The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-13 00:00:00

BIGAMY.-1 XTRAORDINARY DIVORCE.

Thomas Nield, late of Prestbury, was indicted for marrying
Hannah Simcock, at Prestbury, on the 27th of May, 1833, his
former wife, Mary Ellor, being then alive.
On the first witness, Nathan Ellor, (father of his first wife)
making his appearance in the box, the prisoner said, " MY
dear lord, don't. allow Nathan to swear any thing, he's what
they call'n an infideel, that he is, ye know it, Nathan." The
witness stated, that his daughter was married to the prisoner
about ten years ago; he was not present at the marriage, but
he saw the party on their return from churcb, and they showed
him the marriage lines."
Prisoner, (addressing the witness, blubbering all the time.
and wiping his eves,) "Now, Nathan, was'nt I a good hus-
band to Mary—didn't she use me very badly? I catch'd her
with an old chap the very night we were married. My dear
lord, Nathan knows there was an agreement on a stamp that
Mary and me should part; and we were to marry who we
liked. This is true, isn't it Nathan ?"—Witness : "Well, I
believe I signed it, Thomas; it was on a shilling receipt
stamp."
The JUDGE.—That was not a legal dissolution of the mar-
riage contract.
Joseph Sadler, Superintendent of Police, Stockport, pro-
duced the register of the prisoner's first marriage. As soon as
it was put in, the prisoner bellowed out, " My dear lord, a
Joseph if he's brought the stamp paper that me and Mary signed
to part. Oh dear me, have ve got it, Joseph ?"—(Geueral
laughter.) Sadler replied he had not got the document.
Hannah Simcock was called, and corroborated the fact of
her marriage.
The prisoner broke out again ; and, casting the most sym-
pathetic looks at his second rib, scratched his head, and said...,
"My dear Hannah, did I ever behave badly to you?" She re-
plied, " No." Prisoner : " Hannah, my dear, don't ye remem-
ber, before you and I was married, Mary signed a papen on a'
stamp, that I might have you?" Hannah : " Yes, she did, and-
I knew you were married before."
The case for the prosecution here closed, when his lordship`
called upon the prisoner for his defence, who said :
"My dear lord, I'm a man that's had a deal-of trouble about
Mary; she's a badu'n ; she's brought me to ruin. (Laughter.)
Now, I'll tell you a bit about her tricks. Now, as we were
agoing to put up the axings, why, do you know, my dear lord,
she says to me, on the road, Thomas, don't make a fool of me,
I've been made a fool of once before.' (Roars of laughter.)
Now, my lord, I married her ; and the very same slight I catch'd
her with an old chap; his name is Royle; and do you know,
my dear lord, he's living with her to this day. Isn't this a worse
shame than mine? Well, (crying,) ye see I'd more trouble,' •
—in seven months Mary had a child. I didn't know what to
make of this; so, says Ito the Doctor, Doctor, what do yet"
think about Mary having a little un in seven months?' and do •
you think what he said, my lord? Why, says be," and it vot",..
ed me, it is a common accident with the first.'—( Universal"'
. laughter.) The poor little thing died; and, after that, she kept
running to the fortuneteller, I suppose to see whether she was
to have the old chap, and when I said summut to her about.-
him, why, she said, Tom, I'd rather have his finger than rut
whole body.'—(Laughter.) Now, my dear lord, see how l's,
been bungled by Mary; hope ye'll have mercy on me tint,
is all I have to say, an' it's all the truth." - d
At the close of the prisoner's address, the Under-sheriff ha
much difficulty in restoring oider in the court.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up. the ease, observed, that the 7
female who last married the prisoner could not have sulfeuruet.
much, as she knew he was a married man. The jury foil:
Nield Guilty, and he was sentenced to be imprisoned six moo ' .

C OSB Y RACES.-It would appear that the inhabitants of
delightful little watering-place are determined to he the first
the field as regards racing, and have already issued a sehetj'n;
of the prizes to be contended for by such horses and poni"
can be got together, minus the qualification of being tboroug
bred. The encouragement bestowed upon these races last vearto.
by the crowds of respectable persons who flocked thither.
witness the sport, and the gratification evinced by all presep!..
has, no doubt, been the main stimulus in causing their rePeu
tiun. Tuesday and Wednesday, the 24th and 25th of April,
the days fixed for the trials of speed, and as the 21st is the
',,
day on which the competitors can "down with their ponies,
behoves them to be in time for the scratch. There will be t•sce;
races the first day, each for a Sweepstakes, and 10 sovs. add
di lorSeS 01.
—the first exclusively for ponies, and the other for
larger growth." Two Purses and a Sweepstake, with 10 Ws'
secoT.
added, for horses and ponies, is the bill of fare for the
day, and, from the value of the stakes, a numerous entry
_roe ,`"
be expected. Mr. Wm. Evans is the clerk of the course
and (;I‘.
An ordinary will be provided each day at the Waterloo, , .70;
number of omnibuses are to be placed on the road express'Y is
there
the occasion. Should the weather prove favourable,
little doubt that a vast concourse will be attracted to enjoy !i'v
sport.

APRIL 13. U•)',B

LIVERPOOL SPRING -ASSIZES,

-NISI PRIUS COURT-TuE4DAr

C V. SMITH.
Ttiis was a horse caseARSON,
with the usual description of evidence
in suit (--ases.:.The• plaintiff, -Mr. Carson, in this town is a
_draper, and the defendant an Irish horse dealer. The plaintiff
icink'tt fancy to 'a
hoist belonging to the defendant, and agreed
e,xeliange his own horse, which he valued at £2.3 with him for.
il, giving hint £8 to hoot, the defendant giving a warranty that
his horse was perfectly sound. The exchange was made, and
the,horse which the plaintiff had got in exchange front the de-
fendant then tarried out quite latne, being. injured in the
to/vie/dor joint. The action was brought on this warranty of
the defendant, to recover the difference in value between the
two horses, the horse the plaintiff got in exchange having been
nfierWards sold at Lucas' stables for £S, and the horse of the
Plaintiff, which the defendant got having been valued by the
defendant. himselCat ,£23.. The plaintiff broke down in his
case,' which appealed to be lamely made out and was non-.
suited, on the ground of variance with his- declaration respect-
41g. the warranty he gave his own horse.

Ii[GHES lIEGISTER OFFIC&R V. THOIIVE.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Alexandey and Mr. Wightman •for the defence.
In this case the plaintiff was Wm. Hughes, one of the public
registered officers: of the Agricultural and Commercial Bank of
Ireland, and the defendant was Mr. John Thorpe, of Man:
Chester.

•' The declaration was for money had 'and received, and on an
.account stated, and the defendant pleaded, first that be was not
liable, and second, that there was a co-partnership between him
and the Agricultural and Commercial Banking Company, and
further pleaded that the. co-partnership consisted of .more
than six persons;and that there were establishments of the bank
in places in Ireland, within 50'iniles of Dublin, contrary to the
provisions of a statute, for protecting the Bank of Ireland.
Mr. CuEsswEi.i., in opening the case said, the plaintiff was
.the public officer appointed for the p.m-pose of bringing and de-
fending actions brought' against, or by a joint stock company
in Ireland, the Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland;
which-was established in 183. The defendant was formerly
the manager of the Northern and Central Bank of England at
Manchester. Before 18.36 the defendant purchased 200 shares
in the Agricultural and Commercial Banc, for which the plain-
tiff sued, and in the spring of 1836 a call became due on the
'other 100 shares. Mr. Thorpe was applied to for payment,-and
he addressed a letter to the Agricultural Banking Company,
stating, how he considered the matter to be settled, and pro-
mising to pay the money by giving them a credit with the
Northern and Central Bank of Manchester Co that amount,
'Which credit he never gave. The letter he alluded t, was in the
followin. terms, and was addressed to Mr. Wm. Mitchell, then'
manager of the Agricultural and Commercial Bank,of Ireland.
It was signed-by Mr. Thorne, and dated Manchester, April 5;
1836:

