Star. — London, England, 1823-07-22 00:00:00

ASSIZES. YORK, JULY 19. SIDUCTION.—WALKER V. 91.11111 C. This was an action in which the plaintiffsouAht to recover by damages compensation for the i rolovices of his daughter, of which services he had been , deprived by the seduction of the girl by the defendant. Mr. HARDY stated the plaintiff's case. The plain tiff had-been a cloth merchant, and resided at Wort- . ley, and the defendant was a maltster, and had kept a shop also in the neighbourhood. The latter had been married to two wives, and was then a widower. He was introduced to the family of the plaintiff by a Mr. William Thornton, on Christmas -day, 1821 ; on his introduction that day to Miss,Walker, he expressed himself highly gratified at the introduction; so struck was he with the young Lady's accomplishments, she having played on the piano, and accompanied her self with her voice in the morning, that he repeated his visit the same evening, and made an avowal of the most honourable intentions. He talked of his own property, of his not looking for money by way of fortune ; for he well knew that the father of the Lady bad been a bankrupt some time before. The defendant was engaged in building extensive pre mises for his malting business at the time, and had acknowledged, that independently of his freehold property, he was worth two thousand pounds. His visits were continued under this understanding of his acknowledged views, until, in the course of the sub sequent February, he had . the address to persuade Miss Walker to an intercourse, of which her preg nancy was the effect. The Jury would find, as was too often instanced in cases when the base passions were gratified, that after he had made his victim ac cede to his desires, he became cool in his attentions, until he at length abandoned her, and was afterwards married to another woman. On the 6th of March, 1822, he addressed a letter to Miss Walker, in which he states, that he found, with deep regret, that she had' denied seeing him when he called ; that he found she had been out to very late hours three suc cessive nights ; that, with a knowledge of his own faults, he felt, that two of the same description would ill suit, and that he judged it, therefore, most ad visable to bring the business to a close. It - was with deep concern he was, he said, brought to that deter mination. That was the sort of dismissal which he was pleased to give a woman whom he had deceived and sacrificed to his own base gratification. He (Mr. Hardy) knew well the talents of his Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham), whose duty it would be to address them for the defendant ; he was conscious of his own inability to contend with him, hut he called upon the Jut y, as fathers of females—as persons who were themselves at the head of a domestic circle, to weigh the injuries the plaintiff had sustained by the ruin of his daughter. lie asked them to extend to the plain tiff that consideration a hich, were he in the box as a Juryman, and any of them a plaintiff seeking redress, they would wish to have meted out to themselves. Miss Mary Walker, is the daughter of William Walker; her father is a cloth merchant; his family consists of two sons and three daughters, the lather, and a female servant ; she knows the defendant, and Las known him for 1.1 years ; he lives a quarter of a mile from her father's; he has been twice married; he visited frequently at her house during his wife's lifetime. His wife died at Christmas, 1821; she was dead about five weeks; he came to her house with Mr. Thomas Thornton and Mr. Wm. Beatson. No thing material happened on Christmas-day ; they asked her to play on the piano, which she did. They . went away at noon ; ,saw him again in the evening, with Mr. Wm. Beatson ; her father was at home both times ; he staid then at her house till about nine o'clock. Mr. lleatson was there only a part of the time; the defendant called her out, and said he wished to have a little conversation with her. Wit ness told him th:y were going to supper, and that if he would stop, she would afterwards converse with him. He said that Mr. Thornton was taken ill, and he would go and inquire after him, and then return. Ile came, back in the course of an hour ; he said to her separately that be was in want of a wife, and that the witness had been recommended to him; he told her his age was 36 ;her age was 29. It was strange, witness