e had been committed, they would find for the Plaintiff, with such
damages as they thought proper; and if, on the other hand, it appeared to
them that no promise of marriage had ever been given, they would find for
the Defendant, with no damages at all." Such was this lucid
direction--which is really, not in the least, an exaggeration.
But I could fancy some acute judge of our time--such as Mr. Justice Day
or Mr. Justice Bigham--after trying this case, turning round in his seat
to "charge" the jury. "Here, gentlemen," he would tell them, "we have it
claimed on one side that a promise of marriage was made--and broken; on
the other hand the Defendant denies having ever given such a promise.
The question you will have to deal with is: What was this promise, and
when was it given? In other words, _when_ did the Defendant propose to
the lady. On the part of the Plaintiff, this was said to have been done
at the interview in Goswell Street, and two friends of the
Plaintiff--Mrs. Cluppins, I think"--turning over his notes--"yes,
Cluppins, and Sanders both declare positively that they overheard the
language of the proposal. Further, Mr. Pickwick's friends are called, to
prove that the lady was in his arms, fainting. It is extraordinary that
not one of these three gentlemen should have deposed to any statements or
have offered explanations of the situation. One witness indeed says that
he heard the Defendant remonstrate with the Plaintiff, on her hysterical
behaviour, and ask her to consider that if any one should come in, what
would be said. Now, this is not the language of an ardent suitor, who
would rather wish than otherwise, that such endearing familiarities
should continue: though I don't think you need seriously accept the
reading the learned Counsel, Mr. Skimpin, put on the phrase used; on the
other hand, the words 'my dear creature,' were distinctly heard.
"There is one little incident," the Judge might go on, "which I must not
pass by, and which is not without its significance. A witness deposed
that the defendant was noted for his kindness to the Plaintiff's little
boy--that he was constantly giving him presents, and once was heard to
say to him, patting him on the head, '_how would you like to have another
father_?' Now, this addressed to a child of tender years does seem an
odd sort of speech. Of course, it will be contended that the reference
was to the probability of his Mother marrying some one other t
|