Star.
London, England, 1828-07-30 00:00:00

• •
Mid-tent 'Sunday, ,nd eeer:y tbinik should he ward.
told 4ira 1 hoped he wnuld stop ,away ii he wished io.
break it off again. He came on the. SUnday ; and aPben
patterns of silksioV• the vaedding were produced,• he
made a selection. He had everything in his houst dot:
a woman could want, and if Isabella waited anything
afte)-they were •nuerried, she should have it, and he
would keep a gig for her to take her from one taint to •
another. .00 the Thursday following the lOth of April
was fixed upon for the wedding, sold a chaise wai or-
dered to beat Captain Simms's house on that mtnnitag
by eight o'clock.. He never came, but he sent this not.
about a quarter before eight:
Absindoe the as the very verse of men. Pray accept ray watch,
and keep it ; but detest Its ones owner. I am new treaty 'Wettable.
5121 March. W. G.

The watch was of course returned. My sister became
extremely agitated. She has been %bleat from home
ever since. My sister is•3o, and I stould suppose the
defendant is about 50. He has a son, whom I should
suppose to be about 18.

Cross-examined by Mr. Casteani—l am not Luis-
taken. about the age of my sister ; she is only a year
younger than I am ; one of my rosters is married to a
Mr. Homer. I did not interfere with that courtship,
and the match took place. 1 never said there was no
keeping Mr. Homer back, and there was no getting Ma.
(irithths forward. I have beard that Mr. GI iffiths was
unwell. I went with my sister on the 29d of March,
to consult Mr. Homer, my brother-in-law, to bring an
action against Mr. Griffiths. My sister never told me
that Mr. Chitty's opinion had been taken, and by
thought no action could be brought before the 10th of
April. I know the Reverend M. Housman, who is
clergyman pf the parish. a •
Mrs. Simms, examined by Mr. Jeevra—My Chris-
tian name is Sarah, and I am the wife of Capt. Sit la%
I we% formerly married to Mr: Leake. Upon my mar-
riage with Capt. Simms I settled 4001. upon each of myt
children by my first marriage. I recollect the defendant
coming to live at Whittington Hall, stud applying to me
to visit my daughter Isabella, as &lover ; I'•trild him I
did not think she was capable of managing-so large a
Carat.- He said he did not.care, for he was always la
the -habit of buying in pock himself, mid be had
housekeeper. I objected to the match on account of hie
having a soon. He replied) that son could make no dif-
ference, as he was dependent wholly upon him, and
he would take care that he should never insult her. AO
ter the rupture occurred the defendant appliftl to renew
the acquaintance, and...said he had been mdse like a
madman that a man ever since it had taken place, and
•he could• stop and cry every time he passed the door.
The witness went on to. state, that the night. before the
day appointed for the wedding the defendant took the
plaintiff by the hands and said, " Good. by ! Goo bless
you, Bell! I shall be. here. by half-past seven in the
morning." Butt he never came. Witness had told him
that her daughter had 400 i. for her fortune, but he said
be wanted no money, and he only wanted herself.
- Mr. CAMMLL then addressed the Jury on behalf t f
r•
the defendant, and said he had no doubt that a very
costeiderable impression had been made on them-r-fiist,
by the eloquence of his Learned Friend ; and secondly,
ey.the chairs of Miss Martha; and thirdly), by the
,venerable but still less important evidence of the Lady
'who was the mother of the plaintiff ;.hut still he knew
that although he was contending at fearful oddsagainst
his Learned Friend, he should be listened to by a Jury. He
kile*.thrit the Jury would be unaffected either by the
tempeitithus eloquence of Mr. Jeivis, orby the affect.
ing tears' of. Miss Martha, but they would s"iberly and
dispassionately make up their minds to what the verdict
ought to be. The filet question tor their consideration
would be, whether the verdict ought to befor the plain-
tiff or • the4efecdant? and Whit the Learned Counsel
meant to Insist wawhat-the defendant was not entitled
to a verdict at all. That therehed been in this case a pro-
nine of marriage. no ore could deny), Out the Jury were
to take into consideration and determine, whether that
promise had been hrolfen off by the plaintiff and her
lviends or by the defendant? If it turned out that it
bad been broken off by.tbe plaintiff or her friends, then
'this action was wholly unnecessary; and as in his (Mr.
,Campbell's) opinion there was ncthing in law or in jus-
tice in this case which could be construed into a breach
of contract, the defendant, he contended, was entitled
to a verdict. Previous to the 224 of March, 1828, it
was adniitted that no breach of contract had taken
place. They had heard of various little tparrela and
acts of courtship for two years previous, but till that
period there was no pretence for saying there was any-
'breach of
.contract. It was acknowledged, that his
(Mr. Campbell's) clienr, the pool old gentleman, was
not in a very fit condition to undettake the manage.
merit of the plaintiff, and that under a hope of re-.
cruiting his health, to fit him for the holy state of ma-
trimony, he had gore on. a voyage to Leamington;
but, alas ! with his health very little improved, he
returned, and it was then that- this amatory old farmer
was alleged to have been guilty of the shocking breach
of contract which was now under their consideration.
He (Mr. Campbell) was now preeared to contend, th t
this breach was the fault of -Miss Isabella; and if bis
client could have been so ungallant as to take any prep.
ceedings against a Lady, he art, much more entitled to
complain than M is:lsabella, and oughtto have appeared
here this day as the plaintiff. It the Jury consideredX
leiter which had been so severely a .imadvei ted on, t
would find that it contained only the fair and rational
doubts which the defend.tnt entertained (perhaps most
justly) of the happiness of the proposed union. Here
the Learned Counsel proceeded to read and explain se-
veral of the passages of the letter of the 19. h of Octo-
ber, contending that the defendant was rather entitled
to praise than censure for the canal's', sincerity, and
prudence which had distingui bed his conduct..
if the agriculturists in that part of the country
were not depressed at the time, his Learned Friend, Mr.
Jervis), might have called the steward of Lord Stasoferd
to prove their affluence. His Learned Friend had ea.
hausted great ability to prove the 7004 which the
defendant had paid for his farms, in order thattbeJoity
might inter that he was a rich man. If, however, the
defendant had not been actuated by the motives ex-
pressed in his letter, what other object could he have
had io view? It was not asserted that he was actuated
by-any motives contrary to religion mad (Wow. It was
admitted that he was much attached to the plaintifE
The question was, why did he not marry her? Why,
that letter explained his reasons; it spoke most power.
lolly in his behalf, evincing his discretion in pausing
before he committed himself, in order that he might
*wit and learn the result of the everts whi.b a ere in
progress. The family of the plaintiff, it must be ad.
nutted, had not conducted themselves with discretion
regarding this young couple. Matters of this sort were
always much better wiser, left to the parties theme.
selves; something must have occurred, for be (Me.
Campbell) saw nothing in the letters to lead to bitipit
off the marriage. It was tine that Martha seemed to
conduct the courtship rather than her sister Labeller;
but if they had not been interfered with the mega
never would have bees broken off. The poet said- the
course of use love never did run smooth* and Win meg
.

...Ma

• • te".3l.