said, for him to come, when he buried his wife so. lately. The defendant said it certainly was, but that he was in such a situation that he could not do without a wife, he must have one ; he wanted a mother for his child, and to assist him in his busi ness; he was at that time a shopkeeper as well as a maltster; his late wife principally attended to the shop. She (the witness) told him that she would not fo to be a shopkeeper; be said be did not wish her; It was Isis intention to give up the shop; be began telling her how much he was worth ; he could safely say, after all his debts were paid, that he was worth £2OOO, perhaps £2500; his estates paid him about £l5O per annum. He remained till twelve o'clock that night. Witness answered by saying " Well, Mr. Clerk, I do not know what your intentions are, but we have had a great deal . of trouble in the family." She said her father was unable to give her any for tune at present. He replied his intentions were strictly honourable, and that he did not want money. She hoped they were honourable, and he pledged himself they were. He then took leave, and said be would -come again on the Sunday after. It was Christmas -day, and on a Tuesday. He came on the • Sunday following. Witness in the meantime had a conversation with her father on the subject. He be came a frequent visitor after that; she remembered receiving a letter from him. On the 24th of February she yielded to his desires, and became with child. On the 22d of November the child was born, and the defendant, Clerk, is the father. During the courtship her eldest sister was absent 17 weeks. Her sister and herself manage the domestic concerns of her father. When her sister was absent the whole of the duties devolved upon her. Cross-examined by Mr. BRODGIIAM — She is now . 1 30; Thornton it was who introduced the defendant to witness; he came in the evening of Sunday, just after six and staid perhaps till twelve; does not know that he stopped till one; her brother was in the same room part of the time; her brother was there more than an hour ; -her father was in the house; her bro ther went to bed by about ten o'clock ; and her father about nine, he went to bed soon after Clerk arrived ; on Christmas night her father was iu bed when the defendant returned ; witness told her father that he was returning; when she asked him to stay sapper, he said he wanted a !agile; Ad during the time he was away she mentioned it to her father ; her father had just retired when the defendant came back; her bro ther stopped some time, and left them together; he took no liberties on the Tuesday, nothing passed ,thebe tween them • second night nothing material passed, will swear that ; the third time will not say. (Mr. Brougham said be would not press her farther.) It was in the parlour without a sofa ; the defendant and witness retired once into the kitchen; before he left the house she went through the kitchen with him; he came three nights straight forward; her father went to bed at his bed hour ; be staid till two o'clock on a Sunday in February; he came several nights three times running; he generally stopped till twelve, and once till two ; he is a maltster, and keeps a kiln. Examined by the Defendant—Had offered inde cencies to her many times before he succeeded; that took place on the 24th of February, that was the first time; lie was several times at her father's, sometimes she did not see him. Jacob Brook identified the defendant's hand-writ ing ; he is a maltster, and was a shopkeeper at Wort ley beside ; his ma lt-kiln is new; his freehold pre perty,*viz. the house and malt-kiln he should think worth .170 a year; he had other property, but he dis posed of it about last November. Cross. examined by 'Mr. ALDERSON—He is the pa rish schoolmaster, but not the parish clerk, if they mean the Amen Clerk. Examined—The houses were sold about the time the child was born. Mr. BROUGHAM then addressed the Jury. He was ready to admit that the plaintiff was entitled to a ver dict; the very proof of the seduction of the daughter entitled the father, beyond all question to it. But on estimating the amount of damages to which such a father was entitled for the seduction of such a daughter, it became his duty to tender to them his assistance in ascertaining what the conduct of the parent himself, as well as of the daughter, really gave a claim to in the shape of compensation. If the fa ther has evinced