EARDELL v. PICKWICK.
I T is the duty of the journalist to call public attention from time to time to such of the decisions of our courts as work a great change in the law of the land. That which has long been regarded as the leading case on breaches of promise of marriage—the great case of Barden v. Pickwick—has been overruled by an English jury, and henceforth, we fear, the happiness of confiding females will but too often be trifled away by the insidious fascination which lurks in communica- tions about warming-pans and tomato sauce. Fortunately, the lady—a widow, like Mrs. Bardell—on whom, as the mother and principal witness of the plaintiff, the burden of making out the case lay—is one of birth so lofty, of conduct so irreproachable, and manners so gentle and engaging, that the chivalrous feeling of mankind may be safely trusted to avenge her wrongs. Emily, the daughter of an eminent Irish surgeon employed on the staff of the Lord Lieutenant, sur- rendered her young affections to another Dish surgeon of the name of Russell, who, twenty-three years ago, was called to a better world. Since then the solace of Mrs. Russell's widowhood has been the education of her only child, Annie, the plaintiff in the present action. Mrs. Russell's chief source of income seems to be a pension from the Irish Government (which ungratefully estimates her late father's services at the miserable figure of ten pounds per annum), and the rents of some Irish property, which certainly appear to be very irregularly paid. There is, however, nothing uncommon in that. Everybody knows many Irish proprietors in this country who suffer from a similar cause, and it is not therefore surprising that Mrs. Russell should add to her income by cultivating the love of harmony in the young, or, in other words, by teaching music. In Novem- ber, 1860, Mrs. Russell and her daughter went to Teside in the house of a Mr. Crump, a cashier, who was separated from his wife, and whose children lacked a mother's .care. Mrs. Crump's mother had been Mrs. Russell's lady's maid in happier days and we can therefore imagine what it must have cost her to : take a salary of 40/. from Mr. Crump. Even this salary, however, Crump denies, and says he took them in out of charity, and was obliged to get rid of them because they got into debt. But we anticipate. Mrs. Russell took a child of Mr. Crump to consult the defendant—" the Monster Pickwick "—whom men call Adams' the senior surgeon of the Orthopcedic Hospital. After- wards the illness of Mrs. Russell forced her daughter to supply her place. Miss Russell's charms had their natural effect, and on the 1st of November she made a communication to her mamma, which elicited from that lady a letter which we venture to consider a masterpiece of tenderness and pro- priety. Unhappily the original was lost in the post (for we do not believe even the defendant could have persevered in his design had he ever received it), and the same fate has befallen a copy which Mrs. Russell was woman of business enough to make. The lady's recollections of it are, however, as follows :—" r I have heard from my daughter to-day your pro- posal of marriage. I need only say that in my delicate health my only object is the welfare of my dear and only child. I -shall be glad to see her united to a gentleman, and particu- larly to a member of my dear father and her father's profes- sion. I need not tell you that my daughter has no fortune, and that I have to use my own exertions to increase my income. From my own family and connections my daughter is fully entitled to enter the family of any professional man in England. One of my uncles was Admiral Noble, and another is the Rev. Theophilus Blakeney, Dean of Down, in Ireland. My brother is a rector in the Church. My three nephews are rectors.' I think I added that I had some nephews in Her Majesty's service. I also said, You wish me to remove to town, but I am sorry that my circumstances will not make it convenient for me to do so at present.'" She did, however, whether expelled by Mr. Crump, or per- suaded by the defendant, remove to the house of a Mrs. Lama, in Osnaburg street, in March, 1861, and as the de- fendant frequently called, she naturally told Mrs. Lama a few days later that he was engaged to her daughter. He had, however, the art not to stay more than a few minutes at each visit, and to behave with such coldness when third persons were present, that "they all said they should not like such a -beau." To such an extent was this dissimulation carried, that even when the curiosity of Hannah Champs, the servant-girl, induced her to burst suddenly in on the plaintiff and defen- dant, she saw "nothing unusual." Only in Mrs. Russell's presence he threw off the mask—putting his arm round Miss Russell's waist, and saying, "Oh you are a dear, dear girl. Thank God I shall soon call you my own." So, at another time, he asked, "Are you not, my dear, satisfied