The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-04-06 00:00:00

pliorowm.gs.m

7 :

.

41. it _

L4NCASThR LENT 438113E5:
ORFORD V. COLt, 041. ,
Mr. PARR. stated, that the Plaintiff in this 11100
was Mary Alice Orford, and the Defendant, Thomas
'Better Cole, Eaq. The declaration set forth, thiti
in consideration the Plaintiff would promise to sherry
the Defendant, •'tie, the Defendant, undertook to
merry the Plaintiff, bet that, instead of s• thing,
he had married another women. The Defendant
pleaded the-general issue.
Mr.•Totrzxa said he had the honour to ttlentrao
Counsel for the Plaintiff in this cause; the nature of
which the Jury had heard from the statement made
by his Learned Friend Mr. PIA ; and if be should
feel,a difliculty•ttt the opening of the cause, it would,:
wise, he hoped, from no Imprnper or blamable feel-
ing. lie had known the family of which the Plain-
tiff was a part—he had known it frees his earliest
youth, and that knowledge had continued to•ihis
day. Of the Plaintiff he had no personal know-
ledge; hut from the accounts given him, he had no
doubt that she well maintained the credit and re-

spectability of the- family In which she belonged.
She *as a lady of the '29; she was, the daughter
of a person whom he had kdown in early life—Mr.
Orford, a surgeon of real' respectability and. chs-
racter, who had *lived many yeers in IVarrington:
her father was a melt in restentive business, sad whe
had besides considerabfiteal and personal property.
She was one of fear children. In 1810, her father
died, and his widow*, Mrs. Orford, who had con-
anions in the town- of Liverpool, changed her resi-
dence from Warrington, where she was born, and
went to lire at Liverpool. Soon after, an intimacy
commenced between the Defendant's family and
Mrs. Orford ; for Mrs. Orford was connected by
marriage with his family, she being his mother's
first cousin. It was therefore natural to suppose
that an introduction between these families would
take place, and that it would increase so as to be-
come a familiar intercourse. The Defendant, Mr.
Cole, whose name was originally Butler, was the
$Oll of a person of that name living at Liverpool.,'
The Defendant's father had been once a person of
fortune, but of late years had only an appoint-
ment in the port of Liverpool. He was what
was called one of the Searchers in the Customs.
to consequence of this familiarity, intercourse, and
visiting, the present Plain iff and Mr. Cole became
acquainted. Mr. Cole had succeeded to a very large
fortune by the death of an uncle. Lie had received
an accession of fortune, and the mansion-house called
Kirkland-hall, in the neighbourhood of Garstsng.—
, The Defendant's ninther had the superintendence of
his household; and the familiarity between the families
having been continued, Mrs. Butler, in Feb., 18174
being then at Kirkland-hall, wrote an invitation tb
the mother of the Plaintiff, pressing her and her
daughter, of whom she had, a perfect knowledge, to
pay her a visit at Kirkland-hall, and she accompanied
her request by a statement that it was ou the part of
herself and her son. Mrs. Orford had been for many
years in a precarious state of health, and he was
sorry to say that at this day it was doubtful whether
she ass in existence ; lie regretted it the more, because
her testimony would have been material for the
Plaintiff. Mn... Orford bad declined the first in*