carelessness and the daughter ex hibited facility—if he, in place of being vigilant and cautious, has been studiously negligent and re miss—and she, in place of being repelling and diffi dent, has been most forward—then they were bound by every sense of what war due to justice and to decorum, to cut down the damages to a very mode rate. sum. His Learned Friend who had , in the ab sence of Mr. Scarlett, so ably conducted his side of the case, had placed bins (Mr. Brougham) under no small embarrassment. He had argued the case as if it were not an action for seduction, but an action for a bleach of promise of marriage. Ile has had the benefit of the daughter's testimony because it is an action for seduction, and he has been endeavouring to inflame the nature of that seduction by considering it as a breach of promise of marriage. Observe also, the hard case in which the defendant is placed by such a course. On the morrow, though he should be mulcted in damages this day jor the seduction, he will be exposed to the action of the daughter for a breach of promise of marriage. The girl has been made a' species of family property. In money, and in money alone, the affair commenced; with refer ence to money it was conducted, and in money it would terminate. He was going to say, that by this course the attempt was made to wheedle them out of damages. It was true that hi sLearnedFriend told them, that it he had 'said anything extraneous, his Lordship would tell them to banish it from their con.ideration. Did it not occur to his Learned Friend that it would be a much easier course not at all to state what was extraneous, and being extraneous, was incompetent, and being incompetent, ought not to have been said ; than to go through the operation of first hearing it, and then endeavouring to dismiss it from the atten tion ; wouldit not be better -to keep the linen or the paper free from soil, rather than first sully it, because in a subsequent process you may restore its purity ? •As to the facts of the present case, they were short. If a father, careful and anxious for the character of his family, has sustained one of the greatest injuries that can be inflicted, by the seduction of a daughter, brought up in a sen e of virtue and decorum ; and evidencing that sense, even when her affections have been engaged in a long struggle and resit.tance to the wiles and importunities of the seducer—such a father was and ought to be the object of the fullest com miseration, and such a se loser was a proper subject for the most exemplary damages. But if a father has throwi his daughter in the way of temptation ; if, on being told of what was going on, he forbears to inter pose for the prevention of his daughter's degradation; it' he was found always retiring, to allow opportu nities to the seducer of his child; if he was found always sleeping while they were wooing ; if for nights successively the parties were allowed to be in a room together alone; if precautions were taken, not that they should, but that they should not be impeded, then he would tell them, what they must anticipate, that such a parent had no claims to the character of a easeful father. Had the plaintiff any such claim? Let his own conduct give the explanation. Did the daughter appear either in her manner or in the cha racter of a diffident girl ? 'fake the whole of her tes timony to the very letter, in the sense she intended it, and was it possible to discover a glimpse of that shrinking delicacy which a sense of modesty naturally suggested to the female heart, when a proposal of af fection or of marriage was mlide to her by a man ? The first day of the introduction, but five weeks after the death of kis last wife, the proposal of love and mar riage was made to her, as she swears, by the defendant. She was treated as a bale of goods, and yerexpressed no feeling of reluctance, or even hesitation, at a pro position thus made. She. asked him, she said, to stay supper, for the purpose of.having this interesting con. versation ; and, strange to say, the ardent lover re fused the invitation. It could not escape the obser vation of the Jury, as it had not escaped,the obser vation of his Lordship, or himself (Mr. Brougham), that though in her direct examination she told the more probable story, namely, that it was not until the defendant returned the second time on Christmas night that he made her the offer, yet in her cross examittation