SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3171, 19 April 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTING.

Yesterday. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.)

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE,

The following is the rest of the correspondence and telegrams put in:- -

To Mrs Beaver—

Your telegram came to hand, and surprised me so much that I left the business all day, and roamed mooning out of town, I ask myself what can such proceedings mean. You wrote, or your daughter, and reeal such by a telegram. This is remarkable strange. If your daughter rejects me, wiry not tell me so in plain, candid language, and must try to tear the sweet delusion olf my mind. It would not cost me much; but men’s feelings perhaps arc not worth taking notice of. On the other hand, if the letter contains the words of a true woman’s love, why suspend my happiness ? I can really not trace logic in the proceedings you have taken. However, I Jay the matter this way before you : If your daughter rejects me, and has been informed my position is a very good one, and in consequence she recalled the lettertosay “Yes” instead of “ No,” she marries for money, and is unworthy of being my wife. Again, if she consents to my offer, but heard between writing and arrival of letter my character is no good, or I am unfit to provide for a wife, I consider I have a right to hold these letters. I have an opportunity to prove myself the man I represented to be. Lastly, dear madam, excuse my conduct; but the wager is so high in my eyes that I would consider it cowardly to retreat where my happiness or honor is at stake.

Julius Wenkheim.

[Telegrams,— ln German.] Dunedin, 10th June, 1872. A few hours after the pasting of the letters I learnt that you have been long engaged. I have no explanation on this point. My son is not returned.

Mrs Beaver.

Dunedin, June 19, 1872. Wenkheim, Queenstown, —You will receive letter by next mail. Beaver.

Dunedin, June 22, 1872. Wenkheim, Queenstown, —You will receive letter on Monday. Beaver.

Dunedin, June 20, 1872. Dear Mr Wenkheim,—l have been ill for some time, and my son has not returned ; you will therefore excuse the delay. I hope sincerely that my letter will he read with the same kindly feeling as it is written. I hope no kind of ill-feeling should exist between us. It is the fate of circumstances which brought these mysterious obstacles in our way—obstacles too heavy and lingering to remove them at our will; nobody ia to blame for that. The letter addressed to Mr Wfinkheim was written to one who came forward with a manly proposal, whose affectionate words appaabxl to her for whom they were intended—a man with a free heart, whose thoughtful features spoke that he had fought many battles in the cold world of strife. If a woman accepts such a man, she must possess principles of a higher degree, in order to fulfil such duties faithfully. It would be beneath a pure woman’s heart to fall in love at oruae j wicfi is a true nature : love comes by degree*. Wlum the blossom had scarcely time to unfold itself, this latter scarcely posted, when we received the following information : Mr Wenkheim was engaged lor yeap a widow. Imagine the effect of such tidings for such a girl. We respect you too much as an honest man, that such ties could be otherwise than cold pretence of what? I have no right to analyse what you felt or feel for the object of your former choice. But I ask you, on your honor, can that intimacy be overlooked by a good, honest girl of high principles, or trust its influence not hover over her ! Cain she sincerely say, “ I will forget; I will try to win the heart that by promise belonged to another ” (remember, for years) ? Shall the girl in the blossom of youth, lay down her pretension to life, and force such a thought that becomes fearful to contemplate, and must she suffer for your action ? I have guarded and protected my child, but I will not force her actions ; if you wish at once a decided answer —an acceptance or a refusal —you stand in your own way. SJie may relax, but in tmth neither Marie or I mi giye such a promise. Mr Wenkheim, I have prayed that Hod may be in my counsel; what have we not suffered since ? Once more, let not ill-feeling exist between us. I thank you for all the Jove and kindness expressed in your letter to my daughter ; so may God bless you. I left the letter so long in your hands, begging of you not to open it, on account of your own feeling, not from fear, and may ask you now as a man of honor to return the same to me. I remain, yours truly, Bertha Beaver. Scotland street.

Dunedin, Jidy 1,1872.

Mr Hermann Arndt— Sir —I beg to give you notice that Miss Marie Beaver has engaged herself to marry me, and lias written to me to that effect. If you, therefore, persist in your addresses to her, and succeed in inducing her to marry you, you will flo hp at the peril of my taking any such proecediVJgS as 1 may be advised to take. —Yours, &C M Julius Wenkheim, McmliapJ;. of Queenstown,

