Saturday 05 Sep 1818 (p. 3, col. 3-4) LANCASTER ASSIZES. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. SETTLE v. CRUMBLEHOLME—This was a special jury cause, but only one special juror appearing, the parties prayed a tales. Mr. FELL stated the action to be brought by Sarah SETTLE against John CRUMBLEHOLME, for having violated his promise of marriage to her by marrying another woman. He pleaded that he had made no such promise, and thereupon issue was joined. Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury.—He had to lament that it had fallen to his lot to address them for the plaintiff instead of his Learned Friend (Mr. TOPPING), who had at the last Assizes obtained the largest damages ever given for breach of promise of marriage. Yet he was grateful to him, although he had been opposed to him at the time, and done all in his power to prevent such a verdict, for having established such an example. There never was a case, not excepting the case at the last Assizes, that called more powerfully for damages, to repair wrongs done to a respectable young lady. The plaintiff in this case was 30 years of age, respectable, well educated, well received in society, and highly esteemed by all who knew her. No one had ever heard of her or known her, except the author of her distress, who did not feel pleasure in doing justice to the excellence of her character. The most respectable friends had flocked round her to do her that justice now in the moment of her calamity. The defendant lived about half a mile from the plaintiff's. He was a man of considerable property, and was for his situation respectable. He had the half of an estate devolved upon him from an uncle, his father having the other half. He was an only son. His parents had only one other child, a daughter, the intimate friend and companion of the unfortunate plaintiff. He had made a promise of marriage to the plaintiff which he violated, but the injury was much deeper than that. He was extremely sorry to say, that she had fallen a prey to his seduction under the solemn promise of marriage. After a long intimacy and mutual pledges of affection, this unhappy young woman was too easily led to trust the faith of this young man, and in an unguarded moment, and in the warmth of passion, to surrender herself to his will. Then followed what too often happens. When those arts had succeeded which men too well know how to use towards women, he left her to wretchedness, despair, and loss of character. The plaintiff lived with her widowed mother, and had a fortune of £800. The attention and promises of the defendant had continued for seven or eight years. They were equal in age, in fortune, and in situation. Their friends on both sides had agreed. The Jury would find the conduct of their friends to have been necessarily founded on the conclusion that marriage was intended. The plaintiff's mother lived in Burton-in-Lonsdale. The sister of the defendant had married Mr. STACKHOUSE. The plaintiff had lived with her for some time after her marriage. They had been intimate for seven or eight years. She was at pains to preclude the supposition that any other person had any share in her affection. He was received by her friends as her intended husband; she, among his, as his intended wife. In course of last year an unfortunate meeting took place between them, when he took occasion to repeat his solemn promises. The Jury would find it in evidence that this intercourse had taken place only once. She was delivered of a child. During her pregnancy he was assiduous in his attentions; he bought her a ring, appointed the friend who was to give her away at the nuptials, and she was led to expect that reparation that could restore her to her former character. He came one day, and wanted her to sign a paper. She refused without consulting her friends. It appeared to her a paper to settle £100 [or £400?] upon herself and her child. She consulted Mr. DEWHURST, now her attorney, who was married to her aunt. It was since found that he had married another woman. Thus it ended. He had contrived to engage her affections, promised her marriage, been assiduous in his attentions, seduced her, and then abandoned her. He should now advert to a circumstance which had taken place before this action. When it appeared not only that the defendant was not willing, but that he was not able to perform his promise, it was anxiously inquired whether there was evidence of the promise, and it was found, as often happens, that what all the world understood and believed, it was difficult to prove. Therefore an action was intended in the mother's name at the York Assizes, but it was abandoned in consequence of the evidence of a gentleman who should be produced to them. Mr. James TATHAM lives in Burton-in-Lonsdale, uncle to plaintiff; has known her from her childhood: her father has been dead many years. He is well acquainted with the defendant. He and his niece have been intimately acquainted for six or seven years. The families were intimate. He lives with his father on a farm; his mother is lately dead. The family consists of the defendant and his sister, who was a companion of witness's niece. He saw the plaintiff and defendant often together. Their intimacy was approved by both families. Both parties are about 30. He has occupied the half of the farm for 15 years; his interest was derived from an uncle. He was received in her family as her suitor. Witness and all her friends expected a marriage. On the 20th of November last, the defendant walked home with witness from a town's meeting. He asked if witness would be the father, and give away his intended wife. Witness asked who she was. He said Sally SETTLE. Witness said he would with all his heart. After sitting a few minutes he said, "I am verry [sic] sorry you have prevented me from seeing my wife; you have kept me too