she changed suddenly, and swore that both before he went away in the early part of the night, and after he returned, he addressed the same words to her. She never whispered a syllable in her first statement of the proposal of marriage being made until after the return of the defendant. Did the Jury see the cause of 'that change ? It was this. The father, it was in evidence, had gone to bed; it became essential, thertfine, that she should as she proceeded, class the story of the proposal of mar riage an hour or two earlier, because that interval allowed of its being told to the father, and would ac count for his leaving the pirties together. He was to be saved from reproach, lest his claim for damages might be depreciated. The story, it was true, suited better with the interest of the plaintiff, but, as fre quently happened in such contrivances, there was not time enough to make it a consistent story.— Was it conceivable that a man should go thus unne cessarily twice over the same ground, that before he retired for a time, he should say—" I want a wife, and you have been recommended to me;" and that on his return he should repeat the same conversation in the same words? But, if he had even repeated them, would she, as she has sworn here, have alio repeated she same answer about the death of the wife? Was it not more natural to think she would have said, " Why, you have told all that a while ago."— But where was the necessity of telling it to her father twice, once before he went to bed, Christmas night, and in the course of the week between the Tuesday and Sunday ? . These considerations were very ma terial, as they went to shew what sort of a witness the daughter was. Besides, it must strike them that she wished it to appear that she resisted the impor tunities of the defendant, although such a conclusion was repugnant to the whole of her story. The last day she saw him, she made the time of her submis. sion to his will, and that day, the 24th of February, it would seem, was fixed, in order to meet the birth of her child on the 22d of the November following, viz. nine months after, wanting two days.—The Jury would recollect her cross-examination, they would recollect her answer to the question of what occurred at the third interview, in a room without a bed or a sofa. That question was, 64 Will you, witness say, that nothing material occurred at that intervie w ? ' finding a dead pause he did not press her, but in order to set her up again his Learned Friend re-examined her, and extracted from her that she admitted many indecencies before she finally sub mitted. What sort of a woman was that that in twelve days, five weeks after the paramour had lost his wife, submitted to those disgusting indecen cies, and allowed them to be repeated on her person? If she was seduced on that third visit, the better for her own sense of shame; if she were not seduced, but still allowed the repetition of those disgusting inde cencies, and to be terminated in a seduction within five or six weeks, she had little claim to considera• tion. Were she virtuously inclined, she would have at once dismissed him, complained to her father, or took comfort from her brother. Every woman of a virtuous disposition can defend her own virtue in such circumstances, for there was no proof that any force had been exerted. But even here the indelica cies were aggravated by the gross manner in which they were carried into effect, for they need not be told that even an indelicate act can at least be exe cuted in a less revolting manner. All the decencies of life were here disregarded. Parlour or kitchen were all equal—as were carpet, kitchen table, dresser, or sanded floor. He did believe that the defendant bad at one time entertained the wish to marry her, but that disgusted by her levities of conduct, finding her a true street gadder, he had abandoned his origi nal determination. As to the father, he would say, that the bare bringing of such an action betokens no great susceptibility of feelings ; but what could they think of a father who appeared so little under the sense of shame, and so little ruffled by that awful si tuation to men of other nerves, that he has actually placed himself prominently forward in this Court to listen to the tale of his daughter's ruin—that he was seen by a crowded Court to laugh loudest at the vul gar joke of the paid' schoolmaster : and that at the moment he was confronting the Advocate who was obliged to comment on his conduct and that of his daughter? He left him to the Jury, trusting that they would not allow him to convert his daughter's shame to his own profit, but defeat by their verdict, the base and scandalous speculation. . - The Jury retired, and brought in a verdict for the plaintiff of 1:250 damages--. 