" DEA rt SIR-I find there is some mistake about the payment
of my calls upon your shares, for our Mr. Lyall informs me that
be has not credited my account and paid you. When I receiv-
ed my last scrip, you never stated 1 was debited £lo(X)'for the
additional shares I took. But, bY some oversight, thif has not
teen carried into your books. Please debit me on that date
with the amount of the'C:alls due on my 200 shares; I think it
will be £51.X.) the second call on the first 100 shares, and £lOOO
the two calls on the- second •100 shares. Address me that by
letter. Your bank shall be credited here for the amount on that
date:"

It wOuld appear, that Mr.. Thorpe very soon after quitted.his
situation as manager of that bank, which probably might account
for his never having given thateredit to the Agricultural Bank
of Ireland to that amount. They, had,: therefore, clearly esta-
blished, by the account given by himself, that £l5OO was due
froni the defendant to 'the Irish Bank, which would leave the
i)laintiffs entitled to 'recover that sum; from him. The-defendant
,had put on the record two pleasz the first by stating, that he
had'paid the trolley; which•the Irish Bank Would-he very glad
to find themselves in possession of. .lie supposed by tbat, that
the defendant did give some credit to the Irish bank with the
bank of Manchester. They would find that he did no such thing.
I'.he_deferidartt then endeavoured to get out of the liability of the
Purchase by. charging .the Irish hank with carrying on their
business in contravention of an act of Parliament relating to
Ireland. He!was told that •that was a mistake, It might be
that the joint stock concern like many other large banks, ex-
tended its liranche-s too wide, and that these did not all answer;
lint if Mr. Thorpe. had now the means to pay the money, be
would came into possession .of shares in a very thriving coneetn;
and he was happy to state, that to all appearance, the difficulties
"were removed -under which the bank had ' formerly laboured,
and the bank of Ireland .was likely to turn out a prosperous
'concern, and'he trusted that it would prosper.
He called John Harrap, clerk to the Northern and Central
Bank, who deposed to the above letter being iii the handwriting
of Mr. Thorpe. There was '.no such credit as that for Ll5OO
Auentionedln the letter, in the Northerwand Central Bank, in
favour of the Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland.
' Mr. Myers, formerly clerk in the service of the Agricultural
and Commercial 13ank, deposed, that, in the spring of 183t3,
Mr. Mitchell,was manager of the. concern whenthe above letter
Was addreSsed to him. The sum of £l5OO had never been paid
by Mr. Thompson -fir the bank.
On being cross-examined by Mr. ALExaNnra, he proved the
handwriting of Mr. Dwyer, the chairman -of the board of the
Agricultural and Commercial Bank, and also Mr. Mitchell's
handwriting. Mr. Hughes was.,Secretary to the bank. He
(witness) was stationed .at Roscommon. He was not at any
Period ins the establishnient at Drogheda.
Mr. ALEIIANDER contended that the action brought by the
'Plaintiff's against the defendant, was of -the nature of an action
of one partner against another.
The point was, argued at length, and leave was given by his
.lordship to the defendant.. to enter a nonsuit upon it.
v Mr. A LEKA N OEII then rose for the defence. He had no doubt
"at his friend's obseivations that day with regard. to the Agri-
thLal„taral and Commercial•p,ok!),f Ireland would be hailed with
very-diff,4ent feelings throughout these mpire, accordin,,,o• to_
e ''„ltegnaintance with the subject, matter, or the ignorance of
erson receiving that intelligence• It would produce an
'ulfrt).`"oate dei,ree of delight on the part of those who had been
sil—erevs—it would nrodute'an- in degree of surprise on
.7? e Part of those who had watched during the last two years the
;I"egreSs of that iistahlishinent, through its difficulties, both in
courts of law, .affil out of them. And. he was sure he cordially
concurred with.his learwd.trietid in the hope. that the Agricill•
and Co•OuteeciAl 13:ink 'might arise'-again from -the very
prostrate condition to which he was ,afraid it was, and. which
crime of the :Jury might prubiihly know' quite as well as him-
self, and he
,again the flattering position which at the onset of
the case -it, professed to be. It. was a duty his client. owed to
himself to resist a daim apparently by the Agricultural and
Umemere44l,-Bank* of Ireland as at first established, but in
reality by pPrsorfs.who hail ceased to represent that body. .By
the 6th of Geo. 4th, c. 42, an act for the better regulation of
Partnershjp'S of certain bankers in Ireland, it was enacted, that
tine nuinberail persons in .airy such partnership should not ex-
ceed six, and should- have no establishMent within 50 miles of
• Dahlia. •In inder, therefore, to-sustain the present proceeding,
tt..eo-partnwship like the present; consisting, as he need scarcely
observe. of infinitely inure that six persons, it was necessary
OW they should not have any place of business within 50 miles
of• Dublin; and in the event of: that act—being violated, the
.clairn became illegal, and on that ground the plaintiffs would
16se their- right to sue in that action. Arinong other establish-
ments of the hank there happened to be one at Drogheda,
which was within 39 miles of Dublin, either English or Irish,
'rod, therefme, clearly within the limits described by the act.
He should call befor-e them a witness, in order to make that
tact clear,•and as soon-as-that was proved. another point would
he ripe for his lordship's notice, that this was an illegal carrying
on business beyond the litisits of the bank.
A certificate was then put, the hand writing of wh*.ch had been
Proved, signed by James Dwyer, the chairman of the board of
the Agricultural Bank, and William Mitchell, the manager.
as follows : '" John -Thorpe, Esq., banker, of Manchester,
Stands recorded in the Commercial Bank of Ireland, as a part-
'ter, holding 100 shares -in the said bank, designated British
stock."

. . . .
Mr. Daniel Dowde examined, he was agent of the Agricul-
litral Bank- branch at Drogheda, which commenced in January
183`, and continued till September 1837. He received his 0r-
.31.8 front the committee holding their meetings at Dublin. Ile
(iiscounted bills of exchange for the toink to the amount of about
30.000. Hwatopped their letters of .credit directed to other
%%ranches, and paid. them in their notes at Drogheda.
A letter of instructions was here put in from Mr. Mitchell, to
-41*. Lonie, Manager the Agricultural and Commercial Bank
9f Ireland at Droutteda.• The letter stated the embarrastnents
91 the hank, and ordering him to obtain what assets he could,
to pay in cash,the orders of holders of large sums. but for small
sultis to give an order on Dublin— To keep. the branch -open
file usual hour. and to use every care. Ile (witness) followed
B"eh of these insti actions as were necessary, using his own dis-
':'tetion;, he kept the branch:open and took payment of bills not
due, to meet the notes of those who chose to give them. and did
the ordinary hasiness-of the hank, in order to keep up credit,
and as far as .he could, kept up the views of the letter. Drog-
heda is 21 Irish miles irons Dublin, which would be about 28
flglish miles. When people brought notes in, which they did,
exchanged them for sovereigns, cs bank of Ireland notes.,
lle paid the salaries although they were deputed by the bank.
Cross-examined. The -bank' claimed a debt of £l5OO. from
Many inert made demands which they had no right to
'o'. There wasnan order not to issue any more of their notes in
1-be letter; but it.was of no. use for no one would take them. (A
He had a letter of credit on a bank at Strabane• for
t5OOO. by means of which be discounted the bills of the Agri-
''.%ll.tural.Bank.. for the purpose,of avoiding the Charter of the -
45.alik of Ireland. He knew this at the time, and did not think
it wrong at all to evade the Bank of Ireland Charter. The Bank
'lf•lrelitud'hart an establishment within three doors of the place.
?here,he carried on business for the Agricultural Bank.. He
had no plate .0 p signifying that his place of business was a branch
theAgricaltural Bank, though it was ilerfectly well known.
Vtie had a wire blind sent from Dublin with that painted nn it,
t he. did not think it prudent to put it up. lie •was more shy
`than the managers.
lie-examined.—He was to get nn galaxy, but to have. 1 per
'111.4.: on all his transactions, which wow little enough for his
%Merits. A 19.1,0,1
.MT-AT,RXANDER said that he laird raised the point that this
was a branch of the, Agricultural Bank, illegally carrying on
trusihetts within the prescribed distance_
. -.Mr,,CaxsswELL contended that the business carried on was
Mot all the business of a bank, but only limited, in fact, to an
Itten- v.. :
klis:Lonnstur was of opinion that the plea was substantially
proved—that there was abundant evidence to show that the husi-
ss. carried on at the branch at Drogheda was within the mean-
-162‘ of. hr, Actor Parliament, and it was also established within
!b(% prescribed distance. •
A verdict. by his Lordship's direction. was then taken for the
Plitintiff.:otr the first and second counts—Damages £l5OO. and a
for the defendant on the third. issue, which renders the
Plaintiffs unable to recover.

