The Sun. — 1857-07-20 (London, England)

HAZELDINE V. HAMPTON AND WIFE—.DREACII OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. Tbis cause presented the novelty of an action brought by a disappointed man against a lady and her husband for breach of promise made by her to marry him. Mr. Huddlestau, Q.C., and Mr. Byrne, for the plaintiff; and Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Phipson, for defendants. Mr. Huddleston stated the case. The plaintiff was a farmer and butcher at Stourbridge, and the male defendant was a lime and coal merchant at Brettel-lane. Mrs. Hampton (formerly Miss Darby) had been sued successfully by plaintiff, and marriage had been agreed upon ; but she afterwards jilted him for her present husband. A letter to plaintiff from the lady was read, dated Sept. 14, 1855, iu which she said, " I am sure I have been crying all the time I have been doing this letter, for I have thought so much of you. I love you far better than woman ever loved, and something makes me think you love me, so I may say there is no love lost. I will not think any more of G. W., but I will think of you, so do not say o r anythingabout him to me." There were two other letters, down to February, 1856, threewritten in terrnsofmoderateaffection, but in one she asked plaintiff to. lend her 101. or 201., in another she again desired him to "try and bring that money," and said—" T am much surprised to think you should put yourself so much over that young man. I am sure I was not with him the other Sunday. I was up at Brierly-bill on Sunday week at night, but I am sure I did not see him, for a married man brought me home, because it was late. It was Mr. Grove, a grocer, but if you like to believe other people you can. I don't care bow I have written this, for I am so hurt in my mind about things." Winesses were called. Miss Parkes proved that the wedding was twice fixed, but on both occasions a death in the family put it off. Mr. Haseldine, father of the plaintiff, gave similar evidence, and said that he had arranged to give up his business to his son upon the marriage of the latter. It appea-ed, however, that tae plaintiff had got Miss Darby's watch as security for the money which she had borrowed of him, and that he had also brought an action against her for the money, and received at3honedl pgoliravin4entli.if theollfaitd engaged a house, bought furniture,. .Mr. Vernon, draper, proved that lady presents for her marriage. Mr. Skinner, in addressing the jury for the defendants, ridiculed the idea of bringing such an action as this. He called the defendant's sister, Miss Sarah Hampton, Mr. Hampton, the father, and Mr. Isaac Hainptem, the brother, who proved that plaintiff called upon Mips Darby at their house and bad an interview with ber, after which be was heard to swear at her, and say to her, "Now go to --, I've got all I want from you ;" ho then went acteay, taking her watch with him, and leaving her with her mouth bleeding. This was five weeks before the defendant, Mr. Hampton, paid his addresses to her. Some prope ty was left her, and plaintiff's father had been heard to say, "It'll be a ars;e" but when it was knownttlement of it upon hergthoaotdtthhe inwgilflor secured our the herself at her marriage, he was heard to say, "She's worth nothing without her money." Plaintiff himself had talked very coarsely, and said he never wanted her. His lordship, in summing up, asked what on earth had been the man's loss ? Why, he had lost a wife, and if there was but one woman left in the world, there might be some reason for complaint in this respect. There had been a contract, but it had been broken. He concluded by saying that he should not be disappointed if the jury did not find a verdict for the plaintiff at all ; or if so, for more than the lowest coin of the realm. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.  But a little attention to the medical evidence will show that the occurrence of this interview may be granted without any such implication of the accused. Nay, more, it is almost necessary for the explanation of the subsequent events. We learn that the quantity of arsenic administered certainly amounted to two drachms, and Dr. Christison rates the quantity at one-third higher. Now, it is simply impracticable for any but an expert chemist to suspend this quantity in a cup of coffee or chocolate without immediate detection. O❑ the cessation of stirring, the arsenic rapidly falls to the bottom of the cup. If drunk slowly—a mouthful being taken at first, and then swallowed—the drug would similarly have settled in the interstices of the mouth and there have rapidly produced local irritation, never complained of by the deceased. In fact, the only manner in which the presence of so large a quantity of arsenic can be accounted for is, by supposing it to have been washed down by copious draughts of fluid, which supplied the large quantity vomited Ilwhen symptoms of poisoning ensued. This, we need hardly say, is totally incompatible with its covert administration by the prisoner. Moreover, she is not known or suspected to have procured other arsenic than that tinted with indigo or soot ; yet neither of these colouring matters were detected on examination after death, though the presence was manifestly apparent in a dog made the subject of careful experiment. L'AngPlier was shown to have just that tendency to suicide which Martel defines to be the attribute of a coward. He had previously attempted his life. Who can say what may have been the effect of the defiance which the heartless, moralless jilt very possibly hurled at him? For assuredly nothing could have been so certainly disastrous to her as his death and the discovery of his letters.  L'ANGELIEIt A