Rev. Moses Rintel, Melbourne — Most Reverend Sir -1 beg to excuse my liberty of addressing these words to you, with the view of appealing to your kind feeling and sympathy. My story and prayer is the following :—I am written engaged to a certain Miss Marie Beaver, eldest daughter of the late Dr Beaver, of Dunedin ; and as of late a Mr Hermann Arndt, manager of Air Hallenstein, has come forward, and him having more money, he succeeded in winning the brother and mother, and the young lady accepted the higher offer, and of course rejected me, under the pretence of my being formerly engaged iu Germany: a lady I explained was my niece and wid*wy, called on me for protection, which I promised liyr. Bhe did not come, which released me bit my obligation. Notwithstanding these explanations, or any defects regarding my position or character, heartlessly persisted iu taking the most money ; in any other respect the man is unquestionably my inferior, excepting physical strength. Now, dear sir, the way I am treated by these people is really degrading to our faith. I have acted as I am known--plain, honorably, and uprightly —suspiciously of tlm possibility that such a deceit could be imposed upon me, I proposed to the lady aforesaid (by letters), and, Ju?r brother satisfying himself of my position and anW, J WM t in complimentary and very loving language, accepted by Marie (by letter). The letter is in ir.y possession now, and is ready, if you wish to sec it, to send it to you, as the Rev. Mr Levy holds a certified copy of it now. As such proceeding, as to marry on a sepond engagement, is morally and legally wrong, I implore you to give notice to all of your officers not to marry the said Marie Beaver to any man, unless she produces, in writing, my willingness to withdraw my I beg, also, respectfully to add that I shall inform our most reverend Dr Adler, of London, of same. Hoping yon y/ill favor me in assisting to demolish such unprincipled conduct, and be just to an injured man, —I ain, ,&c., Jpgius Wenkheim.

Queenstown, June o, J872.

My dear Friend, —According to my premise I inform you of the proceedings ,of your dear people .at home. This morning I received telegrams saying “Please return letter addressed to you unopened ; will write to you soon. ” The letter I received, hut did not send it back. I wrote, therefore, to explain this strange conduct. Now, you, dear fellow, must know that they acted cruelly. You know my position! Do not I do what a mortal can do ? Pid

I not, for the sake of doing my duty for my future wife, neglect you ? Come, you imist,tell to your people the truth. It is your place to do so. More, ;v? I have given to you my confidence, and you promised to be worthy of it. As friends you will serve me, justify me, and defend me if my name has been abused. The first letter showed plainly your sister did care for me, and as she does I sooner lose life than her. Rise, therefore, that gentle nature of yours, and assist a friend who will worship you the rest of his days. Yours faithfully, Julius Wenkheim.