•• At EIT V. LAOS..
~l'ttis War, an action brought by the plaintiff who is a butcher
;
:2 thi, town,. and at the sometime carries tin the African trade
'' -Palm nil, &c. to a consider:llde extent, and was brought,
44,tinst the defendant, formerly Captain of the ship Auteus, for
,
recovery of El 5. pain durin, his absence in Africa, to his
w,i..r at the rate of £5. per mouth. it was contended that the
.14aintiff Was not liable for the defendant's wages, but that he
to receive them fri.%in ii,Mr. Gregson. For the defence, it
\\*" contended that the defendant engaged with a Mr. Ileming-
Zlh's' who was on the coast, and the defendant, as captain, at
0-*Per.roonth, and that they were jointly his employers, and
1"lotiv liable to him. This was denied, and it was asserted that
,L;fendant only went to Hemingway to learn tho- African
arll'; The contract between the parties was put by the de-
frrn which it appeared that the defendant was to carry
Antens:anil load her for the plaintiff, and afterwards
borne and' other vessel for Hemingway. This was signed
-` the plaintiff; speaking of Hemingway as a partner, as " for
self anihriartner." Mr. CultsswEt %., on the part of the defend-
ant, t,fr,„„d ,„ refer the t., hole matter in dispute between He-
inzwav„N,,,,ll, and the defendant ; the defendant had a
'^,nnticter'allo si,t, rechiV°. This was refused, and the case
w
tht-Jtgry round for the defendant, on the ground
%-utit th.3ie was a partnershiri.
TIIE QEF,FN V. 1-I•OI.IOF.S.—TNPTCTMENT.
of cztiiltv wag agreed to by consent in this case.
t 'xit'itt,itN" A ssiGNEa. v. GLAZEBROOK.
33.11 ," bro.ll!.±ht to recover the amount of £S2 Us.
Ve‘plainiiffA were the assignees of apersnn named Gard-
:p uho carried on the wine trade, and in June 1836 the defeat-

dant became holder of a bill of his, which he vas not able to
meet, and by arrangement the.defendant was to have a lien on
5 pipes of wine in his possession, belonging to the bankrupt, as
seenrity Gardner failed, and then the defendant also claimed
a lio4 on the wine for £B2 17s. 3,1. more than the bill, the amount
of his accou❑t in business against the bankrupt, and the action
was brought to try his right to retain that amount.
This cit,ie was not gone into, the plaintiffs being nonsnited by
his lordship's direction, on the face of,the bill itself.

TOE QUEEN V. NEWTON AND. OTHERS.-INDICTM ENT

A verdict of guilty was taken by consent in this case.
Mr. Q4ESSWELL said it was perhaps better that he should
state publicly the reason why he had exercised his discretion,
and did not proceed to the trial of the case against Mr. Lot-
wyehe at the present assizes. Mr. Lutwyche was a patentee.
and carried on the manufacture of alkali, but the process carried
on by the other manufacturers was certainly very different to
his. The indictment was preferred, coupling him with ,the
others, on the supposition that he had been guilty of a nuisance
In order that there might he no mistake, he thought it better
that the full effect of the patent should be ascertained to see how
the works of the manufactory went on when the other manufac-
tories had ceased, and he therefore withdrew that record.
Mr. ELIA'S, on behalf of Mr. Lutwyche, said Mr. Lutwyche
was perfectly convinced that the prosecutors would be satisfied,
and he took no step in it whatever.
Mr. CRESSWELL said the corporation had no feeling in the
matter than the discharge of a public duty, in allowing him to
exercise his discretion.

DOE DELI SINCLAIR AND OTHERS V. FAIRCIOUGH.
This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff, Mr.
Sinclair, as owner in fee of certain land at Wavertree, to eject
Mr. Fairclough, of Wavertree, fro:n the possession, he being
tenant to the devisees in trust before the property was devised
to Mr. Sinclair, and holding it under a lease for six years. It
appeared that the defendant had expended a large sum on the
land in draining and improving it, and that this• lease was not
out, and thgrefore he refused to give it up. The, case was gone
into, when it appeared that one of the devises in trust named
Forsehaw, when he executed the lease with Mr. Fairclough, had
ceased to have any title at all to the property.
A verdict was taken for. Mr. 'Sinclair's demise, and for the
defendant on the two first demises.

WILD V. ATHERTON.—BREACII OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
Mr. MuKPI-ir and Mr. JAMES appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. ALEXANDER for the defence.

The plaintiff in this case was. a Miss Mary Ann Wild, and
the defendant a person named Atherton.
The declaration stated, that in consideration of the defendant
promising to marry the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed to marry
him when required, but that be afterwards refused to fulfil that
pro►rfise, to which the defendant pleaded first that he did not
promise; second that the plaintiff refused to fulfil the promise
on her part, and third that the plaintiff and defendant mutually
agreed to...rescind the.agree►nent. To the second plea the
plaintiff denied that she refused to fulfil her promise, and to the
third that She did not agree to rescind. On these pleas issue
was joined.
,-..

MURPfiY, in opening the case, said from the pleadings
which had just been read, the jury would gather that this was an
action in which the plaintiff, Miss Mary Ann Wild, sought coin-
pensation in damages from tbe'defenthint, 'Mr. James Athprton„
for a breach of promiseof marriage; and it became his duty to
state to them the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff was
the daughter of Mr. Wild, residing at Great Homer-street, in
this town, and was twenty-six years 'of age. 'She- was not,
neither was the defendant;'n person in a very elevated rank of
life, but both parties moved in their own station with perfect
respectability of conduct and character. It so happened from
the reduced circumstances of the plaintiff's' father, she herself
had been obliged to resort to the business of a milliner for sub-
sistence. The defendant, who, was 31 years of age, formerly
carried on business as a tobacconist; ana he (Mr. Murphy) un-
derstood be had now retired on his income, and was indepen-
dent. About five Years before the transaction of which they
camp there to complain, an intimacy sprung up between the
parties, and it would appear before the jury that before that
period the defendant was constant in his visits, and that a great
deal of intimacy existed between theni. Soinetime in the mid-
dle of October last the defendant came to tip house of thelplain-
tiff's father, and there calling for her by , her name enquired if
she was at home. It would be in evidence before them that the
plaintiff and defendant had an interview in the presence of the
mother of the plaintiff—

His LDRI)HIP.—I see by your pleadings that• the lady re-
fused to perform her promise, and that the defendant_ retused
to perform his. Is it too late now? (a laugh.)
Mr. A LEX AIN DER.-1 have not the least objection to with-
draw a juror.
Mr. MuR 1.1-IY.—Oh ! no my Lord, I am not willing to with-
draw a juror at all. I will take my friend's undertaking if he
will perform the contract, of icourse, as we came here for the
breach of it. (To Mr. Alexander, after a pause,) You don't
agree. (a laugh.)
Mr. A LEX AN DER.-NO.