long." The father and uncle had occupied the estate of which the defendant has now the half. It was worth £500 or £600 a-year. If sold, it might happen to be worth £20,000 independent of stock, which is worth £800. The defendant is married to another woman. The defendant, the very night he was at his house, offered to lend him £300. His niece was delivered in May. The defendant called upon witness since, and said that he would not have her. Witness asked his reason, and if he had any thing to say against her. He said he had not, and he should be very much affronted if any body else said any thing against her. Witness never in his life knew of any thing irregular or improper in the conduct of his niece up to this matter. She had no other suitor, she was well received in society. Her general character has been unimpeached up to the cause of this action. Mrs. Elizabeth TATHAM, wife of the preceding witness, has known Sarah SETTLE from a child. She and her mother have been in the habit of visiting in the respective families in the neighbourhood, among others the defendant's. The defendant's family visited at Mr. SETTLE's. His mother very often came to tea.—His sister (now Mrs. STACKHOUSE) was very intimate with the plaintiff. They used to be very much together. After his sister's marriage the plaintiff went to Giggleswick to visit her. Witness had occasion to see the plaintiff and defendant often together.—He was received at her house as her intended husband, and her mother's future son-in-law. She was so received at his friends' houses. They must have known and approved of the intended marriage. She remembered the defendant coming to their house on the 29th of November, and heard the conversation stated by the former witness. They were perfectly sober. The defendant came afterwards to let them know that he did not intend to marry her, and the conversation took place which her husband had mentioned. The plaintiff's character was good and prudent till this unfortunate affair. Robert HOUSTON, an innkeeper at Burton, has known the defendant ever since he came to his estate at Lombardhouse. He remembers his playing at cards with his wife. It was the night before Mr. BROUGHAM came into Kirkby Lonsdale, a Wednesday night. The defendant came in at half-past eight, and said to his wife, "Jenny, you hanged me the other night, but I'll play with you again at all fours." His wife went out to provide some supper. He said, observing the defendant melancholy, "Mr. CRUMBLEHOLME, what is to do?" He sighed and said, "I have got a letter from Mr. DEWHURST, and I must go down to settle it." Witness asked, "What?" He replied, "About Miss SETTLE." Witness said, "Why don't you marry and settle it all." He said, "No, he would go to Lancaster and settle it." Witness asked how much money they wanted. He said, £500. Witness said, that was a good deal; he said, "Yes, it was." Witness remarked again, it was little enough, considering the character of the girl. He said he would not give it, for he would make away his property to his sister, Mrs. STACKHOUSE. Witness said, "You'll soon be in Nell REDMAIR's," (the poor-house). He said, then he would give it to his father; witness said, his father might marry again. He then said, he would sell it all and go to America. Mr. WALLACE, uncle by marriage to the plaintiff, has known the plaintiff intimately for nine years. He is also intimately acquainted with the defendant. The parties and their families are particularly intimate. The defendant was received as the particular friend and suitor of Miss SETTLE. His intentions were known and approved by both families. His niece's character was very respectable indeed and unimpeached. The defendant's estate is excellent land, worth £4 per acre. It is 182 acres. There is an excellent house and out-buildings. It is worth £22,000 independent of the stock. The plaintiff's fortune is £800. It consists of money and the house and garden where the mother lives. It is worth £150. It is the plaintiff's property. He saw the defendant with Mr. DEWHURST at the last March assizes. (This was objected to as evidence, and refused). Mr. Thomas DEWHURST went to search the memorials enrolled at Wakefield of the West Riding. The memorial was put in and read. It contained the extent of the defendant's lands. The memorial was rejected as not evidence, since the defendant was not a party. Mr. Robert BRADLEY, attorney for the defendant, sworn—never saw the deed in his life. Mr. WALLACE recalled—heard the defendant say six years ago that he had half of the lands and the whole of the stock. The Rev. Mr. FOXCROFT has known plaintiff very well ever since he remembered— Mr. TOPPING objected to examination as to character, since no imputation had been cast upon her character in cross-examination. Mr. SCARLETT, urged the precedent established in the case of Miss ORFORD, tried before his Lordship at the last assizes, and contended that it was admissible on general grounds. Mr. TOPPING replied, that every party and every witness was of unblemished character till the contrary was attempted to be shown, and that no precedent had been established in the case of ORFORD and COLE. