a

the match, upon which Mrs. Thorold again desired that the connexion should be broken off. At an interview with the mother, she again consented, but required settlement upon the young lady of 300l. per annum in houses or land (requiring an outlay of about 10,000l.), which it was impossible for the plaintiff to effect, as Mrs. Thorold was well aware. After this, it was arranged that if the plaintiff would wait till the then next March (1843), it should take place, and thereupon the plaintiff returned into Dorsetshire. During the plaintiff's stay at Louth it had been agreed between the lovers, that whatever might be written, so long as a particular ring (alleged to be one with the plaintiff's hair in it, purchased by herself) should be retained, was to be received as having no import at all, beyond the fact of its having been written and sent under compulsion (but herein the proof wholly failed). However, the plaintiff returned to Dorset, shire, and the correspondence was renewed, and kept up until the 22nd of September last, when the lady wrote her last letter, which elicited that from the plaintiff upon which the case for the defendants had been rested. It might have been very well at first that the consideration that operated so distressingly at last should have had the effect of preventing or early breaking off this engagement; but after what had transpired for a space of more than two years, it was rather late in the affair to bring them into such stringent and conclusive action. After this progress of time, the lady on the 20th of September last, wrote to the effect that she would, in the

face of all obstruction, become his wife; on the 22nd she sent him his final congé, and in the month of January following, scarcely four months afterwards, she became the bride of another. It was often said, that these actions should be restricted to the use of the female sex, and only to very few and peculiar cases among them; but this was a case in which the plaintiff had sustained most extraordinary illusage-where the plaintiff had had his feelings excited and his hopes raised, and through grievous impediments kept in sustentation for a long space of his life, to be suddenly crushed and blasted by the mere stroke of a pen for a cause that at least had all along been known to exist, and never for a moment been kept in concealment. The marriage with Mr. Paton having occurred so shortly afterward, the plaintiff could not but feel that this engagement had been entered into, or at least contemplated or thought of, in the interval between the transmission of the letters on the 20th and 22nd of September. The learned Council concluded by reiterating that the plaintiff had been very ill used by the breach of a long-continuing contract and solemn engagement of such a nature, under such aggravating circumstances; and it was for this, and to recover fair and reasonable damages on account of it, that the action had been brought.

Miss Fanny Thorold, the sister of the lady defendant, was called and examined by Mr. Boden.This young lady gave evidence as to the commencement and continuance of the intimacy and engagement, and of the

interruptions and renewals of

it.

This was the plaintiff's case. Lord Abinger expressed strong disapprobation, amounting to apparent disgust.

Mr. Hill replied in about ten minutes, sarcastically, and with severity.

Lord Abinger directed the jury. The plea was unusual, but the action was unusual. A lady might with great propriety in some few cases bring such an action, because her fortune, and her character too, might also have been injuriously affected. He owned that it did strike him as being a mercenary action, and he thought that the man who condescended to bring such an action did not do himself very great credit. In the whole course of his not very short career, he remembered only one such, and that was where the man had nothing, and the lady a good for tune; so that it might have been said the man lost a good provision for his life; and that one case was compromised by the payment of a sum of money to the unworthy individual. The expressions of this young lady's letters might be warm indeed, and might indicate the strong passion natural to youth; but they evinced no proof of deep affection. The shallow waters made the most noise, the deep were dumb. There was nothing in the letters or in any part of the young lady's conduct to cause displeasure or disquietude to her husband. She had returned the ring, and spoke of it in her letter, and probably this was the one the learned Counsel had alluded to. He then referred to the plaintiff's

didn't put an end to it, he didn't know what ever has put an end to such an engagement." And then why did he not bring his action at once, and not wait until she was married? If the exhibition that had taken place had been satisfactory to any one, he hoped that it was now concluded, and that they would agree with him, and find their verdict for the defendant.

In a minute or two the jury returned a verdict accordinglyfor the defendant.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.

NOTTINGHAM, July 24. CIVIL SIDE.-HARDY v. MAPLES.

