The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-02-22 00:00:00

.4 BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

SINGULAR CASE

AT LANCASTER ASSIZES

On Saturday, a somewhat remarkable case came before
Mr. Baron Martin, and a special jury, at the Lancaster
Assizes. The plaintiff was Mrs. Jane Angus Robertson.
the widow of an Aberdeen merchant, against Mr. Thos.
Butler Cole, a magistrate of large fortune, residing near
Lancaster, at his seat called Beaumont Cole. The de-
fendant pleaded that he did not promise. The damages
were laid at £20,000. Mr. Edwin James, Q.C. (specially
retained), and Mr. Campbell Foster appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, Mr. Cowling, and
Mr. Seger for the defendant. Mr. James said that the
plaintiff was the widow of a ncerchant in Scotland, about
30 years of age, and the defendant was Mr. Butler Cole,
a gentleman of large property in the county of Lancaster.
The plaintiff became a widow in 1846, and in 1848 she
was introduced to Mr. Cole, under circumstances which
he would detail to them. Ile believed that Mr. Cole's
habits were somewhat peculiar,and that ithad been his cus-
tom to advertise in the London papers, for purposes best
knownto hinsself, forhousekee3ers and ladies of intelligence
and ladylike demeanour, to at as companion when he oc-
casionally visited London, wlo were directed to apply to
him under the name of Dr. Berner. Airs. Robertson
was acquainted with a young lady of the name of Morton,
and those advertisements having attracted her attention,
she consulted Mrs. Robertsot about the propriety of her
answering one of them, and this eventually led to the in-
troduction of Mrs. Robertson to Mr. Cole, as Miss Mor-
ton's friend. The defendant was at that time married,
and living separately from his wife. He then expressed
himself as being much struck by Mrs. Robertson's per-
sonal attractions, but the plaintiff having heard that the
defendant was a married man, though not living with his
wife, every overture of that kind was declined by her. In
March, 1851, the defendant renewed his acquaintance, and
invited Mrs. Robertson to his seat at Beaumont Cole, on
her way down to Scotland to visit her friends, Mr.
Cole's wife at that time being dead. Mr. Cole then made
proposals to her, which he was not at liberty to prove, and
which would necessarily render the evidence in the case
very meagre—none being present but the plaintiff and the
defendant at the time these proposals were made. He
believed it would turn out that Mr. Cole, rendered cau-
tious by previous transactions of this kind, had taken es-
pecial care that there should be no written evidence of his
promise. Mrs. Robertson on the occasicn referred to stayed
at Beaumont Cole on a visit of some nice or ten days. Af-
terwards the defendant visited her in Cld Bond-street and
at St. James's Palace, where she was living as companion
to a lady, and she occasionally called upon him at his
house in Chester-street, Belgrave-square, and he then ex-
pressed his intention of marrying her, Ind asked a young
lady of the name of Murray, who was staying on a visit
with the plaintiff, to be her bridesmaid. March, 1852,
was fixed as the time for the marriage. The defendant
then spoke to her relative to taking a Douse in which to
reside after their marriage. The marriage was openly talked
of by him, and it was mentioned before the servants that
the plaintiff was to be the future mistress of the defendant's
establishment. Circumstances transpired to the knowledge
of Mrs. Robertson which created a coldness between them.
She called once on the defendant in Chester-street, and it
then came to her knowledge that some ladies of very
doubtful character had been staying there with the de-
fendant, and she took umbrage on discovering that at the
very time the defendant was making honcourable profes-
sions to her he was conducting himself in this manner,
He, however, at the time, expressed great contrition.
Afterwards he broke off his engagement with her in a
manner which left it for them to say whether the de-
fendant was at liberty to treat a lady in the manner in
which he had done this, without being made to pay most
ample damages. Mrs. Robertson was at that time with-
out any male relative in England. Her bother was an
officer in the army in India. She wrote several times to
the defendant for an explanation of his conduct, and to
know whether be intended to act as a man of honour in
his engagement to her. She could get no answer to these
letters, and was treated with the greatest indignity.
After having been seen with the defendant in public, and
pointed out as his future wife and the lady about to
become the mistress of his establishment, she was
resolved to obtain some answer, and in August last, about
the 7th or 9th, she came down to Lancaster,—whether
rightly or wrongly it was not for him to say,—and then
wrote to him demanding an answer definitively as to his
intentions. Receiving no answer, she rode over to the
defendant's house, accompanied by a groom. While
there she was treated with the greatest indignity. The
defendant directed his servants to expel her the house in
a manner the most cruel and unmanly. He had already
stated that, from the ♦ery nature of Mr. Cole's trans-
actions, the evidence might be thought slight. He would
prove the promise made. On the pleadings the breach of
it was admitted, and there was no justification pleaded.
But Mr. Cole had large property, and he had gone about
most unscrupulously getting up evidence against the
plaintiff's character, and if that was to be made the ground
of defence to-day, he should most willingly challenge
that inquiry, and he would object to no witness that
might be called to prove it. On her behalf he challenged
the most strict investigation. If the defendant had broken
his engagement with the plaintiff from motives of caprice
it might be more justifiable than another motive which
might appear to have actuated him. The plaintiff ap-
peared to have been too virtuous to permit the defendant
to carry out his real motive ; but the defendant must be
taught that he could not do these things with impunity.
They were told that his manners were peculiar. They
might be. His possessions might enable him to set at
defiance public opinion. It might answer his purposes
to lead the life of a sensualist and a Sybarite ; but,
whatever he chose to do, he (the learned counsel)
challenged his friend (Serjeant Wilkins), as the de-
fendant's able counsel, not to rely merely on his elo-
quence, but, if he had the evidence which it was
rumoured be had, which would take away the lady's
character—fearless of the result and confident of Mrs.
Robertson's honour, he challenged him to produce it.
Miss Christiana Mitchell Murray, a young lady of very
considerable personal attractions, was then called and ex-
amined by Mr. Foster.—She said she lived with her
mother in Edinburgh, and had been at school with the
plaintiff in the north of Scotland, and had since kept up
her acquaintance with the plaintiff. She recollected the
plaintiff being married, when of the age of 17, to a mer-
chant at Aberdeen, who died about seven years ago, in
January, 1846. Since that time witness had visited the
plaintiff at her lodgings, No. 6, Old Bond-street, London,
where she had a first floor. In September, 1851, she accom-
panied the plaintiff to dine with the defendant at his house
in Chester-street, Belgrave-square. The defendant then
showed the plaintiff particular attention at dinner, and after
dinner. The defendant sent them home in his cab. A few
days afterwards she and the plaintiff dined with the defen-
dant at Richmond, and while there the defendant asked
witness if she thought the plaintiff would make him a good
wife, and witness answered " Yes, she thought she would."
The defendant went with the plaintiff for a walk in Rich-
mond Park, leaving witness at the Star and Garter Hotel.
The defendant said he had particular business to talk with
Mrs. Robertson about, and that witness should hear more
of it afterwards. The plaintiff was requested to sit at the
head of the table at dinner, and the defendant then paid
her great attention, and said " he should be a happy man
to have such a woman for a wife." The defendant said to
witness if she would remain in England till Christmas
the marriage should take place then, instead of in March,
and that witness should be the bridesmaid. The defendant
also mentioned the marriage settlements, and said he had
been so much engaged with his country lawyer that he had
not been able to conclude that matter then. He said he
would allow the plaintiff £4OO a-year for dress. He also
proposed that they should reside at Blackheath, and re-
quested the plaintiff to look about for a house that would
suit them. Witness accompanied the plaintiff to do so.
Owing to her mother's sudden illness witness was obliged
to return a few days afterwards to Scotland. While she
remained the defendant was constantly " boring " her, in
asking her if she thought that the plaintiff would make
him a good wife.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins.—Witness
had never told the defendant that she herself was very
much delighted with him. The plaintiff was a very dis-
tant relation of hers. She had heard so in talking at home
among them. She was at school with the plaintiff at
Miss Carnaby's, at Inverness. This was about 18 years,
ago. She herself was 27 years of age. She had never
said that Mrs. Robertson was 15 years older than herself.
By his Lonnsnua—She was only 9 years of age when
she knew the plaintiff at school.