Mr Beaver was cross-cxamiiud as follows; You have told Mr Barton that Wenkheim was invited to your house to partake of the Passover meal; was that so ?—lt is the usual custom to invite strangers—whether male or female—to partake of the hospitality of the house at that time. Have you any knowledge of your sister speaking to him on that occasion ? —I don’t think she could have done so—not even for one moment. I met him quite accidentally, and asked him, along with five or six others, to come to our house. When you went to see him the no t day did you go to see him on business ?—Yes ; partly on business ; I bad business dealings with him at that time. Did be at that time say anything about being in ill-health ?—Yes ; he complained of illhealth, and said he suffered a good deni at that time. (Mr Barton objected to the question, on the ground that ill-health could rot be gone into, not having been pleaded on the record. The question was not pressed.) Did he say anything to you about having been engaged to any person ? (Mr Barton objected; but after argument, his Honor said he thought the evidence was admissive in mitigation of damages, if it went to show that Wenkheim at the time of courting Miss Beaver was actually engaged ; but not if it were a first engagement). Did he say anything about an engagement? —He told rne that he was engaged at home. Did he say anything about going home?—He said that he intended to have gone home, but since he had made alterations in his buildings he did not know whether he could go or not; at all events, he said something to that effect. Did you see him again after this conversation ?—I have no recollection of having seen him again. Yon left Dunedin shortly after that?— Yes, in about a fortnight ; that would be about the beginning of May. At that time, had you received any letter from Wenkheim ?—No. When did you get the letter dated May 15?— Some time in that month ; I cannot say when. When did you first learn that Wenkheim had proposed for your sister? —That was about the time. Did you have any conversation with Wenkheim about tins time ? Yes Did he say anything about an engagement then ? —Not at that time. You sent a telegram on June I, in which you say, “ Particulars yesterday. Wait. Everything quite satisfactory to all. ” Did you have any conversation with Wenkheim after that ?- Yes. On June 3, you telegraph to your sister—“ Everything satisfactory. Write Tuesday night. You would like to see ; you must deci ’e yourself.” After that telegram was sent, had you any further conversations with Wenkheim ? —I wanted some explanations about bis engagement. He told me that in all probability his intended would come out yet; if she came out, she would have to live in the same house as the one he thought of marrying (laughter). His Honor: Did he not mention the name. Was the one he ? she, or it’—There were no names given ; it was a she. His Honor: What, live wdth your sister?— With the one he married, at all events; I don’t kpow whether he meant with my sister. Did he say anything further about his intended—his first intended ? —Yes, that he had somebody in view for her. In the letter of June 5, which has been put in evidence, there is a passage : Wenkheim, says, “ I have given you my confidence ; you promised to be worthy of it. You will serve.” In your letter of June 7 is this How can y.og imagine that what has been said between heaven sad earth, under the strictest confidence and good faith, would be used against you by me ? You are mis.taken. What you have raid is as sacred as though you had never uttered anything . . . I have not abused your confidence—not to one single person, and will not to anybody.” Do you refer to anything said by Wenkheip?, on that occasion ?—He said there was a cloud hanging oyejr him ; and on that subject I will five no evidence at ajj, I also find that in your letter from Cromwell you desire the return of a letter which he says he got. Had you any idea at this time that your sister was going to accept Wenkheim ’—None in the slightest. Does the cloud to which you refer relate to Wenkheira’s past life?— Yes ; it is in connection with his past life. After you heard what was stated about the first intended—l suppose we must call her so—living in the same house with the lady he might marry, were you then unwilling to give your consent ?—Mr Barton : I object to the question. If the witness’s consent had nothing to do with the matter when it suited his purpose, it has nothing to do with it now. —Mr Stout did not press the question, and continued his cross-examination. You left Queenstown in June; what date?— The 4th, i think, When did you next see Wenkheim?—Coming down from the coach office in Dunedin. When ’—About the 2yth June. At any rate it was on a Saturday.— Mr Stout: The 27th was not a Saturday. Arndt was in the same coach ?—Yes. Had you any conversation with Wenkheim at that time ’—None. Did you see him after that?—l saw him at our house the same night that he arrived. Had you any conversation with him then ?—I »uly witnessed a conversation. Do you remember auythingthat passed ?—I remember my sister asking him for the letter, and saying that he was not justified in withholding it. Did you see him after that again ?—I saw him on the Sunday at the hotel where he was staying, the next day. Had you any conversation with him there?—-I demanded the letter in my sister’s name. What did he say ?—That he would give up the letter if my sister would not marry Arndt. Did Wenkheim say anything about caring for her ?—lie said that I need npt think so much about my sister, as the young lady to whom be was engaged at home was much superior. Did he say he did not care for your sister ?—He said he did not care for her as long as she did nob marry Arndt. Did he say anything about Arndt?—Yes, be said that Arndt was his bitterest enemy.—Mr Stout : I now refer back to Queenstown. I see that in the telegram of the Ist June there is a word “ wait”; I think it is ?—Witness : I intended it for “ wait.” —Mr Barton: Well we shall see what the jury think of it. - [His Honor examined the writing, and said the word was ‘‘wait,” it was plain enough ]-Mr Stout (tf) ’jyitness) s XJj> "to tunc did you Icno'.v of any' letter sent by your sister to Weukheim which was anything like a proposal ? I had no idea that a letter would b&y& been sent on the strength of my first telegram—the telegram saying “ wait.” Regarding the second telegram, in which appear the words “Tuesday night,” did you mean that you would write, or was your sister to write ? Mr Barton: I object to that.-[His Honor said bp did not think ho could permit an explanation of the witness’s own telegram.]-Did give any reason for ending the prior engagement ? - No, he did not give any reason. You saw Wenkheim on one oc asion at your house, after the Saturday in question ?—Yes. Did you hear him say anything ’—When I came home I heai d some rather loud language, and I went into the room. I did not wish to go in, but 1 was obliged to do so ; for I could not keep my temper any longer. I heard my mother and sister talking to Weiklieim.—[At Mr Barton’s request witness gave evidence identifying the signatures to the marriage of Mr Arndt with his 81 Joseph A. Walder, storekeeper, Queenstown was then called, and examined by Mr Chapmap —Mr Barton : Do you recollect Mr Alexander Beayev saying anything with reference to Wepkjicim’s engagement.— Witness : I recollect at Queepstwp—Mr Stout: Well, 1 object to any conversation between Mr A. Beaver, and Walder, and Arndt. The learned counsel cannot contra*

diet hia own witness.— Mr Barton: I respectfully submit I may contradict Mr Beaver. —Mr Stout: No, you cannot discredit his testimony ; he is your own witness. —His Honor to Mr Barton : If you contradict his statements, you will contradict your own evidence.—Mr Barton : But wc dont rely upon Mr Beaver at all, but upon the letters and telegrams, which will utterly contradict some of the evidence he has given against us ; and we now want to give additional evidence, to show that he was wrong when he said “he did not give his assent to the marriage.”—Mr Stout said that made the matter worse. His learned friend wanted to discredit the statements of his own witness. The learned counsel could not call a witness specially to discredit a part of the testimony of one of the witnesses called by himself—His Honor: Yes; the general rule is that you cannot discredit your own witness. There is no doubt about that. — Wenkheim was doing a good business at Queenstown. Arndt had been in Messrs Hallenstein and Co. for some years, and possessed property. —Mr Stout objected to the evidence as not being relevant to the case, on the ground that Mrs Arndt’s circumstances only, prior to marriage, should be considered in view of, if possible, assessment of damages, as that alone was evidence of loss sustained. His Honor said ho inclined to take that view, and the question was not pressed. Examination continued : Wenkheim had sold out of business in Queenstown.— -Mr Stout objected to the evidence, and the witness was allowed to withdraw. H. J. Walter, hotelkeeper : Julius Wenkheim used to stop at the Occidental Hotel. He knew Mr Arndt by sight. He saw bis initials on a letter from plaintiff to Arndt, of which he witnessed the delivery, warning Arndt against marrying Miss Beaver. —Cross-examined by Mr Stout: Who told you to take notice of this proceeding ? Wenkheim asked me to witness the presentation of a legal document. —Did he allow you to read the notice?— The no f ice looks very like a legal notice. Have you looked at it again, so that you might make yourself sure it is not Mr Wenkheim’s writing?— I am pretty certain it is not* It l}as the appearance of being written by a legal map. This closed the case for the plaintiff.

