The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-25 00:00:00

THE DAILY ThiES, SATURDAY, AUGUST 2& 186 :

strong, she had been engaged to the defendant; her
character I,YM IJlattea, for she was unfortunate enough
to have a child of the paternity of Which there would
be no question, and really was no doubt.. The only
question was one of damages ; the defendant was in
business Eta manitfactsirer in a tansiderahle way ;
lie was the sonpi a very respectable men, and
had PUreliaied a patent fur £3,000, Mr which lie had
been heard to say he would not now take 110,000 ; he
had also offered £l,OOO for a residence. The defendant
was undoubtedly a man of means, but the maxim in law
was that if a man could not pay in one way, he must in
another. They would, in this case take into considera-
tion the position which the plaintiff had been deprived
of, and the amount of coMfort she had sacrificed. He
Was mere the fury Would also consider the heartless con=
duet of the defendant in making and then breaking his
promise, for it was difficult to conceive of conduct more
insulting and unjust to this young woman.
Mrs. Kerfoot was the first witness called. She said
ehe was the mother of the plaintiff; Mr. James Kerfoot
was her husband. The plaintiff was twenty-four years old.
Witness's husband occupies a farm at Upholland, where
they had lived all the time they had been married. The
plaintiff was the oldest child, and there were four or five
others, She knew the defendant, Mr. John Marsden,
he is a boltniaker, and lives at €irrel, and his works are
called the Orrel Iron Works. The defendant was
about thirty years old. Mr. Marsden's father was
I;ivingsretired at Sthittipert. About tss-ro years' ago. the
defendant cane td see Witsiess's daughtera her house.
In a little time he Came More frequently. He used to
call the plaintiff Ellen. About six months after he
first came, he asked witness to allow her daughter to go
with him to Liverpool, and, after some hesitation, she
consented. They returned from Liverpool on the fol-
lowing day. Once or twice afterwards he went to Rhyl
and to Chester with her, and upon these occasions they
came back on the same day. He once told witness that
he had £5O over, after paying a fortnight's wages. In
June, 1859, the plaintiff was found to be in the family-
way. lie came frequently to the house after that, and
Witness asked *hat Wes hetWeen them that they could
not get married; to which defendant replied " It is an
unfortunate affair between us." He also said it did not
suit him to be married then, but he would get married
in February. He came to witness on one occasion in
the kitchen, and said he wanted her to go off for awhile.
This was about a month before she was confined. He
said he would give her a sum of £2O if she would go
away. He Mentioned Present as the Place to whiCh she
Was tO go. She was confined oil the 113 rd of I4ovember.
The child is still living. He was at the house the night
before the child was born. A few days after he sent
some cake and wine for the baby. He came afterwards
and nursed the child, and enquired about her daughter.
Cross-examined by Mr. Overend—Her daughter was
a dress-maker in Wigan ; the defendant's father kept a
public house. Plaintiff went to Ince in the August
before she was confined. The photograph was got
when they were at Liverpool:
lii re eiarniiiition by Mr. Monk, witness stated that
Mrs. M'Murrin, at Ince, was her sister-in-law. Plain-
tiff's father had a farm at Winstown for fourteen years.
He was looking out for one now.
Mary Kerfoot was next called. She was the sister
of the plaintiff. She remembered that Mr. Marsden
and her sister were acquainted ; he used frequently to
conic un haVe tea With her. She had gone Once with
her sister to his house to tea. She first went to his
house in February last year. He had often been at her
house before that. He used to make free with the
plaintiff, and seemed to be courting her. He continued
courting until the child was born. On the Friday
after Christmas-day, witness saw the plaintiff in Wigan,
and he wanted her to take 20s. to her sister. That was
after the child was born. In last January he was at
the house. and saw the plaintiff, and nursed the child.
She asked him who was going to help to being the child
and he 6,id he Would help. `nothing was then said
about getting married. When witness saw him in
Wigan, and got, the money; she asked him when he was
going to be married, and he said in June. He was at
witness's house on the Sunday after she had been to
Mr. Mayhev's, the solicitor. He then said, if they
would drop the law, he would make all things comfort-
able. He said that night that he would be married
when his house was finished. He was nursing and
kissing the child. He cantinued to come to the house
for about six weeks after that. He diseontinued his
Visits us ?lay last. About two months after he had
left off coming to the house, witness saw him with his
wife in the parish church at Upholland. In cross-
examination the witness stated, that the plaintiff had
said he would get married if the thing Was kept fforn
his father.
Mr. Peice, the next Witness, was a solicitor at Wigan.
The defendant cline to him, and asked his advice upon
a letter which he had received from Mr. Mayhew. By
the direction of the defendant, witness went to Mr.
Mayhew, and stated that Mr. Marsden, although he did
not admit having made a promise of marriage, did not
object to pay £lOO for the support, of the child. This
offer was refused, and witness again saw the defendant.
On the 15th February witness saw Mr. Mayhew, and
told him that Mr. Marsden had made up his mind to
marry Miss Kerfoot, and did not wish it to be known
that arly att-draeys had been eniployed,
Cross-examined by Mr. Overend --There was nothing
said about keeping the Cling from the defendant's father.
James Pickering was the manager of a colliery. The
defendant had told him that he paid £3,000 for a patent
he possessed, and upon a subsequent occasion he valued
it at £lO,OOO. Mr. Marsden's works are the largest in
the neighbourhood. The patent was for making bolts.
Witness had seen it at work in Wigan, and thought it,
a very admirable affair.
Mr. Herman, an estate agent, was next called. He
had some conversation With the defendant about pur-
chasing some property. The house defendant lived iti
was worth about 1,000 guineas. Witness had been at
the defendant's works, and had seen about a score of
men.