By Mr. Cerleant WlLKlNS.—Witness's mother kept a
lodging-house, in Queen-street, Edinburgh.. The plain-.
tiff stayed at her mother's in 1849 on a visit. She did
not pay for her lodgings, but she paid for her board.
Witness had seen the plaintiff about two years before
that, but not at any other time after seeing her at school..
The plaintiff did not know witness's mother before that
time. At the dinner at Richmond, at the Star and Gar.
ter, they had champagne and sherry ; but she did not
know whether they had any liqueur after their fish.
(Laughter.) The defendant both before and after din-
ner talked about nothing else but having such a handsome
woman for a wife. The defendant paid the plaintiff
greater attention at dinner than any gentleman would do
in ordinary circumstances. He paid her that particular
attention which existed between ladies and gentlemen
going to get married.

Mr. Serjeant WILKINS.—In what respect ? Did he
help her to her meat in a particular way I' (Loud
laughter.)
Witness.—All gentlemen did so.

Did he squeeze her feet under the table ?—He showed

her great attention,—what you gentlemen do.
Mr. Serjeant WILKINS.—But I don't know what that is.
Mr. JAMES.—You have forgotten it now, I suppose.
(Loud laughter.)
The leanred Serjeant still pressed for an instance of
the defendant's particular attention.
Witness.—Why, I don't know what you gentlemen do.
He looked sweet upon her. (Great laughter.)
Judging from Mrs. Robertson's appearance, she was
about thirty years of age. She did not think she was
thirty-six. She should take the defendant to be about

fifty. perhaps older. _
Mr. Serjeant WILKINs.—So the defendant was a great
bore to you, was he ?—He was, asking those questions.
Did you work a purse for the old bore?—Yes. (Loud
laughter.)
Mr. JAMES.—She said, " bore "—spelt b-o-r-e, not
"boar." (Continued laughter.)
Did you not thank him for his condescension in noticing
a person in your rank in life ?—Yes, by letter, when I
left the purse at his lodgings ; but I did not see him.
Re-examined by Mr. JAMES.—Her mother was the
widow of a surgeon, and lived in one of the principal
streets in Edinburgh. Her father died suddenly of the
cholera, and mother was, in consequence, obliged to let
lodgings. She knew that Mrs. Robertson was a person
of independent property.
At this stage of the proceedings, the defendant having
come into court, and the learned counsel having con-
sulted together for some time,
Mr. JAMES announced that it had been agreed to with-
draw a juror, an arrangement having been arrived at, part
of the terms of which were that all legal proceedings, of
whatever kind, should cease as against the defendant.
He felt it his duty also to say, under the circumstances
and after communicating with Mr. Serjeant Wilkins,
that there might possibly be some mistake as to the fact
opened by him that the defendant had advertised for

hOusekeePers from improper motives; and he felt bound
also to state that in the assault committed on the plaintiff

in expelling her frow Chg 4§feilcbuiri