Mr Stout said he apprehended there was good ground for a nonsuit. He would not take up the time of the Court beyond repeating that the point before his Honor was that, on the face of the evulenc 0 , the whole evidence of contract was in writing.

His Honor : You move for a nonsuit on the '.'round that a written contract cannot be given in evidence, unless set out under rule 76? 3 , Mr Stout: On the other ground also, that there is no contract proved. In Mile* y. Wade, of course the objection mentioned in discussing that point —namely, that the contract might be partly oral and partly written has not been removed —for it is proved conclusively that, if any contract existed at all, it existed in writing. From the. evidence of Alexander Beaver, there is nothing to show there was any conversation between the parties, {secondly :Oa the face of the evidence, there was no contract, because the acceptance was withdrawn before it arrived by the telegram instructing Wenkheim not to open the letter. There is further evidence that Wenkheim considered there was no contract, by keeping the letter in his pocket unopened for two days. It was also pot out by evidence by your Honor that the address on the envelope was in Miss Heaver’s writing, and this brings out clearly that Randolph signed far Miss Beaver as agent. Mr Stout continued by pointing out that there was a class of cases, perhaps not one exactly in point, in consequence of telegraphic messages being only of late usage, but pf the following nature : Suppose a mau sent a letter offering goods for sale, which arrived in due course, and the other sent a reply, accepting the offer. Say A. offered certain goods to B, which B at once .accepted by letter; if A had, prior to his acceptance, withdrawn his offer, it would be no contract. The reason was, there were no contracting lines His Honor : Yon arc discussing Mrs Beaver’s letter relating to the acceptance and countermanding it. Mr Stout: Yes, your Honor. He contended the learned counsel had put himself out of Court by putting the telegrams in evidence, assuming that Mrs Beaver was acting pc agent for Miss Beaver, for in doing so, clearly the' wjiole pvideuce was inadmissible, Mr Stout cited several oases in support of his views, and drew attention to the facts given in evidence. He maintained that the telegrams were put in evidence to prove agency, and that if Mrs Beaver had sent the telegrams, there was no contract. Of course, the postal regulations would be taken judicial notice of, as part of the law of the country, as a letter could not be given to any person except the one to whom it was addressed. His Honor said that was a decision of law, not a postal regulation. Mr Stout considered the post office merely au agency. The telegram was sent before the letter arrived. There was, in fact, no acceptance, and Wenkheim broke open a letter he had no right to break open. Mr Barton considered that the doctrine laid down by Mr Stout, that an offer could be withdrawn by a lettei* being ported before that containing the offer arrived, resembled walking backwards and forwards under an umbrella. He maintained that an offer was accepted even before a letter to that effect was placed in the post office—nay, even before it was written—for the acceptance existed in the writer’s mind. His Honor would not go so far as that, but putting a letter into the post was a public assent. Mr Barton contended at any rate that the letter having been posted, Miss Beaver could not withdraw her consent to the contract. His Honor : The point arose through the capacity of the telegraph to overtake the post. There would be a good many such cases by and by. Mr Barton submitted, whenever that time arrived, the true principal of the law was, before the arrival of the withdrawal the contract was completed. He might observe witli regard to tfre nonsuit, if his Honor was against them, it would only be Risking another trial. His Honor: On the first point raised, whether there was evidence of contract under the 75th Rule, he had considerable doubt. After some further discussion by Mr Stout, His Honor said “ I can only say if I received a letter, and received a telegram saying I was not to open it, 1 should open it, certainly, to see that there was nothing wrong. There may, however, be something in keeping it in his pocket two days ” None of the cases cited applied exactly to the case, because the point was the difference between the telegraph and the post. It was a,(doubtful point, and he would rule on it to the jury. It was a point of considerable importance in other cases. Mr Barton rose to reply, when Mr Stout objected that he had no right to reply, as no witnesses had been called by the defendant. The point was over-ruled.

This Day. Mr Stout, in addressing the jury, smd: I w dl try to confine my remarks within as‘brief a compass as possible. The learned counsel who opened the case said he would endeavor to compress the material he had for a threevolume novel into one; but he should endeavour not even to make remarks sufficient to afford material for one volume. The action in which he appeared for the defendant was of a strange character. Many actions for damages for breach of promise of marriage had been brought by ladies against gentlemen, but this was the unusual course of a gentleman suing a lady on such grounds. It was held a questionable point at Home whether such actions should be allowed to be brought at all, for it was considered doubtful whether a man who had lost a woman in marriage, by her refusal to marry him. had lost anything if she had no property in her pwn right. His Honor remarked th 3! shg u|ea was now obsolete, and had been tor some time past*

