The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-12-07 00:00:00

HOUGHTON v. SOUTH."

the sheriffs Court, in Londoe, before Mr. Under.
Si, /id Surchen arid • special jury, the ramie .• Houghton
v. south" toe been heard : and was an action an the Etch°
spier by Caleb Hoogmen against Thomas Deaton South for
the seduction of his daughter Maria The damages were laid
at £l,OOO, lout the defend/ad haring allowed judgment to
go by default, a sp.ltal JarY was empanelled before the
Under-She/Iff to rases* the amount of compensation to be
tr.awarded.
Garth, QC. (with whom Wan Mr. Shaw), ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. Willis for the
de',ndant.
The law on CAMOR of seduction was discussed, and on
th part of the defendant it was stated that a new doc-
trine had been introduced.
ath the plaintiff's daughter and the defendant are
skow under age, the former being 18 and the latter 20,
a. ; whet, they became acquainted in 1888 were, as
described, mere children. Tile plaintiff is a draper and
gic.er at Billericay, in E.FoX, and the defendant the
son of a Men. South. a person of property at Chertaey,
Surrey. In I.BetS the defendant went to the house of
Mr. Cola, a farmer, &c., at Billericay, to learn agricul-
tu,, and became acquainted with Maria Houghton.
A,eortling to her evidence he promised her marriage
Wulf, he eeduced her, aml in February last her family
diwovered that .-he w. pregnant. The plaintiff spay •to
lii,i, arid, coning the /listress of the family, he promised
marriage arid the 20,1 of that moan was fixed own.
Pfrparations were made, the coaches ordered, and a
licence procurerL The Rev. Mr. Webb. the vicar of
Biliericay, went to the church to perform the cerem any
woo Mr. Ccle told the young man that his mother
shonl-1 be consulted. The clergyman was gent for,
and the marriage postponed. The Rev. M. Webb,
offered to call on Mrs South, and went to Chertsey,
and returned with the understanding that the mother
consented, but requested that the marriage should be
deferred for a month or six weeks. The defendant
seemed disappointed, and after be left Billericay, on
the 4th of March, he wrote a note to the young woman,
and cubrocribed himself "Yours truly." Ile had not
Ail C • %imbed her family, and after her delivery of a
node child in June the action WWI brought for the
nednction, and not for a breach of promise. It Vraa
explained to the jury that it was the only form of
actirm wh'ch could be maintained, as the defendant,
being limier age, was not capable of making a legal
promise to marry the girl be had seduced. Another
yoint wan also raised in thin case when evidence was
proponert to chow that the defendant was entitled,
under the wills of his grandfather and father, to cm-
pid• rable property, that it could have no bearing on
the ease, as the action was not for breach of pnardsn,
hut merely for seduction, and the father claimed, and
could only claim, for the loss of the cervices of the
young woman, who hod, when she lett school, assisted
him in his business as a draper.
Mr. Under-Sheriff Burchell held that the evidence
was inadmissible, as the father could only claim for the
loss of the services of his daughter, and that, as the de-
fendant Wan tinder age, there was no legal promise of
marriage, and the action was only for seduction.
Mr. Garth, both in his opening and in summing up
the evidence, described the case as very painfuL He
called upon the jury to award commensurate damages
for the misery the defendant had inflicted on a respect-
able family, and intimated that it was clear there were
ample means in the family to pay any amount the jury
might award.
Mr. Willis, who called no evidence, entreated the
jury not to te led away by the new doctrine of his
learned friend. The jury had nothing to do with the
wealth of Ma family, and by their oaths they were re-
stricted to the mere consideration of the loss to the
father of the services of the daughter. They had no-
thing to do with the breach of promise. and be urged
on the jury to discard all considerations on that subject,
and also that it was not their province to punish the
mother, who had from the first to the last objected to
the alliance.
Mr. Garth offered, in the course of the case, to
forego all claim to damages if arrangements were made
for the marriage to he performed. It was evident that
the mother, and not the defendant, was the cause that
it had not been celebrai,L
Mr. Willis declared that he felt more than ordinary
interest in this case, and he was most anxious about
it, be aufie an attempt had been made to enlist the
sympathy of the jury on a matter which they had not
to c. insider.
Mr. ruder-Sheriff Borehell, in placing the case be-
fore the jury, reminded them of the nature of the
action. It WAR for damages for la of service to the
father, arid they were not to award damages to the
danghter for the defendant's conduct, or against his
mother for refusing her consent to the marriage.
Whether she had d..ne right to prevent the .narriage
after she knew what had occurred in a respectable
family was open to very grave consideration, and might
be very much debated,
Mr. Garth demurred to the Undsr-Sheriff's dire.>
tion as to the questi in of damages, and referred to a
text-book to show that a father could recover for the
dishonour cut upon him and the loss of the society of
his daughter, which was a seriona matter to a parent.
The learned Under-Sheriff, in answer to a question
of a juryman, said they must put out of their consider-
ation all thought of the breach of r Tomb., and award
to the father—not to the young woman—damage fee
his loss, whether in mind, 'body, or estate, by the de-
fendanes conduct.
The jury retired, and, after an absence of about 20
minutes, returned into court and assessed the damages
at £5OO.
On the part of the defendant an applicat7on was
made to stay the writ of execution.
Mr. Under-Sheriff Burnhell asked on what grounds.
It was stated en the ground that the damages were
excessive.
Mr. Under.Shs r:lf Eurchell !raid the rynesti. di of
damages was entirely with the jury. He supposed
Mr, Garth objected.
Mr. Garth said indeed he did.
' The Curt declined to stay the writ. and it was
stated Of,' an application would be made before a
Judge at( ti ambers.
A verdi,.: was accordingly entered for £5OO.

