ruary.SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 9.fBefto't Mr, Under Sheriff Bfrchell and a Special J\o7/.)BBEACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. —CROSS V. LENNOX.This was an action in which judgment was suffered to go by default for breach of promise of marriage. The damages were laid at 1000/. A*special jury, at the instance of the defendant, was summoned on the execution of a writ of inquiry to assess the compensation to be awarded.ill*. Overend, Q.C., with Mr. TIndal Atkinson, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. C. W. F. Day, with whom was Mr. Maedonnell, for the defendant.The plaintiff, Eliza Cross, is the daughter of Mr. Cross, the proprietor of the Eagle Hotel, Winchester, and about 25 years of age, and .the defendant, Mr. Patrick James Lennon, is a gentloman of property, and#was said to be an American, residing at North House, Regent’s Park, and stated to be about 30 years old. Mr. Cross was also stated to be a lay vicar of Winchester Cathedral. In 1861 the defendant visited the Eagle and saw the plaintiff; he had then recently lost his wife, who had left him with an infant. He subsequently visited the hotel with a friend, and was waited upon by the plaintiff. He had a communication with Mr. Cross, and proiosed to pay his addresses to his daughter. Mr. Cross told him he had built the house, and had nothing to give her till he died. The defendant professed his love, and said he was a gentleman of property. Mr. Cross and his wife visited the, defendant at his house in Regent’s Pafk, where he kept a very good establishment, and several servants, including a man servant. He showed Mr. Cross his title deeds of his property abroad, and said he paid his steward 250/. a year. The defendant had written more than 50 letters to the plaintiff, in wliich he called her his own pet, his darling love, and used other terms of endearment. In July last he ceased to correspond, and in answer to a letter from Mr. Cross referredto his state of health, and that he had mistaken his feelings towards his daughter.The witnesses called in support of the plaintiffs case were her father, her step-mother, and her uncle. It Appeared that on one occasion the defendant was the worse for liquor. # Mrs. Cross and the plaintiff stayed one night with him in his bed-room, as he was very nervous, anddid not like to be left alone. The parties were cross-examined with Hie view of showing that the defendantsuffered from delirium tremens. Mrs. Cross admitted that she stayed in the bed-room whilst he went to bed; and she also said the plaintiff had told her that if he did not alter his habits he would die soon. She did not remember the plaintiff saying he would soon go into a lunatic asylum. It was admitted that the plaintiff had had a prior engagement of marriage. The dresses were bought for her marriage with the defendant, and all that remained was for him to fix the day.No witnesses were called for the defendant.Mr. Overend, Q.C., complained of the defendant’s conduct, and asked the jury to award to the plaintiff ample damages for the Bevsre loss she had sustained.Mr. Day addressed the jury in mitigation of damages, erring that the defendant’s bad state of health and his habits rendered the marriage incompatible with happiness to the plaintiff. Although he had not called witnesses, he wished it to be -known that the defendant was not a native of the United States, and when the Americans repudiated their engagements it was necessary that it should be known, lest he might suffer in the estimation of the jury (laughter}. The learned counsel said there was not the slightest imputation on the plaintiff’s conduct—her conductwas irreproachable.The learned Under Sheriff left it to the jury to estimate the Iqss the young lady had sustained, and after a consultation of about twenty minutes they assessed the damagesat 400f.Hie case occupied three hours.