Mr Stout: True; but to shew the feeling that still exists on the point, I will refer to an American legal authority, ■who evidently shewed that such an idea as a man suing a woman for breach of promise never entered his head. In his remarks upon such actions, he invariably uses the word ‘‘she,” never thinking for a moment that such an action would bo brought by a “he.” If this action had been raised in consequence of the breach of an engagement of long standing, in which the plaintiff’s feelings were deeply engaged, or through the breaking of which he had sustained serious loss, there might have been some excuse for asking one thousand pounds damages; but the plaintiff could not shew that an engagement at all subsisted. The only letter on which he can base his claim was withdrawn before he read it, and the reason for the action has nothing to do with that engagement at all. There was something kept back, which, however, has perhaps been let out in the speech of the learned counsel who opened the case. But before I deal with the peculiar facts of this extraordinary case, I wish to draw attention to some remarks made by the learned counsel With singular bad taste he ridiculed the piety of Mrs Beaver and her daughter, and said, whatever twelve Jews might have done, twelve Christians could not be found to give sanction to such proceedings. I was in hopes that the time had long since passed for religious persecution. The inference intended to he conveyed was that Mrs Beaver and her family were not equal, on social considerations, to Christians, but I hold that in such matters a Jew may be as honest and as good a citizen as we whose religion is different. I am sure the learned counsel would not have resorted to this stratagem, had he not found he could not have gained his case on the evidence of the letters. In his reply he made some remarks upon the Jewish people, and the Beaver family, which I du not think he ought to have done, He told the Court he had had great experience in cases of this class. Ido not know what experience he may have had ; hut I never heard of such a case as this, and I hope, when it is concluded, the plaintiff will regret that he ever had any experience of the kind. In his opening statement, the learned counsel said that the business rivalry between Mr Bendix Hallenstein and the plaintiff was “in all probability the remote cause of this action.” 1 believe it is, and how it has been so, I shall say hereafter. The next statement is—“ The male defendant, Mr Hermann Arndt, carries on a large business at Arrowtown, either as a partner with Haller? stein, or else as his manager; but how'ever that pjay hj& hp is a PP rf ?9 n of gpod position, con? siderahle means, and the bqsoip frjepd flf IV{e Hallenstein,” And then he goes on to say what share Mr Hallenstein had in the matter, I ask is one syllable of that proved ? The only evidence on the point is that of Walder, and he said in reply, “ I have had no conversation about the intended marriage so that actually, as a witness, he was of less use to the plaintiff thaa Sam Weller was in the case of Bardell v, Pickwick. I ask, is there any evidence of anyinjmy done to Wenkheim, excepting through Ids own peculiar conduct, in this case? Then the learned counsel quoted those remarks about that three volume novel. Ido not know, but he might make a good novelist. He has wit, knowledge of poetry, and a brilliant imagination; but in closing his novel, he must not allow his hero to bring an action for breach of promise of marriage against his heroine, or it will only sell for waste paper. Then I come to the question of prior engagement, and following that, that Mr Alexander Beaver assented to Wenkheim at Queenstown. That was not proved; but the contrary was proved by the telegrams. In fact, there was hardly anything in the statement) made by the learned counsel in his opening that was proved at all, excepting some letters, and after having made a glaring blunder in the telegrams, he stated that the prior engagement had been “trumped” up, although the whole correspondence proved completely the opposite. I will not refer to the poetical quotations, but content myself by saying there is nothing more than I have stated m the learned counsel’s address—nothing to show that Wenkheim had been injured—nothing to show damage. It is true it is said he was made the laughing-stock of Queenstown, but, in fact, if it is so, it is through the action lie has taken. How was he to know that there was anything in the letter, or that injury had been done ? He brought it upon himself. I recollect s&eii*g iq a nnmber of Melbourne Punch an illustration of the way in ‘ which ladies of different nations meet a* disappointment ty marriage, which seems to bear upon this point, A German lady, it is said, sits down and cries; a French lady laughs at it; an Italian lady is bent on revenge ; but an English lady seeks a remedy at law. Wenkheim seems to have taken that course, although his knowledge of English is not good. In one of his letters he says it is a hiaiim jjf English law to give a prisoner the benefit of a doubt.’ How hb gqtf ty'kpw thaft Ido not know. But although he seomVtb Bom sider himself a prisoner, he seems to have found out that

“ Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage.” So he may have thought there was a prison not i)V stop® walls, nor yet by iron bars. I dq nqt’knpw in the annals of British law there is a ease pawliel to this. The bnljr btfe % have heard of was one in Dublin, when th§ plaintiff was laughed out of Court, being awarded a farthing damage*, In this ease there was hardly a witness called. In fact, there was only Alexander Beaver, who simply proved the letters and telegrams. Walder proved nothing, and when I wished to have one called to prove Rudolph's agency, the counsel for the other side would not consent. They knew the more witnesses called the worse the case would appear, and had half-a-dozen been examined, Mr Barton would have said, “ I will call no more ’’—and have withdrawn the case. Another fact is—he has never read Wenkheim’s letters, although he read Miss Beaver’s, and, strange to say, I find letters published that were never read at all. I only give it as a proof of evidence of a desire for revenge. The plaintiff simply desires to damage Mr Arndt and annoy Airs Arndt by getting the letter? and telegrams' published. " £he* wipr |n whjch the Beaver family have been treated by him, we may say of him a? was sajd pf Shylock—“You may as well go stand upon the beach, And bid the main flood bate his usual height { You may as well use question with the wolf, When he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb; You may as well forbid the mountain pines To wag their tops and make no noise, When they .are fretted with the gusts of Heaven; You may as well do anything most hftrd, As seek to soften that, than which what’s harder ?