Mr. MURPHY then proceeded. This,negoeiation for a mar-
riage commenced, and it was finally arranged between the par-
ties, that that marriage should take place on the second of
November. He should show that the proposal was made, and
that such was the intention of the defendant, - for he would
prove before them, by the deputy register of marriages; that
the defendant appeared before him, to obtain a certificate under
the new act. And that the names of the plaintiff and himself
were entered upon that certificate. The plaintiff accordingly
prepared her dresses, and -held herself in feadiness for the per-:
formance of the ceremony. He should show that not only did
the defendant. not content himself with this, but that, to make
assurance doubly sure, he bought a ring and placed it upon the
finger of the plaintiff, and in terms as solemn as he could with-
out the intervention of the marriage laws, stated his intention
of !akin,' her as his wife. The second of November came, but
no Mr. Atherton came with it. As was very properly the ease,
on the day appointed for the wedding, the lady sent her father
in order to get some satisfaction from the defendant for his
conduct. The defendant made answer that he was not well,
and that
.was the only reason he gave for the non-performance
of his promise. The father made several applications, and the
same answer was given. As might be supposed, this was not a
'very satisfactory answer to the plaintiff, and in order to give
him an opportunity-of rectifying his condnct, she wrote a, let ter
to him, of which notice had been given to produce the original,
as folloWs

"Sir,—After allowing things to go so far, I think your con.
duct very strange and unaccountable—never having seen or
heurti-anything of-you for the lastfortnifzht t understand ray
father has seen you several times, but I can get no satisfaction
from him, which I think very strange- You must be aware
that my feelings are not the most enviable,"—
lie thought that the jury would agree that they could not be so
after such conduct.

--"threfore I should think you can have no objection to meet
me to explain yourself. If you will take the trouble to walk as
far as our house to-morrow, I will be at home all the afternoon;
but-if unwell, if you will name any time and place, I will meet
you to have things
.explained."
'They saw no hurry on her part; she took into consideration
that perhaps he was unwell, and she was willing to give him an
opportunity pf explaining the matter.
" You need nut stay away at all on account of your disap-
pointment the customs, if that is the only reason.'"
It would appear he had been seeking some situation in the t us-
tOrns and had lost it.

" As my father does not choose to give me any satisfaction, I
should wish you not to name my having written."
On the 10th of November the plaintiff received a letter from
the defendant, to which he begged to call their attention. 'the
letter bore no signature, and he afterwards stated, that on that
account it would be of no importance. But they should show,
him that there were, other means of identifying it. It was as
follows :

" I received your letter last evening, and notified its contents,
and no sorry to find that you took. me to be in earnest, as it
was only a joke all the time—"

He thetighi: the jury would agree with him that it was rather
too much to treat as a joke. The letter went on to say
" I think it extreme madness in a man out of health, and
who has been so for some years, to hare any incumbrance—"
The learned counsel contended that, if there was any incum-
brance, it would be on the plaintiff, and that a man in ill health
could be no pleasurable object to her if her feelings were not
strongly attached to him. He thought they would agree with
him, any of them who had known sickness orsorrow, that so far
from a wife being an ineumbrance, she was the greatest soother
and consolation. The letter went on

"I would have come and spoken to you mySelf, but I am too
unwell, au~l I do not know that it is :requisite as these are my
sentiments."

He thought they would agree with him, that that letter was as
heartless an one as could be read in .a court of justice. Some
little time after the transaction, it would appear that the defend-
ant, from some little feeling of remorse, requested that the
plaintiff would see him at his own 'nouse, which she did, accom-
panied by a near relation. It would be in evidence before thein
that they had• there a private interview. Shortly after, the
landlady of the house, a Miss Dutton, went up stairs where the
defendant was, instructed by the defendant to treat the matter
as a :joke, and one flimsy pretext was afforded by Miss Dutton,
that there was an engagement between her and the defendant
of some six weeks' standing, and that she had the first claim,
thus treating- the plaintiff with contumely; when she, in a mo-
ment of irritation did break out with the expression, "Well,
then, this is too bad; I will make him pay for this ;" and he
would give his learned friend the benefit of that. The plaintiff
had been deeply affected tiv'the slight put on her. and was
unable in consequence to follow her usual occupation. No
eloquence of his friend could get over the plain unvarnished
fact, that here was a young and innocent female nearly de-
stroyed by the slight and contumely which had been put upon
her. They did not come there to demand vindictive damages.
They had placed them at the low amount of £2OO, which was all
they required. He should show that the defendant had himself
said he Would al/oW the plaintiff 30s. 'a week for hnusekeeping,
and that ho h..• 1 g.•>t ,Csi4l) kosi,lon hip), awl had £5OO more. ho
could get, and if that was -not enough he could get plenty more.
lie called on the jury to teach the defendant notagain
_to treat
lightly the feelings of any female. He could ask no dompeiisa-
lion for the injured feelings of the plaintiff, because the jury
could not give it. He called
Mrs. Lydia Wild, examined by Mr. JAMES.—Was the mo-
ther of the plaintiff, who was aged 26, and resided with' her, and
had been on terms of intimacy for four or five years with the
defendant.• . She recollected the defendant coming to their house
one Saturday, in October last, at the latter end. He asked for
Mary Ann, and saw her, she being present.
Mr. JAstEs.—Will you state what the defendant said to the
plaintiff?
Witness.—He asked her if she would have him—if she would
marry, him ?
Mr. JAMES.—Did she make any reply.? •
Witness.— He asked her several times before she made any
reply.
Itlr..T A NI ES —What was that reply ?
Witness.—She did not make any objection.

Ills Lontisinp.—What did she-say ?

. Witness.—He asked her to say yes or no. and she said yes !
After this he went away. He came again on the following day,
and she was present at the interview, but did not hear any of
their conversation. He came again on the Monday folltivving,
accompanied •by his brother. He did not say anything in the
presence of his brother; his brother then went away, and he
took a ring out of his pocket and gave it to her daughter to put
on. She put it on, and he asked her if it fitted her, and she
said yes, aod.gay.e it him back again. She (witness) asked him
if he had told his brother what his errand ,vas, and he said he
had, and that his brother thought it was a very good thing for
him. She asked him if he had told Mrs. Heath, his sister ?
He said he had, and she thought very well of it too. He then
wished'a day fixed,.and it was fixed that the, marriage should
take place on thefollowing Thursday, the 2d of November, and
the ring was given by the plaintiff to the defendant that night.
Her daughter, made the necessary preparations for the occasion,
and she assisted her as much as she could. The defendant never
came as arranged; and the marriage did not take place as ar-
ranged, and her daughter had not been like the same girl ever
since. She was a. bonnet maker, and since that time had not
been able to attend to her business as usual. She attributed
her illness to depression of spirits. She had formerly good
health.
Cross-examined.—She never saw or visited any of the defend-
ants family but him. , He was a good deal at their house..
Samuel Wild. examined by Mr. MURPHY. He was the
father of the plaintiff, and had been acquainted with the defen-
dant 5 or 6 years, and his daughter had known him for abont
the same lerigth of time. The intimacy between the plaintiff
a,nd the ..defendant first took place at his house, the defendant