405. costs. . STAFFORD, JULY 19. CLARKE V. WEBSTER AND ANOTHER. This was an action brought by a farmer of Staf fordshire against Mr. Webster ; a gentleman of the same county, and his gamekeeper, for shooting the dog of the plaintiff. Mr. JERVIS, for the plaintiff, represented the act of killing the dog in question as entirely needless, if not wanton. The defendants had pleaded, besides the general issue, that the dog " was accustomed to attack and bite mankind," and also that he assailed the defendants, who .shot him to rescue themselves from his fangs. For these charges there was not the slightest foundation : the dog, which was a yard-dog, and employed to guaid the house, was of the gentlest disposition, except when turned loose at night, suf fered children to ride on kiis back, and manifested a degree of instinct which added greatly to his value. In support of this case witnesses were called, who deposed to the gentleness of the dog, and who stated that on the day in question the defendants, without provocation, shot at him and killed him. Mr. PEARsoN, for the defendants, expressed hi s be lief that he should completely prove both parts of his justification to the full satisfaction - of the Jury. He called witnesses, who swore that the defendants were out with pointers; that the dog, which was of the bull-dog species,'first worried them ; and a gun being fired merely for the purpose of alarm, he came deli berately towards Mr. Webster and his servant in the attitude of attack, and was necessarily shot to preserve them from his fury.. He also called several person who who stated that the dog had run towards people, especially some Irishmen, as if to bite them; but no person proved that he, m any other persod , was actually bitten. Mr. JERVIS began to reply, but was stopped by Mr. Justice PA K, who expressed his opinion that the defence had wholly failed, and that the plaintiff must have a verdict. He did not impute deliberate cruelty to the defendants, but believed that they had killed the dog under an impression of fear, for which there was no adequate cause. The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Z. Paul Davis was indicted for manslaughter, in kill ing his son, Wm. Davis, by a stone, which he threw at him, and which struck him on the head. It appeared that the prisoner was a mason, carrying on business at Wolverhampton, and that the deceased; , a lad of 14 years of age, worked with him in his NEWGATE A No LEADENHALL MARK ETS. JULY U. Beef .., 2s Od to 5s 8d I Veal Mutton.. ...... 2s 41 to 3s 8d Pork 2a 4(1 to 51 Ild Lamb - 2s 84 to 48 Od. . PRICES or HAY Awn STRAW YESTERDAY. IT. TIMMS'S. WHITSCRAPSI.. Hay 41 Os Od to 51 10, Od 1 Hay 51 18s to 51 10, 04 Bfraw 21 21 Od to 21 141 Od Straw 11 18s to 21 103 04 I Clover 41 4s Od to 61 Os Od Clover 41 15s to 61 6s Od PRICE or TALLOW, Town Tallow 39s Od Yellow Russia 37. 6d White ditto Soap ditto Melting Stuff... SOAP, &c. per 112 Th. Ditto rough l9s Yellow Soap Mottled ... Curd B9 Palm IMir .trade. On the 6th May last, he went into his walk. shop, and found his.son lying down instead of woi k ing, on which he called him an idle rascal, and began to beat him with a rope. The lad ran out of the premises, the father followed in a violent passion, and threw a stone at him, which, as he was without his hat, struck him on the head. Blood flossed copiously from the wound, but no danger was apprehended, and he continued partially to attend to business for several days. As, however, he cornplained of pain, and manifested symptoms of indisposition, Mr. Dick inson, a surgeon, was called in, who dressed the wound, and prescribed for the patient, whom he thought labouring under violent cold. He continued to go about till .the 29th day of May, when fever came on; he rapidly grew worse, and on the 7th of June died. Upon dissecting the head, it was found that the skull was fractured, and that matter and blood - accumulated at the part, which had not before been suspected as the primary cause of the illness. Mr. Best, a surgeon, who examined the head as welt as Mr. Dickinson, deposed, .that