His Jewish heart.” But what has lie come into Court with ? I can understand a lady coming into Court for compensation for damages sustained ; but he simply says, “There is a contract. I took advantage of a legal quibble in not returning a letter. This is the letter, on the evidence of which I will have my ‘pound of flesh.’” That is his case. That is his case. That is the injury rewhich this man writes to the Reverend M, Rjutbl, of hjelpouvne—a letter published by the Press, but never given in feviden<^y : #s hw one that was never produced at alb ' ■ 1 His Honor said all the letters published ifl the Evening Star were in evidence. Mr Stout: But not all in the Morning Star. The letters did not prove one single shadow of damage; yet what do you think he puts in as a claim for special damages ? His Honor: There is no claim for special damages. Mr Stout : I suppose lie may K&ve been put to the expense of telegrams and postage stamps on his letters. Mr Beaver told him he wuld not expect to marry his sister by force. I was surprised and glad that the learned counsel let unp the trijlb hj» his opening Stout again read the passage afrbarfy quotCq from Mr Barton’s speech,] Could the jury imagine a man so mean as to seek for damages in order to stab a rival storekeeper ? Because of trade rivalry he sued Arndt, in order to do injury to Hallenstein. Then said the learned counsel, “ We do not want damages ; we want the trick exposed.” What does that mean? Simply that he wishes to get the letters published, in order to annoy Air and Airs Arndt and the Beaver family, and Air Hallenstein, Ho appears to be an old man, and speaks of being a devoted slays to Cupid. Being an old man, counsel lias riftt dared'to bring him- into Court. . ” -.JNi

Mr Chapman: He pannot be brought into Court,

His Honor; It has been ruled in a case of that kind that an agent cannot bp produced In Court, although notice to produce has been given. The agent was six feet four inches in height.

Mr Stout: I could not give notice to produce tire plaintiff or I would have done so. I suppose as an aged man he is perhaps very sore that Mrs Arndt should have preferred Mr Axndt to him, but that is no reason for seeking one thousand pounds damages. He may be young, for anything I know. On that point there is no evidence; so you, as the learned counsel said, may use your imagination : I think you mayvery usefully for the yMatiff, For the nmm |

have stated, 1 know nothing mote contemptible than the conduct of the plaintiff. The first is that Wenkheim had a grudge against the employer of Mrs Arndt’s husband; secondly, because he wished to get the letters published in the public journals in order to injure and annoy the Beaver family; and thirdly, he wanted a balm for his wounded feelings. In one letter he said, “as soon as he set eyes on Miss Beaver, he knew she was to be hia wife.” That might be an optical delusion, which Dr Copland might fairly be asked to treat. Before I take up the subject of the telegrams, I wish to do what has not been done, and to read Wenkheim’s letters. If Mrs Arndt’s letter contained romance, I think for an aged man there is a good deal of romance in his. When he says he could not take his breakfast till he got her letter, and other circumstances, they show that when the learned counsel read those letters, he left out the real romance of the story. The first letter I shall read is as follows :

