MARFLEET Including variants e.g. MERFLET(T); MARFLETE; MARFLIT(T); MARFLIGHT, etc. Family History



Extract from:
The Times
27th July 1861





MIDLAND CIRCUIT
LINCOLN, JULY 25

NISI PRIUS COURT. - (Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)

COUPLAND v. MARFLEET

Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Wills, were for the plaintiff; Mr. Mellor and Mr. F. Lushington for the defendant.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a lady 22 years of age, to recover damages for a breach of promise of marriage made by the defendant.

The defendant pleaded that he did not promise, and that he was released by the plaintiff from his engagement.

It appeared from the statement of the learned cousel for the plaintiff that she was the eldest of three unmarried daughters of Mrs. Coupland, who, during the life of her first husband, Mr. Coupland, lived at Freestone Priory, but after his death had married a Mr. Haywood, with whom her daughter lived at Wellingore at the time of the alleged promise. The defendant was the son of Mr. Edward Marfleet, a large maltster living near Newark; but he himself lived at Boothby as a gentleman and sportsman, taking very great interest in local sporting matches. In 1859 Miss Coupland met the defendant at a garden party at Mr. Spafford's, of Boothby, where among the amusements usual to such fashionable entertainments was "Aunt Sally". The acquaintance formed here was renewed in the spring of 1860, when the defendant made proposals to her, of which she informed her mother, and from that day he became a constant visitor at Mr. Haywood's, as an acceptable suitor. Miss Coupland went to visit an elder married sister in London, whither she was escorted by the defendant, who took lodgings near enough to allow of his visiting her daily during the month or six weeks of her stay there. After their return from London the plaintiff, on account of a misunderstanding with her stepfather, went to lodge with a Mr. and Mrs. Hugoe, at Navenby, where the defendant continued to visit her until an estrangement took place arising out of an occurance, which general rumour brought to the ears of the lady, that the defendant had been seen in a lane kissing his cousin, a girl 13 years of age. Being taxed by the plaintiff, he told her that there was no harm in it and that he should do it again, and he said on leaving that he would not return for some time, but they shook hands and parted amicably. A number of letters written by the defendant, clearly showing the terms upon which he and the plaintiff were, were put in, and referred to "delicious moments passed under the shade of the pine trees," which "still wore the same aspect," and to a bird belonging to the plaintiff's  sister,  which "was not like  other  birds  and would not have died if she had been at Wellingore."

Only one letter written by the plaintiff was put in, which was the following:-
 My dear Charles, - I have been anxiously expecting to see you, and
 am at a loss to understand your remaining away so long, unless your
 heart has found some other charm. But my principal reason is to tell
 you that at the beginning of next month I shall have to leave Navenby,
 as Mr. and Mrs. Hugoe are going from home; and, as at that time the
 period of our engagement will have elapsed, will you kindly let me
 know, personally or otherwise, what steps you purpose taking towards
 fulfilling your promise by the end of this week? Hoping to see or hear
 from you soon, as I am in great suspense.
                                 "Yours sincerely,
                                         "CHARLOTTE COUPLAND."

To this the defendant answered as follows:-
 Dear Charlotte, - I am very much surprised at the tenour of your
 letter; and, in justice to myself, I must remind you of what took
 place at the scene of our last parting. You cannot have forgotten the
 dismissal you then gave me. When you displayed such violence to-
 wards me I said that I would stay away for a time. You once told me,
 with a bitterness not to be surpassed, that if I did not come again be-
 fore the expiration of that week I need not come again. After that
 week had expired I thought and trusted you would, after reflection,
 see the injustice you had treated me with, and remove your veto upoon
 my coming, so that we might have had a mutual explanation; but it
 was not to be so. An interview now would be of no avail. I once 
 hoped that what your mother said of your temper was at least ex-
 aggerated. I now feel that our tempers can have no communion. I am
 sorry that it should be so, but, on taking a review of all my actions
 towards you, I cannot charge myself with anything to regret, and with
 a sincere prayer for your future welfare.
                                    "I am yours truly,
                                          "CHARLES E. MARFLEET."

These letters, the learned counsel for the  plaintiff contended, clearly negatived the defendant's plea, that the engagement had been rescinded by mutual consent.

Mr. MELLOR addressed the jury, with a view to disabuse them of the notion that the defendant was a wealthy squire.

He contended that the evidence only showed a conditional engagement, which was to last until the end of the year. The jury found for the plaintiff, with 500l. damages.
© Marfleet Family History 2000
John's Homepage
 Newspaper Extract
This page was last updated
Go to Contents
This page contains links to other web-sites. If you experience problems with an onward link, please e-mail me with details so that the problem can be rectified. Thank you.

Family History Banner Exchange