This was an action to recover the sum of 84l. 17s. 9d. for supplies of ale, tobacco, &c. to the voters and other friends of Sir John Cam Hobhouse and Sir George Hochepied de Larpent, at the contested election for this town in June, 1841.

Mr. Humfrey and Mr. White conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Whitehurst and Mr. Wildman that of the defendant.

It appeared that the plaintiff was a publican in St. James'sstreet, in this town, and the defendant a solicitor, also residing here. At the election the defendant was employed with the Parkward Committee for the WhigRadical candidates. On the part of the plaintiff it was proved that the defendant frequented the committee-room, and took an active part in the proceedings; that he had ordered a bottle of gin on the morning of the election, at three o'clock, for some of the "lambs," and upon another occasion had

and-water, and had also told one of the waiters to see that the voters of Hobhouse and Larpent had plenty. It further appeared that the defendant had signed some tickets or checks for ale to the amount of about 14. or 157., and that the plaintiff had supplied large quantities of ale, spirits, and tobacco, to the voters and “lambs,” on the side of the Whig-Radicals.

Mr. Whitehurst addressed the jury for the defence. As for the supply of spirits, it had been forbidden by Mr. Whitby, and besides, the law would not allow a publican to recover for small quantities of spirits under 20s. supplied on credit. The plaintiff could not recover either, because the drink was supplied for the illegal purposes of inducing the consumers to vote for Hobhouse and Larpent, and the plaintiff must have known the purpose, for those candidates were addressing them there, and there also the "lambs" were penned up.

John Whitby, warehouseman, in St. James's-street, deposed, that at the election in June, 1841, he gave certain orders to public houses, and among others to Hardy, the plaintiff, to supply ale and tobacco to the voters in favour of Hobhouse and Larpent, who should come to his house. Made four payments to him, the first, 4l. 1s. 5d., the second 37. 11s. 9d., the third, 57. 17s. 6d., the fourth, 21. 9s. 4d., and this was the whole that he had paid Hardy during that election, and believed that he made the last of those payments on the Monday morning before the election. On this occasion he said to Hardy, "I dare say you'll have a very large bill, and

money before, and I don't mean to guarantee you any more." Hardy then went out and saw Mr. Sands, and when he came back, told him that Mr. Robert Sands had guaranteed him, and asked him if he thought Mr. Sands would be a sufficient guarantee, when he told Hardy that he should have no objection to trust him for 100l. Directed tickets to be made. They were to be used as checks. There had been a considerable demur on former occasions to the largeness of Mr. Hardy's bill. Mr. Langworth acted as witness's secretary, and made some tickets. Those produced were the sort of tickets. Mr. Langworth made some and signed some. Some were signed by Langworth, some by Maples. It was at the first time that they had the "free and easy." Some of the tickets were for one gallon, and some for twenty. Had a good bit of business besides attending that house, but he did attend Hardy's house. Gave him the tickets before the election; that was before the Mon. day, when he made the last payment, and that was made in respect of ale, &c., supplied on those tickets. None of those he paid for on the Monday were left in the plaintiff's hands. There was a great deal of bother about Alsop's, the baker, voting. Believed that he had promised both parties. On Monday night or Tuesday morning, a number of "lambs" came to Hardy's house. On the Tuesday morning after the election remembered being in Hardy's house. There was very great confusion, and there were hosts of "lambs," but they seemed more like wolves. The tap

know what to do; no, he did not, nor, my Lord, would not, if he had been there. Witness told Hardy to give them some spirits, or they would surely pull the house down.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hum. frey. On a former occasion he guaranteed, and it gave him a great deal of trouble. On that occasion a subscription had been got up to pay the bills, but they had expected the candidates to pay. Witness was the "financier," or Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had a secretary. Never could get the money, or else he would have paid it. Had done all he could to get Mr. Hardy paid. He had a right to be paid a large sum. Everybody ought to be paid, but the candidates had not come forward. was a good "flock of lambs," but he did not know exactly how many, perhaps seventy or eighty.