“Dear Miss Maria,— Encouraged by your kind hospitaUty and friendly behavior towards me when in Dunedin, I venture to confess to you what I ought to have done when there—viz., that 1 felt in your society what I have not felt before: that is, rea"y happy. Yes, many women has attracted my attention ; but I felt'that passion could not mature out of it. At last, then, I found the being lam certain I could love unceasingly. Oh! would to God that being would feel the same ; I would then bo what I have not been yet—a happy man : my work would be pleasure, my business cares childsplay. More so, if kind Providence would take from me my little savings, I would work for such a woman as my strength would permitt. Now, dearest, remember ! did not try to deceive you in my representation. I am, indeed, a plain man of business, and claim no gredit either of ability nor sociality : but I know I got a heart which can love when I find the object meriting my affections. Yon are that being I love; you have got my afections. It is strange, certainly; I saw so little of you, and yet it seems to me as if I knew you for years. How home I felt in your peaceably house ; the dear old lady interested me much—more, she amused me very much, because I like the sort of friendly (.position, conversation, and your d>ve-like looking sister (happy Newman !) and, last, if not least, your brother, who is realy a remarkably fine young man: it is but seldom we find in such a youth the love for his hojqe and ffis kindred. But, alas j lam spraying front my subject. Pardon suph. J ppu|d not vepgitt them which ffavc bpep so sincerely kind to mo, gince I am back I tryed to banish what I conpplcred a fpily from my rnemoiy, but these I have not succeeded in. Contrary; your picture Is before me—your voice sweetly sounds to my ear; and I ask myself, Will these form, these pleasing face ever be mine ; and I says, Hope ; and hope I will. If my apeal is successful, I have obtained my object—that is to say, a compensation for the past. God will store lots of happy years for me and of course what is myn is naturally youi s. Came vergitt you are accomplished, you possess superior Education, you are more used to Society than myself; but remember you can restore to a eloudet heart its former energy and love which is allready alive—for you. Dearest, be mindful! Ido not apeal to you as a cold* blooded proposer; I apoal from the voice of my heart. I work for money, but mary for love. It is with you, therefore, to decide my fate. May I mention the brittish law says any doubts give the prisoner the benefitt! If you accept, ]lease send me telegram the word yes, otherwise, write. Please the later words make my heart beate. Farewell. “J, Wenkheim. “ Mies Maria Beavor.” The learned Judge said this affair was not like a contract for a hogshead of sugar. Was this not something like it in his mind ? That was the first time he ever mentioned anything of love to Miss Beaver—he never previously saw one of the family, only saw her twice, and yet say* “telegraph the word yes.” “ Queenstown, May 26, 1872. “ Dearest Miss,—When serving a customer, the postman delivered your esteemed Note, saying—“ It is rather cold I, on the contrary, felt rather warm. First, I beg to thank you for your kind words, which, if not alltogether realised my great desire, still gave me hope, and with hope a man will defy obstacles. Como what will, I urge on and pray to God to inspire your heart with such feelings as to love such a little fe|low like myself. After such prayer, I reel air ft ‘a 1 ' voice' 1 says;' “jjjodYs wijh you—fear not J '’“AM : yet : my 1 'lioart beats,' a'sense tod overcomes so unaccustomed to me, that my thoughts are different than ever before. Your dear face comes before me and I am happy; business cares have passed, and then lamin a new world. But, alias ! I have to return to reality and strife tojjfullfil, the duty*, Which, Regards the later, thank God, I r.thliberaly supleyd. I am in the midst of buasiftess; God has'given me the s|rengj;h Jo guide fey afairs, an 1 tjii; inosf dr 'the pefeple here show theyr good will by patronizing me'freely. '■ All I want, all I desire, is my dear, dear Maria, and then I will vergitt a 1! past trials, kind Providence is allrady rewarding me by improving my health considerably. Wk*fl J pame back from Dunedin'the he& house was little H6n<| to.' Tijrjragji rpy 1 Achieved to accomplish to meet the ndV'erflsemeht 1 send q head qf ipe. The day applnten I was behind the counter," and the new phme was thronged up to a |atp hour, Vps, I felt proud; but bow proud would I have been coqld I have served a dear young lady called Miss Maria Beaver. J know you smile i you say I would not have thought he is supn a'fool; and, indeed, I did think it myself. I said in my former letter I niver loved truly before now; and now, poor me, I am the devoted slave to Cupid, and all in so short a time. When in Dunedin my first evening I spend in jour dear darling home, I felt so happy. It mindet me on the home of my childhood; loving smiles, kind words, all around me; and then, with a heavy heart, I retraced my steps to my hotel. I hastened to my hedrporp, |mt sleep would put release my inm^natiy ; p'brain—my'deafrild mbthßi*,' niV brothers and sisters all arpuhd mp. Then I felt that I was drifted on (the shpres pf a fpendlpss wild land j whore mep sacrificed thoyr joups Wo for wealth; HQ thinking suddenly ypur clear image stands bright before me, which forces away the faen* of my kindred and oets pares and loneliness. flly blood rushed first through my brains, and I say God help me, and God will help me, lam sure. It is his will we shall be united. I know kind heaven has many happy years for us in store, and therefore dear, dear Hiss become my >y|fo do not fear, t»ur God will be with us, I give you my plain hut truly word of honor I will endeavor with all my efforts to mako ( you happy; and may it please heaven to inspire you with such a generous mind that in case my way* should be defective, you will take the will for the deed. In your dear letter you said you asked yourself over and over again ‘ls such language the dictation of his heart; I am rather inclined to believe than doubt.’ Thousand thank, generous soul; and as true as I love God, they were the dictation of my heart. I dispbe deception, and CYCfi |f my eternal b»pp|ness were at stake, £ w,oujd not demean juj*eif before you, td‘ dibble you ! to accuse me fff Bdih. ' d I am a plain man ; you »re my superior m accomplishment; but what docs that matter to people who love. Love knowes no obstacles. As regards principle, I am your equal. Proudly can I say my name is Bpattles (? spotless). It has nivor been my aim to be great, but nivertbeless I am respected, and even by those whose society I avoid. You said your dear brother would visit our district shortly. These makes me much plassure in many ways. Untill then, I bid you good-by. May it please God to direct your heart iu favour of the (what you aillcd me) inch a little feluW- tffese"littlte felow nV.wri'ifhC gajnlTtjiesp dpar trassnre, he will give it up agAm. And now alow me to remain, yours ever true, J. Wenkheim- P.S. r-=My kind regard to your dear sister Laura, and your dear brother, J.W., Mis* Maria Beaver. Please reply.” He seems to have been at business to the very last.

