The Times, Thursday, Sep 06, 1821; pg. 3; Issue 11344; col B SUMMER ASSIZES. ------------- CARLISLE, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. - THOMPSON V. BLAMIRE. So great was the anxiety to hear this trial, that from eight in the morning till two in the afternoon the Court was excessively crowded, while the merest questions of abstract right which Dandy Dinmont could wish to litigate were discussed. At length THOMPSON and BLAMIRE was announced, and the Jury was sworn. Mr. TINDALL opened the pleadings in the usual form. Mr. BROUGHAM. - You have heard from my learned friend, who opened the pleadings generally, what the nature of this action is. It is now my duty to state the circumstances which gave it birth. Miss Sarah THOMPSON is the daughter of a very respectable man, a Mr. THOMPSON, who lives not far from this place, and near Scotby. I would wish that any of you, or all of you, were from that neighbourhood, in which this gentleman and his daughter live, because, if you had known the father by familiar intercourse, if you had known his reputation for probity and general respectability, it would be sufficient protection for me, in case any such attempts as are sometimes made to cast any imputations on the character of this plaintiff should now be offered. The defendant is a young gentleman, son of a gentleman of considerable property, Mr. BLAMIRE, of Suttle-house. I should mention that he is his natural son, but he was brought up in his family, and no difference was ever discovered, or is now seen, between him and a legitimate son. The defendant seemed to have considerable means at his disposal, and his habits at least showed no lack of resources. In 1815 the defendant became intimately acquainted in Mr. THOMPSON's family. Miss THOMPSON is a young lady of considerable personal accomplishments. An intimacy began early to be formed between her and the defendant, and in course of one or two years it became manifest to her father. It naturally soon became much talked of in the neighbourhood. They became warmly attached, and the neighbours considered them as about to become man and wife. The parent then began to feel what was perfectly natural, but what he cannot be blamed for not having expressed earlier, an anxiety to know whether his daughter was fairly dealt with. He asked Mr. BLAMIRE, the defendant, what were his intentions? His answer was perfectly natural - "If ever he married any person, he would marry his daughter." Mr. THOMPSON considered it his duty to put the same question again. He promised distinctly to make Miss THOMPSON his wife. Now, gentlemen, there is not the slightest pretence for insinuating the slightest imputation on Miss THOMPSON's character, or for insinuating that she has done any thing unworthy of the purest female delicacy, or what would reduce in any degree the damages which I now claim. Gentlemen, I mean to say in plain terms, that she did not what would now greatly diminish her claim - abandon her virtue in her intercourse with her lover. During the life of Mr. BLAMIRE's father, it might be thought inconvenient for the marriage to take place; but some time afterwards the declared lover was again asked whether he meant to fulfil his engagement, and he repeated his warmest love and affection for Miss THOMPSON. But he had in course of time shown, what his letters to the plaintiff indicated, a feeling for himself which occasioned the breach of his promise, and caused the present action. Other views opened upon him, and he married another lady, a Miss OLIVER, a lady of large present fortune, and larger expectations. In point of character and respectability Miss THOMPSON, to whom he vowed the strongest attachment, and whom he afterwards abandoned because she was inferior in fortune, and in that alone, Miss THOMPSON may defy comparison with Miss OLIVER. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This case to continue..... Petra