vitation on account of the state of her health ; it Set
renewed; and in March, Mrs. Orford and her
daughter having received a second and third inviiation,l
Miss Orford accompanied her mother to Kirland-
hall, where the mother of Mr. Cole was. She was
received with more than polite attention—with all
the sincerity of friendship. Every attention was paid
to her—every possible civility shown her—every thing
was done to convince the parties that the visit was not
only considered as an obligation, but as a source of
great satisfaction. Mrs. Butler bad lopg known
Miss Orford and her mother; she knew, what nobody
could deny, that Mi.s Orford was well educated, ac-
complished, sensible, prudent, and, he might add, a
Lady of considerable beauty. The Defendant's
mother seemed pleased at the visit of her two friends,
and the Defendant, Mr. Cole, appeared not less so.
After they had passed some days at Kirkland-hall,
there could he no doubt, from the letter he would
read, that Mr. Cole had become, and that long be-
fore this visit, in lose with this Lady ; and, ac-
cordingly, when Mrs. Orford had been one day
taking an airing in her carriage, he availed himself of
the opportunity of disclosing his sentiments to Miss
Orford. This was commumcated to both their pa-
rents, and nes pettedly satisfactory to both. Miss
Orford remained a fortnight at Kirkland-hall, dur-
ing which time it was understood by the Defendant's
mother, that her son had been paying his addresses to
Miss Orford, and that his addresses, so paid, had
received the sanction of both their parents. There
could he no doubt on that subject ; and, in the se-
quel, the Jury would be satisfied that the Defendant's
proposals of marriage were with the approbation of
his father and mother ; he stated this without fear of
contradiction. The Defendant's father, he under-
' stood, was in Court, and might, if he pleased, come
forward and deny the fact on oath. The introduc-
tion, therefore, to that state to which the parties
looked for ward,was made with the full assent of-the
parerits of each. The Plaintiff and her mother left
Kirkland-hall about the 24th of March, and came
back to their place of residence at Liverpool.
The correspondence was continued till the fat of
June, when the Defendant, evinced by a letter of
that date, a
.great failing off in the warmth of his
affection. Various letters were produced, by which
it appeared that the Defendant had bees mach en-
'gaged during his courtship in the purchase of an
estate.; that he recommended to his intended bride
to get every article of dress of a costly nature, and
suitable for the mistress of Kirkland-hall, yet. that
1
he expected t hat " a man in his situation in life; on.,
the point of marrying a Lady with 410 lortns;.,
ought never to he called upon tad hasisw a
settlement, but should be left to his esejkiposser
and generosity."—After the letter of knolegrjana be
had altogether withdrawn himself !rem the falsity, and
had never subsequently writes a single lin% or ever
been seen by the Lady or her friends? It
,was Cli-
toral to suppose, said Mr. Topping, that the distorts
of this family would be excessive. Toe Ludt knew
trot What had become of the sews who bad professed
himself her lifer : she bad written a 'Flee to him,
hicKle.talled upon his Learned Ftieud to produce.
Nothing afterwards was haisrd of him tilt the event
which concluded the business. On tbs 2.014 Attest,

