The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-02-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, THURSDAY.
Sittings at Nisi Prius.
_ MYERS V. PICKFORD AND OTHERS.

The defendants in this case are the well-known carriers.
The plaintiff is a tailor at Liverpool, and the action was
brought to recover the value of a parcel composed of silk
velvet and satin, which the defendants had been employed
to carry from London to Liverpool, but which had been
lost by the way. The whole parcel was of more value than
£lO, but the silk portion by itself was not worth that sum.
If the value of the velvet and satin may be taken into ac-
count, the case would be within the Carriers' Act, and the
defendants would not be liable to a greater extent than £5,
unless the plaintiff had complied with the exigencies of the
act by giving notice of the nature of the contents, and pay-
ing a higher price than the general rate of carriage, which
had not been done. The point for decision, therefore,
was, whether the silk velvet and satin which, in the pre-
sent case, were shown to be both made of silk, ought pro-
perly to be classed under the denomination of silk goods,
within the meaning of the Carriers' Act.
Lord DENMAN said that the evidence which had been
given for the defence was sufficient to show that the par-
cel had not been stolen by any of the servants of the de-
fendants He left it to the jury to say whether it had
been lost by accident or neglect.
The jury found a verdict for the defendants. After
which, in answer to Lord Denman, they stated that the
evidence did not shew that the goods had been either sto-
len or lost by neglect. They also found that the satin
waistcoat material and silk velvet were silk goods within
the meaning of the statute.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT—FRIDAY.
WITHAM AND MOON V. FRASER.
Mr. Hallett applied, ex. parte, for a special injunction
on behalf of Messrs. Moon and Witham, merchants of
London, to restrain the defendant, who is a salvor and
submarine engineer, from selling certain stock and ma-
chinery supplied to him for recovering the wreck of a
vessel called the Crusader, which bad been lost off Liver-
pool. In October last an agreement was entered into by
the plaintiffs with the defendant that they should furnish
the means requisite for raising the vessel, and that he
should conduct the operation, and a salvage society was
formed, in which both parties bad shares. The project
was subsequently abandoned, and the plaintiffs sent an
agent to Liverpool to claim and take possession of the
stock and machinery. The defendant refused to give them
up, upon which the agent gave him into custody, which
so irritated him that he threatened thereupon to proceed
to an immediate sale of the stock. The injunction now
asked was to restrain him from so doing.
His Honour granted the injunction.

EXTRAORDINARY TRIAL OF BREACH OF

PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

We noticed in the STANDARD last week the commence-
ment of a trial of this nature in which the plaintiff was
Miss Mary Elizabeth Smith, of Anstrey, Warwickshire,
and the defendant Washington Earl Ferrers. The action
was brought to recover compensation in damages for a
breach of promise of marriage ; since such promise defen-
dant married Miss Isabella Chichester. The defendant,
however, pleaded that he had not promised, and that at
the time he made the promise he was under age. The
plaintiff replied that the promise had been renewed after
he came of age. In the early part of 1844 it was agreed
that the union should take place in the month of May, but
it was afterwards postponed till July or August. Every
preparation was made—the dresses were prepared—the
bridecake was ordered, and everything was done that was
usual on such. occasions ; and it was only at the end of
July (so it was alleged on the part of the plaintiff) that
this unhappy young lady e as apprised of the fact that the
defendant could not marry her, Ly reading in the news-
paper of the marriage of the Earl of Ferrers to Miss Chi-
chester.

The trial occupied four days— Saturday, Monday,
Tuesday, and Wednesday, and in consequence of theex-
traordinary character of the
it case of each party to the ac-
tion,excited an unusual degree of interest. The young
lady is just past her 21st year, and the Earl is two years
older. The acquaintance of the parties is alleged to have
commenced in 1839, and to have continued up to the period
of the Earl's marriage in 1844, during which unequivocal
promises were alleged, and the letters containing them put
in as evidence. The defence was, that no promise had
been made. Moreover, it was alleged that Earl Ferrers
never was acquainted with the young lady at all, and that
the letters produced were forgeries.
The counsel engaged in this extraordinary case were—
The Solicitor-General, Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Robin'.
son, and Mr. M. Symons for the plaintiff; and the At-

torney-General, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Humphrey, and Mr.
Barstow for the defendant.