being in the habit of visiting, at his house almost daily. In the
month of October last, one (lay on his going home to dinner,
Mrs. Wild told him that' Mr. Atherton was in the hnuse and
wanted to speak with him. He went to him, and then Mr. Ath-
erton toll him he had an intention cif marryin. his daughter,.
nil wanted to Snow whelk,;(" he' hail any objection. ile (wit-
ness) told; hint that his (laughter was old enough she must
please herself. 11,, said that he had beenspeaking to Mr. Mar-
tineau, the minister of the chapel, and that he had referred hint
to the registrar, and that he had been there, and enterered the
marriage in the books for the 2d of November. He (witness)
'said' to him, " You must be aware she .has no fortune of her-
self, what means have you to snpport a wife?" He said he had
. sufficient to allow her 30s. a week to keep house on, and had
'E535 by him then. He (witness) told him he thought that
would be very little towards supporting a family? The defen-
dant answered that he had £5OO more, and when that was done
he could'get plenty more. He then asked him (witness) what
it would cost to furnish a house? and he replied that a moderate
small house might probably cost him £6O or £lOO. No mar-
riage took place with his daughter as arranged. He was
the defendant on the Sunday following the day appointed for
the wedding. He asked him no questions; he merely went to
hear what he had to say for himself. He was in his bed room.
The defendant told him he was unwell, and he did not intend
to be married, and had not been out since Thursday. He saw
him again on the Sunday following, and he then said, he had
written to his daughter, but did not put his name to it, and it
was of no consequence. The letter produced,,was in the defen-
dant's hand writing. (The letter of the defendant, read by Mr.
Murphy in his opening, dated the 10th of Nov., 1837, was then
put iu and read.) The defendant was in no business at pre-
sent ; he had formerly, about 4 years ago, been in business as a
tobacconist in an extensive way, and had, since then, been liv-
ing,upon his property in a respectable way.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.,-There had been much
intercourse between him and the defendant for the last few
years. .He (witness) was clerk to Mr. Grace, the plaintiff's
attorney, and had been so for nearly two years.
Mr. ALEX A NDER.—What are your wages.
Witness.—But moderate; £25 a year. I got all I asked for.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you get about 10s. a week r
Witness.—Yes sir. '
' Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you mean to say that Mr. Grace's al-
lowance to you is les. a week.
Witness.—lt is no more. '
Mr. ALEXANDER.--Is it less?
Witness.—lt is Bs. ; Sometimes more.
Mr. ALEXAN DER.—Does he not gis'e you something settled ?
Witness.—There are sometimes perquisites.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Perquisites be fiddled. Is it not Gs. a
week ?
Witnessi—No, Bs.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Haye you not been in the habit fora
nuniber,of years of drinking with this Atherton, the defendant?
Witness.--No, sir.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Have you not been in the constant habit
of drinking with this man at different public-houses at his ex-
pense ?
Witness.—Yes, I have.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Frequently ?
Witness.—Yes, frequently.
The defendant was a man of temperate habits, but had not
been so for the last three months. He had been clerk with Mr.
Grace, the attorney, two years; before then he was in no em-
ployment, and his family supported him. The perquisites he
got at Mr. Grace's office were when peolde Caine and gave him
a shilling, or something of that sort. His eldest daughter was
a dress-maker, and was the principal support ()false family, and
all the household goods belonged to her.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Upon your oath when your landlord, Mr. 1
Walker, came to distrain for rent, did not your daughter say
you were nothing?
Witness.—No, sir.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did not Mr. Walker distrain on these
goods?
Witness.—No.- The landlord distrained for rent he said I
owed him, upon her property, and we brought an action, and
received a verdict.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—HOW much.did you get?
Witness.—A farthing!
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Caa Vou tell me on what point of law you
got that?
Witness.—l don't know what that has to do with it. •
He got a' farthing, and did not get any-censure from the
court. The defendant had gone over to America about three
years ago, and was there about twelve months, and his family
knew nothing of it. Mrs. Murrow was the wife of a fellow-
clerk in Grace the attorney's office, in which he was. His
daughter was a straw-bonnet maker, and occupied the upper
part of the house, and formerly a small shop was kept below by
his wife, the property in it, which was not worth £5, belonging
to his daughter.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—What was dealt with in the shop ? Sugar
lollvpops, or something of that kind?
Witness.—Yes.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did parched peas forma part of what was
sold ? (Loud laughter.)
Witness.—l dare say they did.
Mr. ALEXANDER.--15 the defenria.nt a bright man ?
• Witness.—l don't"think he is; they are none of 'em bright,—
none of the family.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—I dare say not. I should not say that of
the family of Mr. Wild. Was he not almost childish ? .
Witness.—No, sir.
Mr. A LEXANDEst.—Upon your oath was he not a perfect im-
becile ? .
Witness.—No, sir; he was able to take care of himself ever
since 1 knew him. '
Re-examined.—His daughter was in a good way of, business,
but since this transaction she had not earned 205., she was so
very unwell.
By his Lott OSHIP.—His (laughter was not saving, money.
Ills LoRDSHIP.—Have you perceived any attachment going
on between your daughter and the defendant.
Witness.—Why, he has very frequently walked with us to
chapel with her in my presence, when we have gone altogether.
His LORDSHIP.—Nothing more than that? . -
Witness.—No, sir.
Mrs. Agnes Siddle Morrow examined.—She was acquainted
with both the plaintiff 'and defendant in this action, and was a
cousin to the plaintiff. She had been in the habit of frequently
visiting the plaintiff's house. She remembered going there
(luring the month of November last, about the 13th of November.
She sent with the plaintiff to Mr. Atherton's lodgings; where
she saw .Mr.,Atherton. _The plaintiff and defendant, were not
in her presence together the whole of the time, they iveVe auesa
half an hour away, when they came into her presence. She t hen
heard him say that he would not have her cousin—that he did
not intend to marry , that if ever be did, that lady (pointing to
Miss Dutton, the landlady). should be his wife. Miss Dutton
was an elderly person.
M r..At EXANDER. —ln your brief site is put:down at sixty-six.
(A laugh.)
Miss Dutton said it was all a joke, and her cousin said it
should be a dear joke to him. He said he supposed she in-
tended to law. him, but if she did he should employ some of the
first men in Liverpool against it. The letter handed in was a
copy of a letter sent by her cousin to Mr. Atherton s she put
the original in the postoffice herself. (The letter of the plaintiff
read by Mr. Murphy in his opening address was then put in
and read.)
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—The writing of a letter
(which he gave to her) was in her (witnesses) hand. She -
wrote both the letters.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Then which was it you put into the post-
office—this or the other. ?
Mr. MURPHY.—I object to that. I gave notice to produce
the original.
Mr. ALEXANDER. —Oh, no; that is a totally different letter.
which you sent to us.
Mr. 111 URPH Y.—l must insist that that is the letter which is
proved. ,
Mr. ALEXANDER.—She has proved both.
HIS LORDSHIP,—Are they different?
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Yes, my lord.
His LORDSHIP (to witness.)—How came you to swear that
that was a copy of the letter? '
Witness.—My lord, I wrote two letters; two letters went to
Mr. Atherton.
Mr..ALExaNDER.—YeII wrote two letters, did you? What,
both sm the same day?
Witness .*--Why, I wont-
-Mr.' ALEXANDER.—What time was there between the two
you wrote ? .
Witness.—Three weeks or a fortnight, I should think; per-
haps a month. I can't sae.
Mr. Atherton lodged at Miss Dutton's on the 19th November,
%Alen she went to see him. After the defendant had been up
stairs with the plaintiff, he came down and asked her (witness)
to go up stairs, and also Miss Dutton ; she went up stairs hut
Miss Dutton remained down, but soon afterwards came up when
sent for, and asked, " what did you want with me ?" She (wit-
ness) said to her, we are at a loss, for Mr. Atherton has some-
thing to say to you which will satisfy us. Miss Dutton then
went down, for she said she did not know what it was, and she
believed Mr. Atherton had sent her up to make a fool of her.
In about five or ten minutes she came up again and said, she
believed one of us young ladies was one of the young ladies
that Mr. Atherton had been having a joke about.
Mr. AsEx A N DER.—Did she say that Mr. Atherton was placed
in a very awkward situation, for it is not more than six weeks
that he promised me; I ain first on the last ?
Witness.—Yes.
Mr. A LEXA NDEtt. —I suppose you and Miss Wild looked very
gloomy upon that ?
Witness.—i don't deny we did.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did you not say you are both better
without him, as he is only halfwitted and crazy at times?
Witness.—No, I did-not, I believed he was more knave than
fool. .
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did not Miss Dutton say your courtship
must have bean a very short one, it has only lasted a few days.
Witness.—Yes.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Then you took up the conversation and
Said,'but we have known him for six or seven years ?
Witness.—l said my cousin had known faint, and the ac-
, quaintance had been for six or seven years.
not have supposed he would have made your .
Mr. ALEXANDER.—And did you notgoon onto say,
ayofonowhobuuldt
fool
if
?were your cousin you would make him pay for his
Witness.—Yes, I certainly did say so.
Mr ALEXANDER.—Did not your cousin say, but I have not
done with him vet?
Witness.—l don't recollect it.
ALEXANDER.—Did
hisr..EpXr,A)pNeDrEt fall Ann i
nI would
behfaovree.
we go away?
haAlfirOf
Witness.— I don't recollect.
yR;-"lpshidouniodtlL°elllsoaYseleihairlyn
His IA RUSH I P.—Mrs. Morrow, how can you recollect part of
the conversation and you don't recollect that ?
Witness made no answer, and the question was repeated. .
Witness.—Perhaps I might say so. (Laughter.)
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Now, then, did you not follow it atp by
saying. " I suppose he has run away, and won't come near any
more?"
Witness—No, I did not; I won't swear it.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—DRs not Mrs. Dutton say, " I don't think
so ?"
Witness.—She had been to look for him, as we should like to
see him before we went assay—she could not find him.
•Mr. ALEXANDER.--Was not this your conversation, " Mary
Ann, if he conies again, do say you will have half of his proper-
ty, and yoy will soon see him tall at your feet?"—(Laughter.)
Witness —No, I did no! say that.
Mr. A sExANDER.—Then what was it you said?
Witness.—l said nothing like it.
Mr. ALEXANDER—Supposing that to have been said, did not
Miss Wild say, " I have not done with him so soon as he may
think ?" .
Witness.—Yes, perhaps she might say that.
His Lounsuic.—You very often say, "perhaps she might."
Mr. ALEXANDER—Did not Miss Dutton say, " I don't think
Atherton is a rich man ?"
• Witness.—She said he was not a rich man. . .
Mr. ALEXANDER—Then tell me whether you did not say,
" Oh, he has a deal of property; we are certain of that, for we
know, all his affairs; he has 1.:500,in property in Manchester,
and he has got to receive some money from the bank ?"
Witness.—No, I did not say that. That I knew he bad pro-
perty for he was living on it.
Mr. A LEXANDER-Did you not say he had £5OO to receive
' front a house in Manchester?
I
Witness.—Yes, I said I knew that.

