The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1862-08-26 00:00:00

Legal.

CIekUAL niIBLIT AND ate ilotleetegeut AG out.
—lt whl be remeinhered that a breach of promise of
marriage cue • was brought at the last Lewes assizes
against General Shirley by a young woman named
Thomas, when • verdict was found for the defendant.
A second action had been brought by the mina plain-
tiff against she seine defendant to recover the sum of
£l3B 17a, being the amount of the expenses the plain-
tiff had been put to in the mahtterance of herself and
child, of which the defendant, aas the father, after de-
chiding LIO which the dateudant had paid to the
plaintiff at cliffereut times before and after her aceouclie-
malt. The cause, having been referred to the arbitra-
tion of Mr. Patchett, barrister-at law, came on before
that learned gentleman on Thutado, the Ltw Insti-
tut whhn Mr. Eileprgii fowls, jun..
of ly-p ace; appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Pawle,
of New Inn, for the defendant. Mr. Lewis, in open.
Mg the case for Ins client, recapitulated the circum-
stances (with which the public are already familiar from
the reports published of the proceedings of the first
trial) under which the parties tint met, terminating in
the seduction of the plaintiff by the defendant, a child
being the consequent*. Since the birth of that child,
on the 28th of March last, up to the 30th of June, when
the action was brought, the plaintiff had not received a
single farthing for the support of herself and her off-
spring, with the gumption of £l9 10s, which Was sent
to pay the medical man and the nurse aho had attended
bee during her confinement, and it was to recover
certain sums she had paid on the defendant's authority
during the cohabitation, and also for the lodging, main-
tenance, and necessaries for the plaintiff's chill and
nurse, that the present action had been brought. Mr.
Lewis said he should put the plaintiff into the witness
box, and on her evidence, coupled with the correspon-
dence he should produce, he trusted to 'be obis to estab-
lish such • case as to entitle her to an award for the
full amount claimed. He challenged the defendant to
come forward and meet his victim face to face, as, if
the defendant should venture to present himself, he
would by a crrosaexamination extort from him facts
which would place him in • most unenviable position.
Miss Thomas, a very handsome and elegant young lady,
was then sworn, and in • lengthy examination detailed
the history of her acquaintance and connexion with the
defendant, and proved that the outlay for the first
items in the bill of particulars had been made by her
under his express authority. She further proved that
'edgier., at which the was confined, bad helm taken by
him, but that she had Lied called on to pay the rent,
as well as the wages of the nurse, and for the mainte-
nance of all; and, finally, that the defendant bad
offered to settle upon her and her child an allowance,
which Mr. Lewis described as being mean and con-
teniptible, and an adding gross insult to the deep injury
she had sustained through his Instrumentality. The
plaintiff underwent • clews cross-examination by Mr.
Pawls with great firmness and aelf-possession, without
In any way being shaken in her narrative. Mr. Lewis
said, after reading • very pathetic letter, in which Wass
Thomas appealed to General Shirley for assistance to-
wards maintaining hermit sad her illegitimate child, ,
that the (hun) liberally offered her 10a. a week, and
he called for the production of the correspondent*,
which Mr. Pawle refused, remarking that General'
Shirley was too much of • gentleman to produce letters
which passed between himself and a young lady while
they were on termed' affection. Upon this Mr. Lewis
vehemently exclaimed that General Shirley had no
claims to the character of • gentleman, that he was un-
worthy of belief, and that this was a shameful and a
false attempt to prevent justice being done to the
young lady, whom he had sedated by the false repre-
sentation that he was & widower, while he was a mar-
ried man separated from his wife by deed. He wished
Mr. Pewle would put General Shirley into the box, in
order that he (Mr. Lewis) might ask him whether he
did not seduce Miss Thomas under • deliberate promise
of marriage. This course was declined on the ground
that the breach of promise had nothing to do with the
case at present wider consideration. Mr. Lewis then
proceeded to sum up, remarking that he was glad to
and that there was one person in the world bald
enough to pall General Shirley a gentleman—that
person being his attorney. (laughter.) This WU •
proceeding to recover the paltry, pitiable, beg-
garly Beni of £13917.., for which General Shirley was
the debtor of the plaintiff. The circumstances, the
mode, the manner in which the debt had been con-
tracted would be dishonourable on the part of • person
In the most menial condition of life, yet this was •
debt contracted by • perecon holding the high position
of • general in the army—holding • position in satiety
which from this moment he mast irretrievably lose.
The story of the young lady was a mat painful one.
General Shirley introduced himself to her sea widower,
—it was too late found that he wee married man. He
proposed to marry her, and axed a clap for the mu-
nage. Would General Shirley dare to get into the
witness box and contradict that statement on his oath?
Would he deny he promised her marriage, and then
that, being a man-led man, he seduced her? It had
been said that Miss Thomas went to Southend with
General Shirley as his mistress, while the fact was that
,he went with him 64 his affianced bride. He had
deeply wronged the poor girl, arid she had to pledge
almost her last gown in order to maintain herself and
General Shirley's bastard child. This poor child was
shristened Rosalie at his request, but the resistance of
this paltry claim showed how much interest he
toot in its welfare, If it had not been for
• few friends who had come forward to sand her,
Kim Thomas and her child would have been
left to starve in the streets, while General Shirley.
who was in the receipt of £6,000 or £7,000 • year, kept
in his pocket the money he fairly owed her. He asked
a verdict for the plaintiff for 468 175., less £30., which
Mies Thomas admitted she bad A:seared frouttleneiral
Shirley. Mr. Pawle, in following, disputed most of
the claims on technical ground, contending that Miss
Thomas could not recover beeaue she had not paid for
the things and because General Shirley was still liable.
He admitted liability for a expenses at Rugby, £lO for
baby linen, £4 10s. 6d for hood and cloak for the baby,
£1 18s. 6d. for boots, £1 10s. for a cook, £3 15a for the
support of the child, and some minor items. Ile then
put in as evidence and read • letter sent by General
Shirley to Miss Thomas, dated August 12, 1862, offer-
ing to allow her £2 • week for 12 months, and provid-
ing that if within that period Miss Tliomu did not
obtain employment the allowance would not hastily be
discontinued. She was also offered £3O a-year for the
child if it was well cared for and the General had
moreover offered to invest £l,OOO for the benefit of the
ohild on its reaching 21 years of age. This, he con-
tended, was more than the General could be expected
to offer, considering the way hi which he had been
vested; while Mr. Lewis regarded it ass despicable
proposition seeing that he owed her £l3O for cost.
Jitter some further conversation between the solicitors,
Mr. Patchett said he would announce his award with
tate least possibledelay.