with your choice ?" But he was not able always to stifle his conscience, for Miss Russell once admitted to Mrs. Laura that he had never kissed her, and added, "He is very odd—sometimes he is very affectionate, but at other times I can make nothing of him. Well he might be odd. But will it be believed that an endeavour was made to prejudice the plaintiff because, in these trying circumstances, Mrs. Russell needed stimulants- half-a-pint of gin on March the 15th, a bottle on the 16th, half- .a-pint of brandy on the 17th, two bottles of gin on the 18th, and on the 23rd two gallons. But the defendant's career of deception was drawing to a close. Mrs. Lama was becoming alarmed for the payment of her bill, and she asked Mr. Adams, point-blank, "Are you engaged to Miss Russell ?" Then he started back with well feigned astonishment, and declared that he was a married man with a family. Soon after he had the audacity to call on Mrs. Russell, accompanied by a creature of his, named Blaze, a sur- gical instrument maker, and to reveal the truth. That touching interview our contracted space will not allow us to detail; but when Blaze said that the defendant had money and could crush them, the ancestral fire which animated Miss Russell (she is the niece of our Foreign Secre- tary) leapt forth in the noble words, "There are many things money will do ; but there are three things it cannot do — .crush virtue family, and a British jury." Even this Blaze denies. What more can we say ? The defence was simple—they denied everything—they declared that the defendant was a married man with afamily, living openly and notoriously with his wife, and that his visits to the plaintiff had been, with one exception, merely professional. They produced innumerable notes from the Russells, none of which contained any allusion to the engage- ment ; they proved that when the defendant called at Osna- burg street Mrs. Adams was frequently in the carriage, and Master Adams on the box with the coachman. Nay, they called the coachman, who proved that he would say often to his master before they went home, "There's them people in Osnaburg street we haven't seen," who would reply, "Oh them be d—d ; go on home." Need we say that Crump and Blaze, and one Mackrell, a solicitor, and the defendant's cousin, contradicted Mrs. Russell wherever it was possible. Of course they did. Need we say that the Lamas, hungry for their 34/. and their niece and servant, showed that Dir. Adams never seemed to them like a lover ? That was the defendant's art. His counsel even threw doubt on Mrs. Russell's rela- tionship to Earl Russell. Could anything be more straight- forward than her answer, "I am related to him—my husband was, and, of course, I consider I am ?" So, again, the Lamas were evidently hostile to her through that miserable pecuniary squabble—yet, as Mrs. Russell explained, she had given her acceptance for the amount. "When I give my acceptance I consider accounts are closed." Mr. and Mrs. Lama are English, and, it seems, do not. Will it be believed that Mr. Lush actually proved that Mrs. Russell left her debts unpaid at Holyhead, and had to walk with Miss Russell to Chester. Is poverty a disgrace ? If there were a few outstanding accounts at Brompton, and elsewhere, what then ? Irish tenants are so very irregular. Nay, an attempt was made to prove that Mrs. Russell had represented to the lodging-housekeeper with whom she lived at Holyhead that Miss Russell was engaged to the incumbent there, and had made similar false represen- tations in other places. From this last indignity the law of evidence, we shame to say, alone preserved her.
But what justice can a widowed Irish lady hope for from a Saxon jury ? Early in the first day some of them would have stopped the case ; but, happily, there was one man among the twelve "with a strong Irish accent" to struggle for right. That man's presence animated the learned Serjeant, who on this occasion discharged the duties of the lamented Buzfuz, so that his eloquent voice filled the Exchequer, echoed along the passages, penetrated even into the remote recesses of the Exchequer Chamber, and during the whole afternoon rose and fell, and rose and fell again. Costs at least might be saved, even if the verdict was lost. For two hours that Irish juryman stood out. Then the Chief Baron was appealed to. "They could not agree." Then they were ruthlessly locked up again. In criminal cases, when a juryman holds out for an acquittal, it is common to buy him off by a recommendation to mercy. What happened in this case we cannot say, but in a short quarter of an hour the verdict was agreed to in these words :—" As the plaintiff has not made out her case to our entire satisfac- tion, we of necessity find a verdict for the defendant." Thus the public is, after all, appealed to. Let the public decide; but we don't think it will subscribe to pay the costs for Mrs. Russell.
Previous page
