The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

Markland v. Singleton.—The plaintiff in this case was Miss
Sarah Markland, anti the defendant George Singleton. The
declaration stated that the defendant promised plaintiff to
marry, and afterwards broke that promise. The defendant
pleaded that he did not make any promise.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Segar conducted the case for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Atherton appeared for the defendant.
Mr. WILKINS opened the case. He stated he was there to ask
the jury to give compensation in form of damages for what was
generally considered one.of the most serious injuries that could
be indicted by one person on another, it was an action for
breach of promise of marriage. Under ordinary circum-
stances he thought they would be of opinion that it was no
slight grievance inflicted on the suffering party •, but when they
had heard all the facts he should lay before them, the fullest
amount of damages would hardly compensate the young person
for the injury she had sustained. The father of the plaintiff
till within eight or nine years ago carried on business at
Burnley • at that period he having saved a little money, came
over to l?ishwick, near Preston, where he took the Shaw Arms.
Shortly afterwards the defendant in the action became ac-
quainted with the plaintiff, and paid her considerable attention.
The family were anxious to know his intentions, and after some
time the mother questioned him, and he stated that lie
intended to marry the plaintiff, and lie also went to look
after a public-house, in which he said they would begin
business after being united. The defendant, however, did not
make good his promise, and the mother becoming distressed about
her child, and desirous of breaking off the intimacy which had
sprung up between the defendant and plaintiff, sent her from
home to an aunt's, at a place called Standish. In about twelve
months she returned, the mother feeling satisfied the intimacy
was at an end. The defendant, however, on finding that she
had returned, repeated his visits. Shortly afterwards, the
plaintiff was sent away to au aunt who resided in the neighbour-
hood, at a place called Salmesbury, to assist in the public-
house, during the busy time; and on the defendant learning
where she hail gone, he drove over in a gig to see her, and they
returned together. On their way home, the gig was upset, and
at that time, no doubt, the -defendant contrived to effect the
destruction of the young woman; for, in a short time after-
wards, ;she became pregnant, leaving no dout.t of the vile con-
duct he had been guilty of. The mother rem( ns rated with
him, and reminded him of the promise of nia ii Lge he had
made, but the defendant did not appear desito: s of coming to
any arrangement, and the plaintiff was then sent to Liverpool,
where she had remained ever since. What he had stated, as
regarded the promise of marriage, would be fully made out,
leaving no doubt as to the damage inflicted by the defendant
on the plain' iff. The defendant afterwards went to reside with
a person at Walton-le-Dale, and at his death married the
widow, a person about GO years of age; this he had done from
the most selfish of motives, as the female alluded to had be-
come possessed of some property on the death of her husband,
which had no doubt operated as an inducement to the marriage.
He concluded by observing, that, under all the circumstances,
he considered his client would be entitled to ample damages at
the hands of the jury.
Time foPowing witnesses were then called,
Jane Markland, the mother of the plaintiff, stated that she
had kept the Hunt Arms, Walton- le-Dale. The plaintiff; her
daughter, was generally employed to attend in the bar. Plain-
tiff often came and sat at the house, and paid attention to her
daughter, and in consequence of that she spoke to him frequent-
ly on the subject, and lie stated it to be his intention to marry
her, and would not deceive them. The marriage was on one
occasion fixed for the following Christmas, but defendant put
it off. It was again fixel for the following March, and de-
fendant bouht some china and other articles preparatory to
its taking pilaw. He again, however, broke his promises. In
consequence of his conduct, witness sent her daughter away
to a relation at Standish, where she remained about twelve
months. Defendant did not, during her absence, come to the
house so often. On her return home, defendant repeated his
acquaintance, and plaintiff was then sent to an aunt at Salmes-
bury, to assist her in a public-house. Shortly after that, he
took a gig, and went over to see her. They were both
returning home in the gig, when it was upset on the
road. Soon after that her daughter became pregnant, and
on defendant being spoken to on the subject, be repeated
his promise to marry her, adding that he was glad it had hap-
pened. Plaintiff continued at home long after the child was
born, perhaps about 2 years, and defendant still continued to
make promises and was received in the family as her intended
husband. On one occasion preparations were made for taking
a public house called the Hoop and Crown at Preston, as he
said he had some money, but (lid not say how much. As the
defendant-slid not seem likely to perform his promise witness
sent her daughter to Liverpool, that was about three years ago
and she had remained there ever since. Plaintiff was at home
last Faster, and defendant said then he would be married as
there was a situation he could obtain; but he, as he had previ-
ously done, did wit perfortn his promise, and shortly afterwards
he got married to a widow, named Jefferson, at whose house he
had lodged. The wfilow's husband died about 9 months ago,
and was a man pretty well off in the world. The marriage took
place about six weeks after Mr. Jefferson's death, Mrs. Jeffer-
son was an old lady nearly 60 years of age, and defendant was
32.

Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERTOL—My daughter is 26.
We carried on business in the gardening line at Fishwick, and
defendant used to come and take his tear with other young
fellows. My daughter is at present acting as barmaid with
Mrs. Fowles, in 31arybone ; she keeps a spirit vault. The de-
fendant is a journeyman miller working for Mr. Kent, at Wal-
ton, and he used to say he got 225. per week. He lately got the
situation formerly held by the widow's husband at the same
mill and would get 255. per week.
Catherine Markland, the plaintiff's sister, deposed that she
had frequently heard the defendant make promises of marriage
to her,—that was about eight years ago.
Cross-examined by Mr. /iTnErroN. The defendant had
stayed at her house as late as 12 o'clock at night on various
occas:ons, and frequently insisted to take plaintiff away, but
she refused.

Elizabeth Lees said she knew the plaintiff and defendant very
well,. recollected the plaintiff being confined, and Singleton
coming after the child was born, and saying he would marry
her as soon as she got up. He used to bring things for the
baby, and talk as if she was engaged to plaintiff.
By Mr. AT E RTON—It was not a very fine baby.
Mr. ATHERTON addressed thejury for the defendant, observ-
ing that his only object was to bring down the damages, and
he would not give them a long speech. The promise had been
proved, and tile usual evidence produced to the effect that the
unhappy defendant seemed to have been going about the coun-
try saving nothing but that he would marry the plaintiff. They
had Leard the promise to n.a Ty, and had only to say to what
damages the plaintiff was entitled. She was a Chancery ward,
and defendant was a journeyman miller, able, with sunshine
and varying gales, to earn 235. per week, and even able to earn
lOs. or 15s. under circumstances not so promising, and it was
for them to say how much the young woman should ieueive on
account of losing-the defendant, who had suffered by falling
into the arms of the antique widow. If they gave large damages
the defendant would be ruined, and it would be of no advantage
to the young woman. He could not conceive it possible that
the defendant had obtained any great advantage by his con-
nexion with the widow, as she was an exception to that class if
she had not had her property tightly secured for her own bene-
fit. He concluded by observing that all the jury would have to
do would be to afford the plaintiff' reasonable compensation.
His Lordship said the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, and
it was merely tor thehiry to say the amount of damages.
The Jury, after a few moments consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. Damages .e-75.
Smith v. Kern—John William Smith was the plaintiff, and
John Kerr the defendant. 'I he action was to recover a sum of
4'20, which it was alleged had been withheld by the defendant,
arising out of an agreement entered into between the parties as
to the giving up possession of a shop in Byrom-street. Verdict
for the plaintiff for the amount sought.
The Court rose at six o'clock.