a fracture of this kind would not usually produce death, and that cold probably heightened its effects, and ultimately ren dered it fatal. Mr. Baron HULLOCK left the Jars to decide whe• ther the blow was the original cause cf the disorder; as in such case the prisoner would be chargeable with the death of his son, although under other cir cumstances it might not have followed the highly im proper mode of correction which he had been led, in a fit of anger, to employ. The Jury immediately found the prisoner Guilty. Two of his neighbours were afterwards called, who represented him as having the character of a humane man and a kind father. Mr. Baton HULLOCK shortly admonished the psi toner, who was much affected, to rests ain his passion in future, and sentenced him to three months' impri sonment in the county gaol. Hacrser-Coacit-Orrtes.—Mr. MACDONALD, constable, Haymarket Theatre, summoned the driver of a hackney chariot, to answer to a complaint for obstructing the front of the T4eatte, on the night of the 11th inst. The officer having made out his charge in a very clear manner, and stated that he was very much annoyed .with hackney coaches when the Theatre was breaking up, which rendered it mostly impossible to get the Gentlemen's carriages up In time to take up their respective fa milies, the Commissioners fined the coachman 20s. and requested the officer to summon any hackney coachman that should attempt anything of the kind in future, and he would have proper sails. faction of such offenders. BIitTHS. Wednesday, Mrs. Vining, wife of Mr. Vining,of the Theatre Royal, Haymarket, of a daughter. July 15, the Lady of Lieutenant-Colonel Burgoyne, Royal Engineers, of a daugbter. _ _ MARRIED. July 1, at Fortrose, the Rev. Robert Miloe, Chaplain of Fort George, to Jane Gordon, third daughter of Cohn Matheson, Esq. of Beanctstield. DIED. Thursday, at Shrubbery Cottage, Walworth, the Rev. This. &retton, in his 72d year. July 13, at Bath, where he had gone for the recovery of his health, Sir Henry Whtte ' of Portsmouth, aged 61. Thursday, at Leatherhead, Surrey, the Rev. John Atkinson, in his 52d year. Friday, at Langley Park, Bucks, of a decline, after a severe Wness of 12 months, Louisa Harvey, youngest daughter of Sir Robert Bateson Harvey, Bart. July 1, at the Manse of Newhills, in which Parish he has been 25 years Minister, the Rev. George Allan, in the 66th year of his age, and 41st of his Ministry. Sunday, in Curson-street, May-fair, aged 64, Mrs. Mary Cot terell, sister to Sir John Geers Cotterell, Ban. M. P. A few days since, the Rev. Benjamin Holmes, Rector of Freshwater, Isle of Wight, aged 72 years. He has most gene rously bequeathed to the poor of the parish of Freshwater, £4OO, and £4O to each of his servants, to buy mourinvg. At St. George's, in the island of Grenada Wert Indies, on the Bth of April last, James, son of the late Rev. Mr. Urquhart, Minister of Rossteen, Ross-shire. May 7, at the island of St. Vincent, James M'Caul, Esq. of Belvidere. PRICE OF CANDLES—From Tallow Chandlers Ilan. Candles, per doz. as ad—Moulds, 10s Od; 6d. per dozes allowed for ready money. PRICE 0 WSW ZAGS. HOPS. MILK POCKETS. Kent Sussex 6l Os to 71 7* Essex Foreign Kent 6l 101 to 81 51 Sussex 6l 21 so 71 ISt Esse: Farnham 5l Os tots! Cis RAW HIDES. I Best Heifers and Steers (per Ordinary... 2s 6d to 21 M stone) 55 4d to sa 6d Market Calf Its Od to Os 04 Middlings 3 B Od to St 2d Ifog.Horse os od to Os 04 COAL MARKET, JULY 21. N eweastle 365. 6d. to 425. 9d.—Sunderland Us. od. to 435. 14, COURSE OF EEC' Amsterdam l2 10 C.F. Ditto at sight 12 8 Rotterdam... l2 11 Antwerp,ex-mo 12 10 Hamburgh 38 3 Altona 3B 4 Paris, May's sight 25 85 Ditto 26 5 Madrid, effective 361 Cadiz effect 35* Barcelona ...... —35 Bilima, effective 3i IANGE, JULY IL Seville 35 Gibraltar ...... 30e Leghorn 46} Genoa 43 Venice Ital. Li, Se 10 Malta Naples . Palermo ll7 pet 0114 Lisbon....-..~ Rio Janeiro.- 30 Dublin 9l C0rk........... 9/ PRICES OF GOL] Foreign Gold In Bars ... New Doubloons New Dollars Sliver, in bars, staadard-- D ANDSILVER. . ...... .. ...... ..... 5)7 6 S 15 0 0 0 4 101 'HIS DAY. •as. sue. 1 0 France 1 0 Hamburgb Guersuey and Jersey 0 0 Flanders Lisboa 0 0 Malta Holland 0 0 Gottenburgb America 0 0 Brazil Dublin Waterford I 0 O 1 O 0 O 0 0 0 HIGH-WA Honing LONDON UItIDGX TO-1110119 1 On• 17 Winer alter 9 37 minutes after...... .~~ LONDON; Printed and published by Levu Kw, Veto. Place, Temple-Der.