The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-19 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY.

Woo o v. H it will be recollected, was an action
for a breach of promise of marriage, brought by Miss Wood;
the daughter of an attorney at 'Manchester, against the defen-
dant, the eldest son of the late Mr. Hurd, attorney, of King's
:Bench-walk, Temple, which was tried. at Guildhall, before Mr.
Justice Vaughan, in the course of the last term, and in which
the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £3,500.
The 'Attorney-General subsequently obtained a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground that the damages were 'excessive, the jury
having been misled as to the amnout of the defendant's pro-
perty.
Sir F. Pollock and Mr. Serjeant Atcherley to-day showed
cause against the rule, and contended that there was no ground
for disturbing the verdict. The principle on which the court
always acted on such occasions was, never to interfere with the
province of the jury unless there were circumstances in the
case to satisfy them either that the verdict was a perverse ver-
.dict or that the jury had been misled or improperly influenced
in their verdict. There was no pretence for either assertion in
the present instance; and, with reference to the defendant's
property, it was clear that he had ample means, which could be
:made available to satisfy this verdict; and, if there were any
!explanation is be given respecting the defendant's property, he
;might have given it on the trial, because both the executor and
'his mother were in the court, and from the notice given to him
to produce the probate of his father's will, he must have been
well aware that it was intended to put in the will in proof of the
'amount of his property.
The Attorney-General, in reply, admitted the general princi-
pie as above stated, but contended that there was evidence here
'to mislead the jury, because, although it would seem from the
'father's will that he died wealthy, yet it appeared from the de-
ffendant's affidavit that the property was of such a nature and
was so disposed of, as to leave him (defendant) no available
:funds whatever, so long as his mother, who was not much above
'fifty years of age, lived. The learned counsel went into a mi-
nute detail of the nature and extent of the property disposed of
by the will of the late Mr. Hurd. for the purpuse of showing
that the damages were greatly disproportioned to the defen-
dant's means, and he therefore prayed their lordships to send
down the case for a furthtr investigation.
The court said that although they undoubtedly possessed the
power of exercising a control over the decision of a jury when
they saw reason to think that justice bad miscarried, yet they
were extremely cautious not to exercise that power unless they
were fully satisfied that the verdict was erroneous. The
question here was, not whether or no they individually would
have returned the same verdict as the jury, but whether or not
they were satisfied that it was so extravagant as necessarily to
to be an unjust one. They saw nothing in the cause to satisfy
them that such was the case, and therefore ordered the rule for
a new trial to be discharged.