There

Mr. Richard Soare, blacking manufacturer, was a member of the Park-ward committee. Mr. Hardy told him that he had seen Mr. Sands, and he was willing to become his guarantee, and he told Hardy that there was a collection_making lection making in the ward for the "Francis Burdett" publichouse, and that witness said that he would not subscribe unless Hardy's bill was included. Hardy applied for payment to Sands, and there was much rough language between them, the door being held ajar the while, and Hardy told witness that he told Sands "D-n you, if you were not insolvent, I'd make you pay." This was after Sands' bankruptcy. Maples came into the different rooms, and assisted in anything that was to be done.

of the Park-ward committee for Hobhouse and Larpent. Maples was sent by the central committee as a law agent and adviser, and was attached to, but was not one of the committee. The two Gordons, father and son, were engaged to attend at Hardy's house by Mr. Whitby, to attend to the checks upon the ale. The checks were just such as those produced. "The Gotham lambs" came, and said that Harris had sent them. The "Ruddington lambs" also came, but he forgot who sent them.

Henry Cartwright, a lace manufacturer, remembered Hardy saying to Sands about the month of August last, "You are the man that I have to look to for the bill, and I'll be d-d if I don't make you pay it." Sands said he had no funds, and threatened to kick Hardy out of the yard.

Michael Brown, a member of the committee, suggested the employment of the defendant as a legal agent. It was expressly understood that he was not to have anything to do with money matters; and this was mentioned to the plaintiff.

Henry George Rideout, a member of the committee, stated that the plaintiff told him he had applied to Sands, from whom he had a guarantee.

Mr. Humfrey addressed the jury in reply, observing with severity upon the nature of the defence, and contended that abundantly sufficient had been proved to fix the defendant with the liability to pay for it.

The Lord Chief Baron summed up, intimating his opinion that the defendant was liable only

dered, and 51. had been paid into court, which sum was considerably more than the value of what had been proved to have been supplied to him personally. As to his having taken upon himself the liability for the whole, the contrary appeared upon the whole of the evidence. His Lordship characterized the employment of force fraud, and corruption, as atrocious. As regards the quantity consumed by the "lambs"who sent them? Why, it appeared that Mr. Whitby employed them, and paid them. His Lordship continued to observe upon the weakness of the evidence to fix the defendant, and remarked, that the plaintiff appeared to him to have looked -1st, to the subscription, then to the candidates, and then, ultimately, to Sands. The whole evidence in the cause was consistent with his view.

The jury deliberated for ten or fifteen minutes, and then returned a verdict for the defend

ant.

SOUTH WALES CIRCUIT.

HAVERFORDWEST, July 30. WILLIAMS v. REV. F. THOMAS.

This was an action for a breach of promise of marriage. The defendant had suffered judgment by default and had obtained a writ of inquiry to assess the damages before the sheriff, in the presence of the judge of assizes and a jury. Mr. V. Williams opened the pleadings, and

Mr. Chilton said, The plaintiff, Miss Caroline Williams, is the sole surviving daughter of the

a most ancient family of this county, one that is connected by blood and by marriage with the aristocracy of the principality. She is a lady by station, by education, and by the society in which she moves. The defendant is a gentleman of highly respectable family. His father was the vicar of St. Mary's parish in this town, and brought up his sons in a manner highly creditable to himself. All his family have obtained honours at their universities, and the defendant was for many years a Fellow of Pembroke College. I will not inquire into the motive which induced Mr. Francis Thomas not to fulfil his engagement to the plaintiff. He cannot deny the promise. I cannot state what the age of Mr. Thomas is. I believe him to be about the same age as the plaintiff. The attachment, gentlemen, is of long standing. I do not affect accuracy of dates; and, bearing in mind the mutual promises of affection, you cannot expect me to call witnesses to prove expressions which occurred nine or ten years ago. I shall call a witness to prove circumstances which occurred nine or ten years ago, to show you that the defendant not only made himself master of the plaintiff's affections, but he made himself master of her person. There have been the strongest attempts on the part of the defendant to raise a scandal upon her character. Gentlemen, if she had been guilty of any indiscretion, it is not for him or his friends to reproach her. Indeed, they cannot; this one unhappy error set apart, I defy them to cast the slightest imputation on her character. In the year 1841