The Sun. — 1863-06-27 (London, England)

JOHNSON V. VOGWELL.-BREACH OF PROMISE.  This was an action brought for breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff was the daughter of a sailmaker now residing in the Commercial-road, and the defendant a captain of a trading vessel. An acquaintance between the plaintiff's father and the defendant familiarly sprung up many years ago when the defendant was an apprentice at Durham. On that occasion be was confined to his bed with typhoid fever, and the family of Mr. Johnson attended him until his recovery, when he expressed himself under great obligations to them. He then left to follow his occupation on board ship, and nothing was heard of him for many years. During this time Mr. Johnson quitted Durham and came to London, where, by accident, about 15 years after, he heard that a ship had arrived in dock accompanied by a Captain Vogwell, and he naturally became anxious to ascertain whether it was the young man who had been an inmate of his house at Durham. He accordingly went to the docks, and on his finding it was the same, a warm acquaintance sprung up, and the result was an invitation to the plaintiffs house. At the time his visits commenced, Miss Mary Austin Johnson was residing with her parents, and a mutual attachment between her and Captain Yogweil ensued. After some time the defendant left the house of the plaintiff to perform a voyage, and a correspondence began, which tended to confirm the young lady in her belief that the defendant intended to fulfil his promise of marriage he made her. The defendant during his absence at sea wrote several letters to the plaintiff, all breathing the warmest attachment, and regretting she was not by his side sharing his pleasures and his dangers, but expressed the hope that that happiness would not long be denied him. The courtship commenced in 1860, but after the captain had gone to sea he appeared to grow cool of his attachment, and ultimately he ceased writing to the young lady altogether. The learned counsel then read a number of letters from the defendant, all expressing the warmest attachment to her. Some he concluded by offering her his " whole heart," others with " kisses innumerable," and in one he advised her not coquette with " Old Briggs" too much, or she would drive the poor fellow to commit felo de se, and although he knew she was strongly attached to him (defendant) he did not wish her to involve herself in any way with any other person. At the conclusion of the reading of the letters, which were all written in rather a more sensible style than love effusions generally, the learned gentleman told the jury in assessing the damages they must take into consideration the position of the defendant, which was that of a captain of a merchant vessel, and whatever might be said on the other side he did not think they would be of opinion that the fact of the defendant being some ten or fifteen years older than the plaintiff would be a great disparity of age. The defendant pleaded that he never gave the promise, and if he did so, that the plaintiff was not willing and ready to marry him. It was true the shock occasioned to the feelings of the young lady by the treatment of the lefendant had been very severe, but as the defendant had now married another lady he did not think he need trouble them with any remarks as to the willingness of Miss Johnson to perform her part of the contract.  The mother of the plaintiff was then called, and was about to give her evidence,  When the counsel for the defendant intimated that he had no objection to a verdict being taken for the plaintiff. He felt he could not struggle against the correspondence that bad been read, and at the same time he must remark that the plaintiff was a young lady, of whom nothing but what was praiseworthy could be uttered, and he could only account for the state of affairs as one of those circumstances which frequently spring up in domestic society, and for which there was no accounting. Mr. Justice Mellor said the letters written by defendant were conclusive, and the only question remaining for the jury was one of damages. Mr. Hawkins, who appeared for the plaintiff, said he would consent to a verdict for £lOO.  This being agreed to, the jury accordingly returned a verdict against the defendant for that amount.