.

Mr. Beaty Cook, the Overceer of the Poor of the
palish of Littleworth, remembered Mr. Daniel seeing
bit name rated in the book a& Daniels., lie made nod

objection to it; add indeed be was known everywhere
by the name of Daniels, as it is written in the Over,
seer's book.

Mrs. Burrowes, a dress maker, made dresher for Miss
Daniel before her marriage; the bills were alw 4I $ Made
out in the name f Daniels, and paid in that name.
Several other tradesmen gave the same testimony is
to the plaintiff bearing the name iii Daniels.
Mr. TAUNTON then replied at considerable length,
and the Learned Judge having summed up the eri.
dance, the Jury, after deliberating about an huur, at II
o'clock returned a verdict for the plaintiff.