_~

- ___.

•
•

_
.:

gtATrs'-'4M-A.14.
• • .•• ... :

\

.

J 7
larly of she• Lady, it was. publicly ea:wanted, MC
this Gentleman 'haat Obtered Into the iitaiilage 414
with a lady, 4 libels be should .say 66thioll
than that she was ilia daughter of Mr. Gritielaw, to:
attorney of Preston. • Sech viers the cltchasstiamis
of the present case, anti ha thought :t4wy -presented a
very extraordinary ono. That the Defendant had
promised his Client marilege, was ti propebitioa to
which he need hardly Mk bjs Lordship!, 'sant ; it
was equally clear that she had ceusented to become
his wife. Ile had, however, deserted her, after hav-
ing left her the last monument of his affectioni—the
letter or the Ist of Jane, which -contained no reason
that could justify his desertion : .on..the contrary; it
was a letter expressive of the happiness he espected
on his intended union with bit. The Defendant was

_~~µ~ ~

pow married to another lady, and consequently be
tendered it impossible to keep the promise tie bad so
repeatedly and sacredly seder to the Plaintiff. .•
question left fur the lary to decide, mu, what.
reparation should be made to the Pleintiffiu damages,
for the injury she had received? He was aware that
if any man could make an apology fot 'the Miscon-
duct of another, such apology would be made by his
Learned. Friend';' bet lottrelleved it would be a task
to, which herweerk apply hie gigatitie talents in atilt..
He might esomell,ittemilt to, remove mountains as to
'remove the impressiqn, which Inusitaser been made hy
his Clieurs disbonoerehle.cotiduct. Ile supposed let-
ters would be read that proved misconduct on the part
of the Plaintiff. Be understood the father and
mother of the Defendant were both in Court,
and he called on his Learned Friend to lay Were
the Jury evidence that the cootrect of. marriage
had nut the sanction of both, the Defendant's pa-
rents: if it bad,. where was the impropriety of It ?
The family of his Client was equally respectable
wilts that of the Defendant True it was, the De.
fondant hid had the accidental acquirement of for.
toile; his wealth was tint obtained by any
act of his own; but unexpected wealth bad been
poured into his lap, and his • viaduct showed how
very undeserving he was of the forepart 6f-fortune.
But did his accession of fortune fens any excuse for
breakieg "a contract with a lovely woman ?•—But it
would be said by his Learned Friend, there was-a
disparity in years between these polies; this lady,
it seemed, was silt or seven years older than the De.
fetalant. Was that an improper disparity of years?
What could be deduced from that circumstance?—
The Defendant had made his selection of the lady,
perfectly conscious of her age. - llad he onade.his
choice unadvised or unassisted ? lie could make
the Defendant's father confess that ehieh he would
himself state without fear of cootradiction, that the
dispatity of years can form no excuse; for it was a
contract with a full knowledge of the lady's age,
a,nl was formed with consent of the parents.—
lie desired the Jury to look at the letters, and see
if there was any thing of the weakness and untie-
;
1 citify of infancy observable in them. The letters
were full of matter, hon.rurable to the bead, but
most d.sgraceful and dishnirourable to the heart.—
The letters would be, in the course of the cease,
more distinctly read ; they would show the Jury
that there was no defect of intellect on the part of the
Defendant- —no imbecility of mind—no weakness of
underetanding ; bet that be wanted that, without
which man was the meatiest reptile that crept on the
face of the earth—a heart I. The Defendant had
(loam her wrong, and he was happy the lady whom
he represented had had the firmness to make her
complaint to an English Judge and en English Jury,
' to award her a compensation in damages for the in-
jury she had sustained. -Their verdict could only
be a pecuniary compensation; but the wounded
feelings, the agitation of a female mind, their verdict
could not heal. As far as they could redress her
wrongs, he was persuaded they would ; and he was
happy to assure them that, when they were consider.,
ing the amount of the damages, they had a bank to
draw upon that would answer all demands; for he
would prove that this man (the Defendant), if he
deserved the name of man, had a clear income of not
less than 8,0001. a year. 'this was the bank upon
which the check of the Jury eat to he drawn, and
he was sere they would not he limited in their draft,
for he was addressing men on the part of an injured
and insulted lady, and he was calling upon them to
give damages against a man, whose desertion of her
had beers übjustifiable, cruel, and dishonourable, and
'who, by his conduct, had proved himself altogether
unworthy the name and character of a man.
The letters were all proved to have been of the
liand.writing of the Defendant; bat before they
were read as evidence, Mr. Scarlett objected to them,
and he submitted, that if they were intended to he
put in as evidence of a contract of marriage, they
ought to have been previously stamped.
Mr. Reuse said, he apprehended his Learned
Friend was not serious in the objection which he
had taken.
. Mr. Scaturrr said be was in earnest, and meant
to rely upon it.
Mr. l'astic remarked, the Stamp Act was only re-
lative to contracts of a pecuniary nature.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said he should not stop so ,
iespertatit a cause by such an objection, taken
Si tine. ,• -
Two letters were then read.
It was attempted to he shown by dross-esamins.
lion of the Plaintiff's brother, who proved the De-
fendant's hand-writing, that his sister. the Plaintiff,
kept copies of the answers she had written.
Thoniss Orford, the brother, deposed to the terms
of friendship on which the families bad lived, and'to
the familiar visits which the Defendant was in tub
bedsit of making previous to, and at the period .when
the eontoact in question wag entered into. He stated,
Cat in a conversation with the Defendant, they bad
referred to a projecteit juoreey to. Eyre. Mr. 'Or-
ford had expressed his determination te,r, in time,
upon which the Defetidant asb4 Oat it 1110.**..17
—bow would his sister like ilia( ? weeld not do
for a newly-married man to leave his wife to soon—
this was on the 23d of April. The soak witness
stated, that the Defendant had visited his mother ;t
Liverpool, aid bad beets uniformly received la the
character of her future son-ia-law.
The witness stated he bed treated Mr. cple BONI
(stare brother-is-law ;he said, ;Wrist his 444b0e,
ha
q,
had handed over to hiss the wills of htiist s and
'
grandfather, with a view to ao arrangemeos,of the'
property um the murder of Wesley) and dait doe