THE fiVERPOOT, STANDARD.

Witness.—/sto.

Mr. Mußpuy.-Oh.

Mr, ALEX A N DEl2.—But nothing. about the bank? • .
Witness—No, sir.
Mr. A LUX A NDRR.—While you were going on in this discus
sion, did not the 111111- himself appear?
Witness.— Yes, sir.

Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you recollect his saying then, " I
think Mrs. Murrow and Miss Wild, you are very fiiolish in
coming here—"
Witness.—No, sir.,
Mr. ALEXANDER
Witness—No sir.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Nothing like that ?—No. You are quite
clear of that ?—Yes

-" As I never intended to have you ?"

Mr. ALEXANDER.—D►id he not go on, "For ham going to
marry that lady, (pointing to Miss Dutton, for I would never
have any body else ?"
Witness.—Yes, sir.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did you not march up and down the
room with your umbrella in your hand, and say, ," If he had
served me in that manner, I would take this umbrella and give
him two black eyes ?"—( Loud laughter.)
Witness.—No, sir, I did not.
Mr. AL6XANDEII.—Why, did not Miss Dutton say "why
surely you would not act the young lady yourself?"
Witness.—l never heard it. I might perhaps have the um-
brella in my hand.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Supposing you to have said if he had
served you so yo❑ would give him, with this umbrella, two black
eyes, did not. Miss Dutton say, "do you serve your husband
so." (A laugh.)
Witness.—No, this is news to me.
Mr. ALEXANDE.II.—And did you not answer "no, for I asked
him if he would have me, and he consented?" (Loud laughter.)
Witness.—No, sir.

Mr. ALEXANDEIt.—Did you not say to Miss Wild, ".Mary
Ann, you and I are better without Mn," and 'then leave the
roam.

Mr. ALEXANDER.—What was the parting observation?
Witness.--"My parting observation was, if I had any influ-
ence-over my husband he should give him a good thrashing, for
I thought it a great pity that she had no brother that could do
it ? (Laughter.) No one else was in the room. A man came
in and brought a glass of brandy to Mr. Atherton, that was all.
By His LORDSHIP.—Now attend to me, and answer me the
truth. Is Mr. Atherton a handsome man ?—Not to my fancy.
Is he'remarkably the other wayy—No, sir, he is not. You have
been asked a question if he was a silly fellow ?—Miss Dutton
said she was sure Miss Wild would not like an illiterate mart,_
and she was sure Mr. Atherton was so. Now, I ask you is not
Mr. Atherton a silly fellow ?—I can't say. You give us no an-
swer; is he not a silly fellow?—He is not a man to my taste,
neither mind, nor body. You told us so before; do you think
he is a sensible man ?—Yes, in his conversation in many re-
spects; he is not what you would call a clever man. No, I sup-
pose not; my question was if he was nut the other way P—No,
sir, I don't think he is.
Mr.
,Pennell was called, the superintendent registrar of mar-
riages. On the 2-4th of October the defendant gave a notice of
marriage at his office, siuning the certificate "John Atherton,"
and filling it up with the name of Miss Mary Ann Wild. He
produced the certificate.
Cross-exatnined.—The defendant appeared to him to be tipsy
when he signed the certificate. There was something peculiar
about his manner, and he wanted him in consequence to come
again at another time, but he refused. He never made his ap-
pearance afterwards.
His LORDSHIP.—Mr. Alexander you cannot contend for a
verdict.

Mr. ALES:ANDER.—Does your Lordship thiok not?
His LorinsiiiP.—Certainly. Impossible. You cannot say
that the promise has not been made. After this you cannot say
he was not competent to snake his promise.
Mr. ALEXANDER.--My lord, he is as mad as a March hare.
I have his medical attendants and nurses to prove it.
His LoansHiP.—Whether or no, you cannot find fault with
this.

Mr. ALEXANDER.—Then the question will be, whether da-
mages or nominal damages.
His Lounsuir.—l think so.

Mr. ALEXANDER thenTo.s7for the defence. He commenced
by complimenting his friend Mr. Murphy on his effective ad•
dress on behalf of the plaintiff; supposing her to be as stated,
an injured woman, and it was no fault of his learned friend's if
his observations did not become applicable. He could not help
regretting that his learned friend had not been ptit in possession
of the state of the defendant for the last five or six years, because
he would have felt convinced that his observations, however
just on other occasions, would not bear the test of inqiiiry on
this. There was not a man who had heard his friend describe
the cold-blooded heartlessness which attended the conduct and
character of him who could deceive a woman and did not feel
what his learned friend had said. There was not a person who
had heard him talk of (he sufferings of his client, in consequence
of her firm and deeply rooted attachment to the person and
mind of the man who had wronged her, but felt that these would
have been powerful topics, and would have told well in a case
to which they were applicable • but this not being the case, he
could only compliment his friend, which he did most cordially,
and trusting that his eloquence would enable him to paint a case
not like this, but a case when another lady sued for another
injury. ' But now let them look at the case as it really was, and
they would find it, by the plaintiff, ' a gross attempt on the part
of the father to induce a weak-minded silly man—now attempt-
ing to Commit suicide—

Mr. MURPHY' here rose.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you mean to object? I mean to call
evidence.