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said he could find no authority on the subject. With respect to witnesses, such evidence was not admissible. But here it was different, for it was of great importance to the party to show, that the character was such as made her worthy of marriage. I will make a note of the objection. You are aware of the risk you run, Mr. SCARLETT, by examining as to character. I have no doubt, however, on the subject. Mr. FOXCROFT was examined only as to her conduct, which he knew to be always correct. The family is respectable, and considered so in the neighbourhood. The Rev. Mr. POOLEY, Minister of Burton-in-Lonsdale, gave evidence to the same effect. Miss RIPPON, lives near Burton, and had been acquainted with the plaintiff for three years before this affair. She always supposed her a prudent, discreet young woman. She had met her about three times at witness's aunt's. She met her also at the plaintiff's aunt, Mrs. WALLACE's. Mrs. COOPER lives at Burton, and has lived there 18 years: she is sister of Governor ETHERINGTON. She knows the plaintiff and her mother well. They are received by all the respectable families in the neighbourhood. She never knew any thing but what was correct in Miss SETTLE's conduct. Mr. TOPPING addressed the Jury for the defendant. He felt great obligation to his learned friend for having expressed regret that he was not counsel for the plaintiff; but they, as impartial judges, were aware that the plaintiff was under no disadvantage from that want. Now there was a set-off as to compliments, at which he was always very bad; so much so that had they occasion to hear witnesses to his character, he would stand very low he feared. But his character, such as it was, he would now keep. It was too late to change it. His Learned Friend had introduced the cause tried at the last assizes. They were not the jury that tried it, and they had nothing more to do with it than with any other cause or verdict tried in any county in England. He remembered a very facetious gentleman on this circuit, 30 or 40 years ago (he wished it were not so long), Mr. FEARNLY, of whom another Gentleman, Jack LEE, whom every man knew, and all who knew loved, used to say that he was the proudest man of a clean shirt he ever knew. Mr. FEARNLY, on hearing two cases compared, said to the Judge, "Cases are no more like than faces," looking round him at the time. He now would make the same observation. All that they had to try was the breach of promise of marriage. It should be recollected that there was another action pending in York for seduction. Why did they come to Lancaster with the trial? Because Lancashire juries were famed for setting no bounds to damages, in all cases that had any tendency of this kind. While he said this, he gloried in being born in Lancashire. He would complain neither of their liberality, nor of their justice, whatever might be their verdict. The plaintiff and the defendant had been on terms of friendship from their infancy, and "friendship with woman is sister to love." There was no evidence of any promise at the time of the improper intercourse, except HOUSTON's, to which they could give no credit. There never was a case of the kind so meagre and barren. They should recollect, too, that she did the menial work of her mother's house. God forbid that he should deny to any class their right; but unless they wished for a confusion of rank and of character, which would soon bring about confusion of property, (an object in the view of many at this moment,) they could not fail to regard this circumstance. A learned judge was represented to have said, (he hoped he was libelled,) on occasion of an action against one of the Royal Family, that rank made no distinction in cases of this kind. He who could assent to such a position was fit for a lunatic asylum. In both parties the heydey of the blood was passed; and would the ladies forgive him, for asking if men were not often placed in situations which made their fall inevitable?—The Jury would regard the circumstances and the evidence, and not speeches, in the case. Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence. The only question for the Jury was, what was the proper compensation in damages in this case. The question required careful discrimination. The interests of society were influenced by verdicts in particular cases, and the more those interests were advanced by their verdict the better. He was sure they would agree with him that it was of the utmost importance how women conducted themselves. Their misconduct would diminish their claim in a Court of Justice; and if there was any blame on the part of the woman, there could be no foundation for aggravated damages. The action for seduction was entitled to go on, whatever might be the result of this action, and there the young woman could tell how she fell. The damages there belonged to the mother. This was the first action that he was aware of for breach of promise of marriage, where seduction had taken place, and the seduction might diminish if not annihilate the damages. Marriage was for life; respect for each other was essential to its happiness; if jealousy entered into the mind of the husband, it led to incalculable misery, and what more likely to excite jealousy than the knowledge than [sic] his wife had fallen when she was most likely to resist? One way of judging of this case was, by supposing it to be their own, and considering what they would do under similar circumstances. In youth, with all its warmth, men look for virtue in their wives, and virtue that will be permanent through life. If, then, a woman lose her virtue, whether with seduction or importunity on his part, a man must pause at least before he perform the promise he may have made. He ought not to abandon her; but make her his wife is a different thing.—They would consult the interests of the sex by showing, that if a woman yield to seduction, she does it at her peril, and cannot come into a Court with a man for not doing what he would have probably done if she had not fallen from her proper place. It was unnecessary to read the evidence. The plaintiff was entitled to complain, but her claims were reduced by what argued some blame on her part; otherwise, this would be indeed a very different case. The Jury, after a short consultation in the box, retired, and in a quarter of hour came back with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £700. Mr. TOPPING.—They might have had that without a trial; but they would have nothing less than £3000.