On Saturday the Solicitor-General opened his client's
case in a speech of great length, in the course of which he
read a series of letters alleged to have been written by the
noble defendant to the plaintiff. These were filled with
the usual ardent protestations of attachment, and spoke of
the intentions of the noble defendant to make his " dear-
est Mary," the plaintiff, who possesses considerable tier-
sonal attractions, his wife. They contained frequent al-
lusions to the anticipated marriage, house furnishing, &c.
These epistles were mostly written on scraps of paper, a
peculiarity, it was said, which Earl Ferrers had adopted.
The Solicitor-General anticipated that it would be at-
tempted to be shewn, on the part of the defence, that Earl
Ferrers never spoke to this young lady in his life, and that
all the letters were one tissue of forgery and fabrication
from beginning to end. All he could say was, that if it
should turn out to be so, it would surpass anything among
the possibilities of human life, that a young girl should
have made such a claim upon a young nobleman, and carry
it out in a manner which would have puzzled the most
skilful and experienced imitator of handwriting. Such a
defer ce was incomprehensible, and not to be credited. tie
called a number of witnesses, some of whom spoke posi-
tively as to the letters being in the handwriting of the
Earl, others only believing they were, and all of whom
deposed to having, at one time or other, seen the Earl
walking and talking with the plaintiff, or close to her. The
witnesses were not all of a very respectable class, and one
of them was so intoxicated that he was ordered out of
court. The first witness called was the Rev. Edward
Francis Harding, chaplain to Earl Ferrers, who proved
the communications to be in his lordship's handwriting.
In cross-examination Mr. Harding stated that he was 37
years old, that he held a curacy ; that the Earl was in the
habit of going out as one of the Rebeccai'es ; that he (the
Rev. Mr. Harding) had allowed his lordship to paint
mustachios on his (Mr. H.'s) upper lip, and that with the
Earl he had gone out disguised with his shirt over his
clothes. He also joined in other "larks," and could not
tell whether he was sober when he did so. Notwithstand-
ing this, he had never been deprived of his curacy! Other
witnesses were examined as to the hand-writing, and as
to the defendant having shown attention to M'ss Smith.
On Monday the father and mother of the plaintiff were
examined to prove the receipt of letters and presents from
the noble defendant, and to speak to the preparations for
the anticipated wedding. A younger sister of the plaintiff
was also examined, to prove that the defendant came to
Mr. Smith's house to visit Miss Smith. A labouring
man was also called to prove that the plaintiff and defen-
dant had been seen walking together. Other witnesses
deposed that they had received letters from the plaintiff
to the defendant, and had put them into the post-office.
The evidence i❑ chief went to prove the preparations for
the marriage, in consequence of the letters received by
the plaintiff, purporting to come from the defendant. In
cross-examination of the plaintiff's parents, it was elicited
that they had never seen her receive any letters that came
from the defendant, but that she showed them to them
generally a few days after they were dated ; also that they
never came by post, but always by private hand. They
were also rigidly cross-examined as to whether the hand-
writing of the letters was not similar to the plaintiff's.
Some of the letters they said they believed to be plaintiff's
handwriting, and others were like hers in some of the
characters, but they did not think they were her writing.
They had noticed the similarity previously, but accounted
for it by the fact of her having had some of the defen-
dant's writing when young, and endeavoured to imitate it.
The mother of the plaintiff also stated that she once went
to a ball at Tamworth, with her dauehter, who wore a
white rose in her hair, to meet Lord Ferrers by appoint-
ment, but his lordship was not there. The evidence of
the plaintiff's sister was to prove two visits of the defen-
dant to the plaintiff at her father's house at Easter, and
on the 9th December, 1843, after the defendant became
of age.
On Tuesday the examination of two or three more wit-
nesses closed the plaintiff's case, when the Attorney-
General addressed the jury for the noble defendant. He
admitted this to be a most extraordinary case ; but he
undertook, however, to make it perfectly clear and plain,
and he called on the jury to suspend their judgment. He
admitted that their decision might send the plaintiff from
the court with disgrace and infamy; but, on the other
hand, what must be the effect of a decision that a noble-
man had e: gaged the affections of a young girl, and then
wholly denied all connexion with her. He admitted the
project of the plaintiff was extraordinary in one so young ;
but, unfortunately, not without parallel ; and here he
cited two remarkable cases of conspiracy. One was the
case of a young woman who had left her employment, and
in order to account for her absence told a falsehood, which
led on to others, and at last got herself so involved, that
she swore she had been taken away by two gipsies, whose
lives had well nigh been forfeited, had not her perjury
been detected, and she was transported. The other case
was somewhat similar. He would show distinctly and
clearly that this was a like case, and that it was from be-
ginning to end a base and infamous conspiracy, got up by
the plaintiff herself, by a series of letters, for the purpose
of involving his client in this action. In 1842, the defen-
dant arrived from the continent, and in two days after
came to the title. About this time he received, from time
to time, anonymous letters from some female, breathing
the most ardent affection, which he, not duly appreciating
then, generally destroyed, and after the most diligent
search they had only been able to find four. These were
read to the court. They contained protestations of ar-
dent attachment, and were signed " Isabel," "A. 8.,"
and " Marie." He was not aware who the fair corres•
pondent might be, and destroyed most of the letters as he
received them. Some, however, had been found, which
the learned counsel read. The first was from a stranger,
recommending Lord Ferrers to go to a ball at Tamworth,
and see a young lady who would be there with a white
rose in her hair. The charms of this young lady
were most extravagantly extolled in this letter. After
reading it, the Attarnev-General asked if they under-
stood the case now ? The plaintiff's mother had spoken
as to the white rose in the hair to be worn at the ball. He
had admitted that letters were received by Lord Ferrers,
directed to him. Had they the slightest doubt that this
girl, deceiving some, assisted by others, had been con-
triving, from the beginning to the end, a scene of the
grossest and most scandalous iniquity. [The style and
even some of the expressions in the anonymous letters
are very similar to those in the letters purporting to be
written by Lord Ferrers.] Some witnesses, among whom
were the guardian and sister of the defendant, were then
examined, who expressed a very decided opinion that the
letters were not in Earl Ferrers's hand-writing. It was
also proved that Earl Ferrers was in another part of the
country on the 2nd of December, whe❑ it was said, by the
plaintiff, that he had paid her a visit.
This extraordinary case came to as extraordinary a ter-
mination on Wednesday. The Hon. D. Shirley was ex-
amined with reference to two letters which it was alleged
by the plaintiff had been written by him to her on the sub-
ject of the attachment between the plaintiff and defendant.
Mr. Shirley, however, positively denied ever having writ-
ten such letters, or that he (Mr. Shirley) had ever sent
the plaintiff a jacynth ring at the request of the defendant.
These letters which have since been published, purport to
be written by Mr. Shirley, from Chartley Castle, where
the defendant (Mr. Shirley's brother) is represented as
lying dangerously ill, and making repeated inquiries about
the plaintiff in his intervals of consciousness.
After this evidence had been gone through, the Solici-
tor-General entered the court, stating that the four let-
ters which had been produced on the previous day had
come upoir him by surprise, and also upon the solicitor
for the plaintiff; that surprise being shared in by the
members of the plaintiff's family. After a conference
held on the subject that morning, the result was, that as
there would be no time during the trial to institute those
inquiries which were necessary in order to bring the whole
facts to light relative to that mysterious part of this most
mysterious case, he bad felt it his duty, with the concur•
rence of his learned friends, and with the consent of the
plaintiff, whom he represented, as no explanation could
now be given to those letters, to withdraw from the pre-
sent contest, without making any observations relative to
either plaintiff or defendant.
The Attorney-General then applied to the Court, that
the letters produced in support of the plaintiff's case
might be impounded in court; and the Solicitor. General
made a like application as to the four letters produced on
the other side. The learned judge granted both applica-
tions preparatory to an indictment for conspiracy being
laid against the plaintiff and the other parties concerned
in the concoction of the plot, and the plaintiff was non-
suited. _ _ _