Mr. ALEXANDER i.!Ontinued.—This was a case which called
forth a great deal more of pity and sorrow, than of laughter and
of joy. He should be very much inclined indeed to feel for the
plaintiff if he could believe that the non•acquisition of this per-
son in marriage had had any thing like the effect that the father
and mother made no scruple in telling them it bad, and that
from the period when he broke off the match she had been un-
able to obtain her livelihood. They had heard very severe cases
of breach of promise of marriage, in which some rational per-
son, possessed of a loveable person, had been the offending
party; but that was irrational to this case, where the defendant
was not a rational being, and whose person was not loveable,
and yet who was said to have had the effect of making the plain-
tiff totally incapable of following her business since. The fa-
ther and mother described her as completely borne down by the
effects of her attachment, so that she had.not eat fled 20s in her
trade since. Why,
Hann v was.ths_wam"rur
That was not long a-donig," ' -
with a vengeance, if this were true. What did the father tell
them? The first time he had any notion of his daughter being
under any engagement to the defendant was at the close of Oc-
tober, when the defendant asked his consent to marry her.
This was the first intimation of any attachment between the
defendant and the daughter; and so instantly ripened into full
bloom this little bud which showed itself in October, that there
was notice given immediately to the registrar of marriages, the
ring was purchased, and they seemed in a mighty hurry to
get hold of this man, be it right or wrong. The ground was
broken on the 17th October, and the wedding was fixed for the
2,1 of November; and then, never such ruin ! She is broken!
down to t ha grave because the defendant did not keep his pro-
mise.
lie (Mr. Alexander) could understand an affection that
for year after year had gratified itself with one sole object—a
beloved individual ; that year after year had been waiting the
occurrence of the moment when the same feelings and wishes
should be kindred to both; he could understand that very well,
and the height to which a woman's affection could be raised,
and the-depth to which she would fall if that affection met with
the treacherous conduct imputed to the defendant on this occa-
sion. High feelings, and warm passions and a cultivated mind,
he could then fancy unfitted, by such imputed treachery, for
the ordinary business of life. But for Miss Wild's sufferings,
well wayed in the world, selling straw bonnets above, and com-
fits and lolly pops on the ground floor, without any previous at-
tachment to the 17th of October—that by the mere force of her
own feelings—her deeply wounded afections, from that time
forwards the straw bonnets, the comfits, and the lolly-pops had
all been neglected, and. not 20s. worth of work done—it was ri-
diculous and disgusting; and with that observation he dismissed
that part of the case. But let them see how the case stow'. on
the father's own evidence. lie presented himself before them
as the clerk for the plaintiff's attorney, Grace; as the relation
of Marrow, another clerk with Grace-the attorney for the plain-
tiff—as the person who, for 5 years, had been fattening at the
expense of the defendant, and who told them that the defendant
was with him every day during that time, and that he was al-
ways drinking at the defendant's expense— he cool I easily con-
ceive such a character as that considering within himself, how
far the easy circumstanced man, who, according to the evidence
of Mrs. Murrow, had £5OO to receive at Manchester. and who,
according to the evidence of the father, had another £5OO else-
where—hecould easily conceive him saying to himself—" would
not this be a nice spec for one of my daughters ? Here is one
that 1 have lived upon for 5 years. There is my daughter
Mary Ann would make a very nice wife,for him. To be sure,
he is no conjuror • but then he has got this £5OO at Manchester,
and another £5OO elsewhere." He (Mr. Alexander) could con-
ceive this, though, when he put the question to hint, he denied
it. He could conceive that person slily suggesting to the object
of his design—how comes it that you remain a single man ?
—why should you not come and live comfortably at our house?
Mary Ann would make a capital wife fur you." He could
imassama the silly soft defendant saying,—"do you think she
woulcrLave me ?'' and the father replying—" Oh ! yes, a respec-
table man like you—by the bye, what have you got to keep a
wife ? Ilad you not better come and call at the house and see
Mary Ann? Yon don't come so often as you used to do." He
would ask the jury if that was not a probable way in which this
had been done, and this he charged as the design of the pa-
rents and daughter. The defendant then came to the house;
and then let them only observe the way in which this delicate
minded woman—she who was going fast to the grave in conse-
quence of. her not being able to obtain the hand of the defen-
dant. It was so curious a description of courtship, that he
would not trust to memory, but give it in the graphic words of
the mother. Now here was the description of courtship be-
tween the lady of the delicate feelings, who had not been able
to attend to her business since, and who was asking, what his
friend called the very moderate damages of £2OO for the injury
she had sustained. " In October last, the defendant came to
our house on a Saturday; he asked for Mary Ann; he saw her
in my presence." Extremely proper; you know she was a
witness • that was necessary. " He asked her if she would
marry witness;
That was coming, he thought, to the point at
once. The father told them that till the application to him in
October, he had never the least notion of any thing between
them. Here was a man, who, without any previous courtship,
went into a room—and they would not be mistaken—Mrs.
Marrow had told them that she was perfectly unaware that
there was anything! between the parties—that she was not
in her cousin's confidence, though she was to write her
letters and take them herself to the Post-office, to prove
a breach of promise of marriage—yet what had passed
previously between the plaintiff and the defendant nei-
ther father, nor mother, nor cousin have the least notion till
the question was popped. It was a lesson for the young,
and a caution to the men! The mother stated—" He asked
her if she would marry hint?" Only think of this silly fellow
standing up
?" No answer.urinthemile rien
ofairoaogmain,
, and saying, " Will you
marry me
you marry me,
Mary Ann ?" No answer. Then a third time, " Will you
marry the?" (Loud laughter.) At last she says—" Yes."
(Continued laughter.) Now that attained he went away. But
more; he came again next day, and she did not hear the con-
versation then. Now here was a conversation to charge a
rational man with—a person who was in the possession of his
faculties, and not subject to delusion—a man sufficient to make
a lady heart-broken, becauSe he had broken his promise !
Mary Ann, will you marry me ?" No answer. " Mary Ann,
will you'marry me?" .i)io answer. Then, perhaps repeated a
third time—" Mary Ann, will you marry me ?" " Yea, I will,"
and then he goes away. (Great-laughter.) He came next day
with his brother; but nothing was said about the wedding be-
fore the brother; and he should prove to them that neither the
brother nor sister knew anything about it. The 2d of Nossem-
ber came and they weie anxiously listening for every cab to
bring the bridegroom. " Why tarry his wheels ?"
__, would be
said more than once on such an occasion as that. He does not
come; they wait a day or two, and then the father goes and
finds him in bed ; and he says, " I am very sorry I could not
come, I am exceedingly in.'''. Would that be the conduct of a
man:stich as his friend had described him, a man calculated to
break the heart of a woman ? or the conduct of a man who was
the miserable being that. the witneaaers , he should ,Call would
prove he was? They allow some time to go over; and then it

became necessary to have another. witness of the breach of
n
promise of urriag,e, because 'it would not look well that the
father and in:dher should be the only, witnesses. The heart-
broken lady sits down; and Mrs. Morrow writes to the defend-
ant, and ne was glad to find the pOst-mark on the letter of the
Srh of November. It was as follows: '
" understand that you were at our house last Satur-
day we ek, though I never heard till Agnes told me, my mother
having' kept it quite Secret. She -is now at Manchester, and I
shall he quite alone all the week, any day but Wednesday, if
you wish to see me, or have anything to say."—
This heart-broken person; "if you wish to see me, or have
anything to say !"
"',cannot get out, as I am left sole housekeeper,"--
Poor distracted thing ! according to his friend's notion, the
disappointment had unfitted her for anything afterwards.
"You will oblige me by not showing this to Miss Dutton.

"M. A. W."
Now that letter was sent on the Bth of November by her to the
defendant, but it was not in terms so satisfactory as a jury
should have laid before them. That letter was the letter of a
woman who was quite ready, if he would call any day in the
week, when quite alone, to enter into the matter. That would
not do for a jury, so they must have the letter cooked up. Now
let them see what was sworn she put into the post-office. They
would observe that his friend had asked him to produce the fol-
lowing letter which he said he could not as he never had it.
" Copy, Nov. 9th, 1837." Now if they examined this copy
they would find that the date was Nov. 8, and would see that
the 8 had been altered into 9. They appeared to have forgot
the day the real letter was sent. The letter which had been
sent bore the post mark of the Bth of Nov. which could not de-
ceive them. -This asserted copy was dated Nov. 9th, and they
would find was much more carefully penned to come before a
jury. (Mr. Alexander then read the letter read by Mr. Murphy
in his opening, and stated by him to have been sent). Now
this letter was much more touching than the other; no doubt
of it. If the jury would look at both of these letters he would
ask them whether or not the' real letter sent was that which
bore the post mark of Nov. 8. The other letter had been put
in and read in evidence as more touching in its character when
they thought the real letter was not forthcoming. Was that
perjury ?—a letter got up for the occasion and sworn to—got up
to lay before them a detail of the anxiety and feeling on the
part of this young lady. He would tell them now in a few
words the substance of the evidence he should call before them
on behalf of the defendant. The defendant from his youth tip-
wards was a person of imbecile mind; extremely weak. Whilst
j his parents were alive, under some degree of control. He was
not exactly an idiot—not a lunatic, hut a person of extremely
weak capacity. and one who would be called a silly fellow.
When about 24 years of age, his mother having died he deter-
mined to enter into business and his friends could not prevent
him, but engaged a shrewd person, Mr. Butler, to act as his
traveller and manage it for him, and be his factotum. After a
very short time he gave up business, having Last money, and
then went away to America for 12 months. never telling his
friends who knew not where he was, till he presented himself on
his return at his brother's house, and said he had been to Ame-
rica and back again. They asked him how long he staid there?
"Oh, only two or three days*" " Why did you Come back ?"
" Why the buys bit me so that I came back again." He lived
with his family again, and then his disease assumed a melan-
choly turn, and he endeavoured to commit suicide. He gut a
pair of pistols, and the family were in constant jeopardy from
his threatening to shoot tnem. He then became chiLdlsh, and
his old nurse was engaged, who din ing his Moments of weak-
ness put him to bed. H. was furious when any one else ap-
proached him but his nurse. He should prove what his con-
viction was by his medical man, and what his intellect was
by his schoolmaster, ana he should then ask the jury whether
they could doubt for a moment that this had been an attempt
on the part of the plaintiff's father, mother, and herself, to en-
trap a person who seemed able to allow thirty shilings a
week for house keeping, which would be an immense fund to
the father with his Bs. a week wages, and not a farthing else in
the world. The jury would judge whether this was one of those
bona fide cases in which a promise had been given by a rational
being to a confiding trusting creature; or whether it was not a
wretched, disgraceful, and discreditable job on the part of these
people, by means of the daughter, the cousin, and mother, to
get, without the incumbrance of marriage, a portion of the pro-
perty of the defendant. He called--
Dorothy Wilson who had lived servant in Mr. Atherton's
family for eight or nine years, and since she had left the family
had been in the habit of visiting them constantly. She knew
the defendant when he was only ten years of age. He was a
boy his mother always took more care of than his brothers, as
,he was not exactly sharp. When his brothers and sisters were
grown up, they got married, and then about five years ago, the
defendant went to live in lodgings, and she had been requested
to attend him as his nurse. He was sometimes iu a low way,
and sometimes in an excited way. She used to aooth him, and
quieten him, and reason with him. She remembered his sav-
ing he had pistols, and when she was sat at his bed side his
pointing his finger at her, like a pistol, and saying he would
shoot her. She told him not to talk so, and got him soothqd
down. As a boy he was always temperate, but after he knew
Wild, the plaintiff's father, whenever he went out with him he
returned tipsy. She never considered him in a sound state of
mind since she knew him. He was easily imposed on.
This witness was cross-examined at some length, but nothing
contrary to her evidence was elicited.