Mr. Monk then addressed the jury upon the precedin,,
evidence. He described the defendants conduct as most
heartless and disgusting,. The plaintiff's conduct, except
in the nefertaleate niatter of the child, was unblameable,
and no imputation of any kind had been cast Upon her
by the other side. He therefore hoped that the jury,
considering the conduct of the two parties, and the
position the plaintiff had lost, would give such reason-
able damages as would compensate her for that loss.
Mr. Overend, in reply, said his learned friend (air.
Monk) was very angry with hint for nbt
doing an
unjust thing— in. rilifying the plaintiff'. ehgtactei.
These two people had no doubt been intimate for some
time, and on one occasion he was allowed unfortunately
to take her to Liverpool. The end of the matter was
that he became the father of a child. It vas no doubt,
a foolish thing that the plaintiff consented to go to
Liverpool ; it was foolish for the defendant to go, but it
*as especially foolish for the Mother rse the Plaintiff to
allot her daughter to go. there Was rig pretense fot
saying that the defendant had promised marriage before
the birth of the child, and it was not until the girl was
confined and steps were taken to induce the defendant to
do something 'that he promised to marry her. The
mother did not speak to any kind of promise, but the
did state that in the month of October—having received
no indication from her daughter that Mr. Marsden had
.promised her Marriage—she said to him, " Why couldn't
s'hif get married and make it up between yourselves," to
which the defendant replied, "it is a. misfortune between
us." Again, at the interview in January the defendant
nursed the child, and the plaintiff asked who was going
to help to support. That was not the way a person
_would have spoken who had received an absolute promise
of marriage ; she would have said " what is the use of
talking about money. when 'rou have promised to marry
me." Thee. afterwards, when the plaintiff's sister and her
mother were getting an lions about the affair, the former
asked him at Wigan whether he would
marry her
sister, and he replied that he could not, get married
until the following June. The defendant's Conduct had
altogether been very different from that which it had
been represented to be by the other side. Whatever
Might be the result of this action the defendant would
undoubtedly be liable fdr the maintenance of the child,
and it was because of this liability that he had offered
the £lOO. The jury would also consider whether the
plaintiff had really lost much—not in the sordid point
of view from which his friend had looked at the case
—hut of happiness. The defendant after that hasty
promise to the solicitor reconsidered the matter, and
then thought it would be better for him not to marry her.
But there was no evidence whatever that there had been
a promise in the first instance before the seduction.
His lordship in commenting upon the evidence, said,
there was no question in the case except as to the amount
of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. He
should say that in a case of this kind they would proba-
bly view the matter differently, according as they
thought that the promise had or had not been given
previous to the birth of the child. This was a case not
merely of breach of promise of marriage but of seduction
and if they thought that the present defendant had
promised marriage to the plaintiff,rsand had afterwards
seduced her under the promise, they might, perhaps,
think that a worse case than if the promise had not
been made until after the seduction. The law provided
that, in these cases, the plaintiff could not be called, and,
therefore, they could not get what passed first hand—
and they could only get that which passed in the
presence of others. The first evidence of promise of
marriage was in October, 1859. This promise was in
terms which to him seemed to imply a previous one : it
was a statement to the mother, and conveyed the im•
pression that there had been something previous,
because the marriage was talked of as a settled thing
and the defendant expressed his intention of getting
married in the month of February. The next evidence
on this point was that of the plaintiff's sister, in th 4
conversation which took place at the " Clarence," it
Wigan. He thought there was no reliable evidence d
an early promise; but that was a question entirely fo
the jury. It was generally said that the plaintiff', in .
case of this sort, was entitled to compensation fo
what she had lost; the defendant appeared to be a mai
having works at Upholland, and employing 20 or 3t

COR,RESPONDENCE.

A HINT TO RAILWAY COMPANIES.

TO THE .EDITOR OF THE DAILY TIMES.

• Sii,—The suggestion of ‘' Holiday Seiler" in your
paper of this day I should think very good. I, for one,
have been prevented from. taking excursion tickets for
the very same reason. I hope the day is not far
distant when this may be dote by all the railway com-
panies. Your insertioh of this Will oblige.—Yours
obediently, AHELIA HALL.
Great Honfer-street, August 22.