Justice WIGHTMAN, addressing the Jury, said
that unless those four letters could he most fully and
completely accounted for and explained, it would be im-
possible to believe that those alleged to have been written
by the defendant had really been written by him. As
they were not accounted for nor explained, the jury could
not believe that the letters that had been read as those of
the defendant, had really been written by him.
The public, however, have not done with this strange
case as yet, for independent of ulterior proceedings to be
adopted with regard to it, they are likely to be amused
with another case arising out of it, as the notice paper of
the Court of Queen's Bench contains an announcement
of a case in which the parties are" Erpe v. Earl Ferrero,"
the canoe of action being a claim by the plaintiff, the
grandfather of Miss Smith, for £lOO against Lord Fer-
rero. which he, Mr. Erpe, contends was a loan made by
him to the Earl, upon the representation of his grand-
daughter, to pay for presents, which she stated his lord-
ship had made her.

Mr. Sergeant Warren goes down special to Roscom-
mon and Sligo, to prosecute Ribbonmen, in custody,
under charges of committing agrarian outrages—the new
name for shooting one's landlord.
COUNTERFEITING ENGLISH MARES.—The Messrs.
Taylor, of Leicester, England, have obtained a verdict of
800 dollars against Daniels and Carpenter, in the United
States Circuit Court, for counterfeiting their marks on
their " Persian thread," by which the interests of the
Messrs. Taylor were injured.
TIIE QUEEN V.THE MIDLAND COUNTIES' RAILWAY.
—Lord Denman delivered the judgment of the Court in
this case. A rule has been granted to bring up an inqui-
sition that had been held at Nottingham, on the body of
a person who had been killed on the line, on the ground
of the informality of the proceeding. The Court was of
opinion that the inquisition ought to be quashed on the
grounds shown.
In the Court of Common Pleas, on Tuesday, a case
of " Parrott v. Collins" was tried before the Chief Jus-
tice. In this cue the defendant, who was described as
Calwell Hall, Worcestershire, and Thomas Edwards, of
No. 6, Smithfield-place, Camberwell, Surrey, were the
two only registered provisional committee-men of the
" Railway Banking Company"—a speculation in which
nobody had either paid for a share or applied for one.
The plaintiff is an advertising agent. He claimed the
sum of £94 15s. for advertisements inserted in the Lon-
don papers. Having proved the demand, and also a
promise to pay on part of defendant, the Chief Justice
summed up, and there being no defence, the jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount claimed.