[Wo are obliged to hold over the remainder of Mr Stout’s speech.] His Honor, in summing up, said: The instructions which I will give are very simple and few, and I hope to compress any remarks within a very short period of time. The action In the uspal form for breaph of promise of marriage, arid a'spmewhat unusual feature in the case —upusnal, at all events, in this country, though cases have occurred not unfrequeutly in the Mother country—is, that it is the man who 1> plaintiff suing the ladv, who has since married another person, for damages, Undoubtedly in the present state of the law for years—for centimes in fact—-the man is considered to have an equal right to sustain this action as the woman. There is no distinction in point of law ; there may perhaps be some difference in the minds of the jury when they conic to consider the question of damages, but as a legal question the right is as well and firmly established in the man who is injured as in th° of a woman. In this cpsq observations have Iwp that partieabtlohgtQ m Jewish

persuasion. lam quite sure that will not affect their case in any way in your minds. Religious prejudices must of course be banished if they do exist. There may be prejudices lurking in the minds of ns, which we cannot wholly ■’radicate ; if there be any such in themindsof you gentlemen, I an quite sure you will banish them from the jury-box. All persons, whatever their nationality, faith, or color, have a right to equal justice in a court of justice : it is the sworn duty of jurors to give a verdict according to evidence, and nothing else. Some prejudice sometimes exists against persons of this faith on account of their sharp commercial dealings—l believe there is some truth in the fact that they are keen traders; —but in the domestic circle —in so far as their domestic affections are concerned —the members of the Jewish persuasion set an example to others ; and certainly, so far as we know them, they are in their charitable relations as generous as any other faith. There is another circumstance which I think I ought to call attention to as a preliminary matter; it is this, certain letters have been printed in this morning’s Star and Daily Times —how they got there I don’t know; they were not put in evidence, but I dare say it occurs through all the letters having been briefed together. Some of them, on objection raised, were not permitted to be given in evidence, and were therefore excluded ; and though there has been nothing intentionally wrong on the part of the newspapers, the observation I have to make is this : 1 hat if any of the jury have glanced over the papers have seen the letters which were not in evidence, they ■will not let them influence them in any way. They are not part of the evidence ; and let me again remind you your sworn duty is to give a verdict upon the evidence before you. . . It is necessary in an action of this description thar there should be two elements. First of all you must be convinced that an engagement has taken place—what the law technically calls mutual promises—and that the engagement was subsisting between the parties. If you come to the conclusion against that supposition—that there was no engagement—then there is an end of the whole affair. If you come to the conclusion that there was an engagement subsisting, the next element is, that it has been broken. If there was an engagement, there is no doubt that it has been broken, and in a most effectual manner, by marrying another person. The third issue, therefore, whatever your opinion iqay be on the others, you must find in the affirmative, The first issue is, whether there ever was a contract? whether there were mutual promises? whether there was an engagement between the parties ? If you think there was a contract, your answer to the first issue will he in the affirmative; if you think there never was an engagement, you will negative the second issue, which is that Miss Beaver, now Mrs Arndt, refused to marry in breach of the engagement, because if therewasnoagreement, she could not have refused to mairy. You will therefore perceive that the stress of the case lays in the first issue. In an action of this sort it is not necessary to prove so clear and distinct a contract as in a case of bargain and sale: for instance, it is not absolutely necessary to prov. in this case that the man said, “Will you marry me,” and that the lady said, “I will marry you.” Of course, if that can be proved to have been done in the presence of witnesses or done in writing, it is the most satisfactory evidence of mutual promise. But it most often happens that what is vulgarly termed “popping the question” takes place in secret. The gentleman asks the lady in such eloquent phrases as he can muster if she is willing to become his -wife : she simpers nut “yes,” or sheds a few tears upon his shirt breast.--(Laughter.) She gives her consent in such a way that none but themselves hear it. Our law docs not permit the plaintiff or defendant to go into the witnessbox : so wo can never get the manner in which the contract itself has been made; therefore, the law permits contract to be collected from the love letters, conduct, and demeanor of the parties, from the man visiting the young woman at the parents’ home or her own house, if she lived alone. Therefore, in correspondence of this sort, it is not absolutely necessary that you should be able to collect a distinct promise and distinct acceptance, provided you collect from the general tenor of the correspondence which is relied on, that there have been such love passages between the parties—either by letter or byword of mouth—as will enable you to determine that there was a subsisting engagement. With that directiion I shall leave the matter in your hands, , . .

The pn|y question that I’cmains tor you to dctorniiile is * the extent of damages yon give. Upon that, which is entirely a question for you to determine, I shall give no direction beyond those of a general character. Vindictive damages are not claimed ; if they were, they ought not to be given. . . . It is a question for the jury to give such reasonable damages as they may consider fair compensation for the injury for which plaintiff claims.

The jury, after a very short retirement, returned al yerdiej for the plaintiff—damages, one farthing. Each side pays bis own costs.