The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — 1826-07-07 (London, England)

PALMER. This was ati action for defamatory words, impeaching the plaintiff's chastity, with an averment isr special damage in the tel.mination of a marriage contract, entered into with her, by a person named Thomas Jelly. The words set out in the declaration were too gross for publicity. The defendant pleaded the general issue.  Mr. Sergeant ',AWES and Mr. Awnatws conducted the plain. tiff's case, and Mr. ADOLPH era the defendant's. The principal witness to support the ease was Jelly, who stated that his Christian names were Thomas William,although he generally went by the name of Thomas. Mr. ADOLPHUS submitted that this wan a fatal variance. Jelly being described in the declaration by the Christian name of Thomas only.  Mr. Baron GRAHAM would net stop the cause for this objection, bat said he would save the point. It appeared that all the parties lived in Enfield, the plaintiff being sister to a publican, Jelly being a journeyman baker, and the defendant the tom of a farmer, &miring the latter as a labourer.— Previous to June, 1824, Jelly had been courting the plaintiff; with an intention of marrying her. The banns of marriage had been published twice, once ir. the parish of St. Jatnes, Clerkenwell, and the second time in St. George, Ranover-square, although neither he, not his intended bride, had any connexion wish either of those parishes. The motive for puhlishing the banns in the second pariah was to avoid the prohibitioneof the Mat riage Act. According to Jelly's statement, it appeared; that just previous to the period when the marriage was to be solimnized, lie had an interview with the defendant, who expressed Ids astonishment that he was seriously bent on marrying the plaintiff; whom he represented in unqualified terms as a woman of most abandoned habits, whose favours he had enjoyed without restraint in the most unblushing and open manner. This imputation was repeated on several °craniums until a eery short time previously to !the commencement of this action 'The effect was to induce Jelly to break oft' with the plaintiff, and after a courtship of one month only with another yonng woman named Robinson, he married his second sweetheart. The alleged slander was proved by several other witnesses, who attributed to the defendant the most gross imputations on the plaintiff's chastity. The defence set up was not in denial of the words illegal, but in contradiction of Jell', the principal witness, and that the marriage waft not broken Why him in consequence of what the defendant had said, but from his repeated declarations that the lady had favoured him in a particular manner, without the performance of the marriage ceremony. On his cross-examination Jelly denied. first, that be had been acquainted with his ,piesent wife more than a month before his marriaee with her; second, that his father had reproved him for continuing bis courtship with the plaintiff, in conse9uence of his being then on company-keeping terms with Miss Robinson; third, that he had never declared that the banns of marriage with the plaintiffliad been published without his cousent; and fourth, that he had never declared that he would murder any man but himself who married Miss Robinson. Upon each of these points several witnesses were called, who flatly contradicted him; and it was proved that he had expressly declared the ground of his !peach whit the plaintiff to be, that she !mil !Lamed him with her tenderness without the form of marriage, and that he might at any time enjoy her favours without ceremony.  Mr. Heron G RAHA m left the Jury to Ray, upon the whole of the evidence. whether in their opinion the witness Jelly had broken off the marriage contract with the plaintitT in consequence of the alleged slander; and if so, what damages they would give under the circumitanceß.  The Jury Wend their verdict for the Costs 40$.