The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-12-07 00:00:00

ROMANTIC STORY.

(From the Wexford Independent.)
The following communication, bearing a real signature,
which we suppress, at the request of the writer (who alleges,
as his reason for making such request, that he is intimately
acquainted with the parties), has dropped in our letter-box.
Although it borders rather on the marvellous—he who would
perceive " Helen's beauty in a bower of Egypt" often cuts as
Quixotic a figure in love's annals as the hero of our tale.
The. principal discrepancy of the narrative, in our opinion,
rests on the extraordinary belligerent propensities of all the
parties—scarcely one of them escaping intact. Most persons
must have heard of the two cats, whose pugnacity was not
satiated untill they ate each other to the tails—but let our
informant speak for himself:—
"LOVE AFFAIR EXTRAORDINARY.
" I understand that an honourable intimacy existed some
years ago between a young man of the name of M—, from
near Castle Ellis, in this county, and a Miss A— P—,
also in this county, which continued until about four years
ago, when from some particular circumstances, the young
man discontinued paying his addresses, but renewed them
within these three or four months back, and on last night
proceeded to a place convenient to her dwelling, where she
met him, in order to elope with him. They had not proceeded
two miles from the house, where they intended to meet a con-
veyance to carry them, when they were overtaken by her
brother and three other young men, who, on coming up with
the fugitives, insisted on her returning home. She refused
in the most positive maner ; and on her lover interfering in
her behalf, one of them cocked a pistol at him, which with
the most courageous bravery he wristed from his hand, and
broke it on his skull. Young immediately attempted
to shoot him, but was prevented by his sister seizing the pis-
tol, when a terible combat insued between the hero of the
scene and the other young men, M--- still holding the pistol
in his hand. One of the young men got his arm broken, his
shoulder slipped, and his collar-bone fractured, and the other
is at present in a very precarious state from the effects of a
kick in the abdomen. But just as M— had gallantly de-
feated them both, P— escaped from the grasp of his sister,
and struck him on the head, which knocked him down, and
afterwards beat him in a cruel manner, and left him for dead
on the road. He then obliged his sister to go home ; and
Al was got on the road and conveyed to a house con-
venient, when a doctor was sent for, and I understand that
hopes are entertained of his recovery. ~ J. H.
" P.S.—lf you think this worthy of publicity, I hope you
will be so good as not to attach my name or address to it, as
lam intimately acquainted with the young lady's family. I
understand that Miss P— has, independently of her family,
one thousand pounds, left by an uncle."

SHEFFIELD CANAL COMPANY v. SHEFFIELD
AND ROTHERHAM RAILWAY COMPANY.

NOTE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MASTER OF THE
ROLLS IN THE ABOVE CASE, ON SATURDAY, THE 4TH
, OF DECEMBER, 1841.
The bill in this case prays that a sufficient sum of money
should be invested for payment of an annuity of £lOO, and
that the plaintiffs should be allowed to receive the same, on
the foundation of an agreement alleged to be constituted by
letter. It appears that in 1835 the Sheffield and Rotherham
Company applied to parliament for an act, and in which they
proposed making provision fur payment of the annuity.
This bill passed the Commons, but was rejected by the
Lords. In 1836 the application to parliament was renewed,
and the act again passed the Commons, but did not contain
any provision for the plaintiffs.
On the 18th of June in that year (1836) one of the firm of
Messrs. Badger and Vickers undertook to pay the annuity of
£lOO, but this proposal was objected to. On the 20th of
June Mr. Wake wrote to Mr. Vickers, stating that the
matter must be arranged by an investment. This letter was
clearly an attempt to renew the negotiation. Messrs. Bad-
ger and Vickers replied thereto by stating that they had no
objection to comply with his proposal for an investment for
payment of the annuity, but adding a proviso for its deter-
mination on certain events. Thus the cesser of the annuity
was provided for. Mr. Wake requiring an investment before
the bill was proceeded with, the negotiation again failed.
Mr. Wake required an investment and a declaration of
trust, and if his terms were not acceded to, he stated that he
should oppose the progress of the bill, and would see Lord
Wharncliffe and another Peer and get them to stay proceed-
ing with the report. Mr. Vickers said he would also see
some Peers, and induce them to get the report brought up
that night. I think Mr. Wake could hardly have been aware
of the effect of his own statement. The report was brought
up that night without opposition.
Mr. Wake saw Lord Wharncliffe on the 21st of June,
and wrote to Messrs. Badger and Vickers, saying that he had
seen his Lordship, and agreeing to accede to the terms of
the agreement. It is singular that he did not see Messrs.
Badger and Vickers without delay ; but he sent his letter
and seems to have thought that thereupon a binding agree-
ment was entered into. The witnesses for the defendants
have been under some
receipt of this letter. misapprehension as to the time of the
The bill simply relies on the agreement constituted by
letters; but if an agreement is verbially rejected, the agree-
ment is at an end. The party rejecting the offer cannot
restore it without the consent of the other party. Mr.
Wake rejected the offer of Mr. Vickers of the 21st of June,
and I am of opinion that a binding agreement was not
entered into, and therefore this bill must be—dismismissed
with costs.