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

lover's' quartsl they Appealed to a judge sitting atnisi
pies, no marriages could ever take place, and the world
would be in danger of becoming unpeopled—(A laugh).
The quarrels of. lovers were said to be but renewals of
love, but he (Mr. Campbell) was convinced that love
would not be promoted by the assistance of an attorney
--(A laugh). The lovers had in due time after their
quarrel met again, and but for the interference of the
attorney in the person of. Mr. Homer, the marriage
might still have taken place, 'and who could say what
prospects by this time might have opened as the fruits
w the alliance of this happy pair? 'The defendant on the
22d of March wrote the four lines which formed the
ground of this action. As the old lady herself stated, he
left the house with the full intention of returning again
in the morning to fulfil his promise, but having been
seized with a fit of terror, he wrote those unlucky
lines which the Jury had heard his learned friend, Mr.
Jervis, read. Not in a very Christian spirit his Learned
Friend hid said, he trusted, he hoped, the defendant
was miserable; and miserable he certainly was; but if
it-had not been for the ill-judged interference of med-
dling friends, long ere this he would have recovered
from his nervous fit, and the cow tsbip would have been
doubtless brought io a happy issue. He (Mr. Campbell)
thought the plaintiff's family were much to blame, &nd
had much to answer for, in sending for their attorney,
without making Isabella, the tender Isabella, acquainted
with all the proceedings. He must say it looked much
more like a wish to acquire some of this rich old man,
in the shape of damages, than as a son-in-law. The
Learned Counsel then taking a review of the evi-
dence, proceeded to contend that no breach of pro-
mise had been proved. The promise was to marry on
the 18th of April; and as the fracas took place on
the22d of March, it was evident the cause of action was
not complete. Should the Jury, however, be of opinion
that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, the next
question for their consideration was, what amount of
damages was the plaintiff entitled to at their hands?
This he would contend was not a case for aggravated
damages. It was not alleged that the defendant had
made any improper use of the intimacy which had been
cultivated under the colour of this promise of marriage.
The plaintiff, as his Learned Friend had said,was as pate
and as tree from the breath of slander as purity could
be, and long might she continue so, he (Mr. C.) would
say, to form a happier alliance than she could have ex-
pected with his aged client; and when he mentioned
thatfarr of the subject it brought to his recollection the
loss •sustained by the Lady ; and if the Lady bad lost
but little, the damages ought to be but little:lf the Lady
was at all like her sister, and be (Mr. Campbell) hoped
the Jury laid observed how sweetly Miss Martha bad
smiled, they must be satisfied she bad lost but little-by
the failure of her union with this amorous old farmer.
The jury might rely on it, hat notwithstanding the
two years the plaintiff had lost, there was still ample
time remaining for her to have many good offers. Beau-
tiful she certainly must be if she was at all like her sis-
ter, and young too ; for although Miss Martha had said
she was thirty, still he thought she must be mistaken,
and she admitted that Isabella was younger, and indeed
from 411 that appeared he must conclude she was not
more than five•and-twenty. Now the poor defendant,
notwithstanding all they had heard of his youthful
vigour and appearance, was, unhappily for him, on the
wrong side r.f sisty-five,'so that there was a sad dif-
ference of forty years—(A laugh). The old fartnetwas
in fact a vety unfit match for the young and blooming
Isabella ; and as happiness could not be expected from
such a union, he must say every one had, reason to re-
joice that it had by any means been avoided. A poet of
his (Mr. Campbell's) country (Burns) had in the most
delicateernanner, and with great feeling, expressed his
opinion on the anfortuaate results that ensue from unions
of this description.:

What ono young lassie
Do yr mould man? . •
•
Oh curse on the penny,
That tempted my minnie,
To sell her poor Jenny
For idler and lan'. •
He's always complaining, •
Press morning to e'ening.
He boats and be birples
The weary day bog. •
He's doilt and be's desire,
His blood it is frozen,
• Oh! weany's the night
We a crazy sold man.—(Cootinued laughter).
Sikh a union he (Mr. Campbell) contended, could have
only terminated in the ruin of the defendant and the
misery of the plaintiff; and under .such circumstances,
the damages, if the Jury should think the plaintiff en-
titled to any, should be only nominal.
Mr. Justice GASILEE. after recapitulating the evi-
dence to the Jury, lett it to them to determine whether
the letter of the 22d of March was a breach of the pro-
salsa of marriage? If so, he would ads iie them to give
such moderate damages as might he a sufficient com-
pensation to the plaintiff fur the injury they thought her
feelings or her character had susoined, or for the in-
jury she had suffered by the loss of a good settlement
ih life.

The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a vet.
dict fur the plaintiff—Damages 40a.

(Before Mr. Baron VAuauAw.)
John Highfaeid, aged 58, and Wiliam', Highfiekl, aged
61, both re-pectabie looking farmers, were charged
with forging a deed of -,gift of certain lands situate at
Standi.n, in the couLty.of Stafford, With intent to de-
fraud Joseph Peake. •
There were aim, counts in the indictment for uttering
the deer, and for disposing it.
• Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL stated that in the year 1819 an
elderly man, named Joseph Ward, died; he was a far-
mer and a man of some property, and had, in the year
1817, made a will, by which he had give,' a small
estate, called Bowers, to his nephew, Joseph Peake,
subject to a charge of five hundred pounds, to be
divided among his near relatives. The prisonerrJohn
Highfield, was. the tenant of this fates, and was dis-
tantly related to.the old man. On the-death of Joseph
Want) the prisoner. John Highfield, was questioned
by the heir-at-law (who was not then aware of the will,
which, as soon as he knew it, he acquiesced in)and, for
the first time, was told that the prisoner, John Highfield,
had had ihopreperty conveyed to him by a deed dated
in the year tBlB. This surprised the devizees much,
and they caused a •bill in Chancery to-be filed for the
purpose cif selling aside this deed. on the ground that
it had been Ir.:odulently obtained. To this bill in Chan-
cery John Highfield pat in an answer; and William
Highfield was esarniiied as a witness, and that investi•
gation terminated in Mr. Peake's obtaining the pro-
petty ; but the question now to be tried by the Jury
was, not whether the deed was fraudulently obtained,
but whether it was forged? It would be necessary,
on this latter point, to adduce the evidence of an
accomplice, who would prove the actual comrni,sion
of the forgery. On his evidence alone he (the Learned
Sergeant) would n vet. ask a Jury 10 convict, but his
testimony would be conic med in several material points.
The story r•f the accomplice would he this—that, shortly
after the death of old Jos. Ward, John Highfield came

_ go —.—

- _,;..~