Eliza Steward,Thi;—godmotheTWf the defendant; George
Edgar, assistant to the late Mr. Winstanley, schoolmaster,
where the defendant was at school; Mrs. Catherine Heath, his
sister, and Mrs. Ann Atherton his sister in-law, all spoke to
the defendant's being a weak imbecile man; what the school-
master called a " soft fellow." As a boy at school, he 'never
could learn, and used to have a perpetual smile on his face,
which made boys half the size of himself teaze him, and he
was continually complaining to the master of little boys greatly
less than himself, beating him, and teazing him.
His LORDSHIP here endeavoured to stop the case, by asking
Mr. Murphy if be could go against such evidence. Mr. Murphy
replied, that he was in the hands of his clients, and they in-
sisted on his going on.
The case then proceeded, and
1)r. Patrick Joseph Murphy was called. He had been practis-
ing as a physician in Liverpool, for a number of years, and in
November last, was called on to attend the defendant. He
fuind him deranged in mind, and labo.iring under delirium
tremens produced by drink. He attended 'him till the symptoms
of delirium tremens had left him, and then ceased his attendance,
considering that he required more of moral restraint than me-
dical attendance. He told the family to keep all weapons out
of his ampinit suicide. tie was completely
mum e, and his opinion as, ue v. as out au._
his own affairs. His opinion was that, if he had children he
would transmit his state of mind to them. He considered it to
be an hereditary disease, and that he ought by no means to
marry.
Cross-examined.—His mental disease was not such as would
arrise from a disappoitment in matrimony. That was melan-
cholia, of which he had seen some very bad cases.
Mr. A LuxAstoßrt here said, he would not trouble his lordship
with more witnesses. •

Mr. Wilma Y then rose in reply, and spoke with much vehe-
mence on behalf of his client, contending that it was a conspiracy
on the part of the defendant's friends to prove the defence they had
done • and that the feelings of the plaintiff ought to be respected,
though she was poor—that there ought not to be one law for the
rich and another for the poor. This statement, with which he
concluded, produced a burst of applause from the crowd in the
court, which was immediately checked by
His LORDSHIP, who proceeded to charge the jury. He put
it to the jury to place themselves in the position of fathers, and
say what damages they should think their daughters had sus-
tamed in losing such a man for a husband. When a woman
had for a long time given her affections to another person, and
her affections became wrapped up in him, and she looked for-
ward to the time when she might become his wife, and then he
wantonly left her, he committed such an injury to her as would
call for very serious damages. But what was the case here ?
There was no long attachment; the marriage was talked of
without any previous feeling of the sort in the presence of the
mother, the ring was bought and a day was fixed. As far as
they could judge, where was the evidence of wounded affection
in that case? Did any one believe that under such circum-
stances any great attachment could subsist between the plain-
tiff and defendant? He owned far himself he could not per-
ceive that there was the least regard between the one and the
other. What had she lost? Had she lost a man likely to
raise her in life, to support her, to cheer her, to be her guide,
and to be her companion for life ? He advised them to give
ample damages for all the injury she had sustained; if none,
then undoubtedly theyought to give the lowest coin in the land.
'l'he jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one
farthing, coupled with an opinion that it ought:to carry costs.
A strong feeling of disgust appeared to pervade the court as
the case was proceeded with, and it soon became evident that it
was a Barden v. Pickwick case in more points of resemblance
than one. We have perhaps givbn it more space than its im-
portance merits; but it is, as Mr. Alexano... described it, " a
caution to men" how such things are got up.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
COHAN AND ANOTHER V. HUGHES.—THE ART OF JEWiNG•
The plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. Cohan and Camp. formerly'
carried on business as bill brokers, and the defendant is a
builder, who was accustomed to get bills discounted at their
establishment. The action was brought for the recovery of a
sum of £l9 Ids on a bill of exchange, which it was alleged they
hrd taken up for the defendant, and be had never reimbursed
them, they holding the bill as a debt. against hint. It appeared
that originally the defendant brought to the plaintiffs a bill for
£l6 and a fraction to discount, drawn be Messrs. Miller and
Blackey, builders, and accepted by lite ilefendant. This bill
it was alleged was retired dishououre.il by the plaintiffs, and that
another bill was given to the plaintiffs to cover the amount of
the former one and expenses, and also to cover an item of
£2 4s 11(1 for cloth, making the second bill £l9los, which it was
alleged was also dishonoured, and for which the plaintiffs
brought the present action. These transactions took place. in
1832, since which time Messrs. Cohan and Camp had become
insolvent, but having got out of their difficulties, brought the
present action. A witness, named Thomas Herbert, was called
for the plaintiffs, who swore point blank that the money was
bona fide advanced to retire the first bill, and that the cloth was
sold to the defendant, which made the amount £l9 Ills. The
amount of the price for the cloth being £24s lid, for 1 yard 3
quarters and 1 nail. On cross-examination, however, it ap-
peared that Cohan and Camp held the bill said to be retired,
and merely laid down the money on the counter to retire it, and
took it up again. The amount was not for interest which was
charged for• cloth. He had since left the service of Cohan and
Camp.
Mr. CRESWELL, for the defence, commented on the evidence
of this witness severely. Messri. Cohan and Camp, who might
have the letter S prefixed to the latter name, shtuild not have
parted with a servant who bad so convenient a conscience, and
who might become a formidable rival to them in their trade.
He contended, that leaiing out of the question the cloth, which
might be another name for illegal and exorbitant iuterest, the
bill had actually been paid, and Mr. Hughes for six years had
never heard any thing whateVer about it. He called both Mr.
Miller and Mr. Mackey, who both swore that six years ago
they owed Mr. Hughes upwards of £lOO, and, by his request,
went to Messrs. Cohan and Camp, and paid to them £2O to re-
tire the very bill for which the present action was brought, three
weeks before it became due; that Mr. Cohan said the bill was
in circulation, but he would take care and retire it when it be-
came due. They remained indebted to Mr. Hughes £9l lls
after the bill had been paid.
The jury, without troubling his lordship to sum up, or waiting
an instant, found a verdict for the defendant.