The ca i e came on again on Tuesday, when Mr. W.
Willis, scli, appeared as counsel for the defendant on
the hearb g before the Under-Sheriff, now applied to
his Lords .ip to May the precreoine in the action until
next Ten.. in order that an application might be made
to the full Court for a new trial, n the ground that
the dam, es were exceidve. The learned counsel
narrated the circumstances, and described the defendant
as a mere boy.
Mr. Pike, who appeared for the plaintiff, objected to the
teem "boy. II e ed seduced the plaintiff's daughter, and a
jtrY awarilei £5OO as &images.
Mr Willis said the young man w mid not be 20 years old
thU lehru ry next, an l four years ago, when he became
icunainteii with the plaintiff's daughter, he was only 16 and
Abe west Her father was a draper at Billericay, iu Emir,
and ha wiis articled there to Horn the braille,a of a corn
dealer, his mother lived at Cliertsey, and had objected to
the mend. ge. In the course of the vise Mr Girth, ott ap-
peared for the father, the plaintiff, claimed compensation,
and alleged thst the mother could pay. He submitted that
as against the young man the damages of £seo were ex-
cessive.
mr. Justdie Archibald asked the position of the two fami-
lies—were there any isparity in to
Mr. Willis did not know that there was much difference.
The plaintiff was a draper in a small town, and Mr South
lived at Chi rtsey. He should show that the young man had
no means id [going the damage., and that it was wrong to
expect his mother to pay. Ile had an affidavit as to the pro-
perty barb! family, to ivideh he telt, d to show that the
defendant's share under two wills had been valued at 591.
He had submitted that the breach of promise hail nothing to
do with the case, neither the pviperty at the mott er, but
that the defeniiant was liable for the loss of the services of
the plaintiff's daughter and the dishonour brought on her
father.
11H Lordship remarked that Pities often considered matters
in actions for seduction. He asked if Co, re was a child.'
living.
Mr. Willis said there was a living. He admitted that
the defendant was willing to marry the young woman, but his
m thee hint ebjected from the firA to the last, and a jury had
awarded £5OO damages.
The learned Judge asked whether a sum of money wotild
be paid into Court, and suggested a sum of £250.
Mr. Willis dechred that the young man hail not a shilling,
and was now earhing only 125. per week.
Mr. Pike referred to the affidavit be had in answer to the
appicatien, and mentioned that an offer had been made when
the case was heard that the parties should lie married, and
It was declined, lie said the mother knew the young couple
acre keeping company, anal had prevented the marliaze.
The jury were the judges of all the circumstances, and his
teamed fiend had on the hearing objected to evidence
belik given both as to the property of the defendant and
/di mother, and the Under-Sheriff bad not allowid such
evt Jenne.
`lr. insVce Archibald said he did not mean to say that
th, Under-Sheriff was not right.
air. Pike remarlcol that on all the circumstances a special
y had giveh £5OO as damages.
I.ro-oship asked whether it was a special jury.
r. Pike stall it was what was called a" good" inn:, and
they were, he apprehended, the hest jiidges of the amount.

r. Justice Archibald though that have should be given
on Pie payment Into court t £250 Ile did not mean to say
V...t inch a sum was sufficient or not sufficient.
_ . .•

---•• •
sr. Wiffis mentioned a ease in which Mr. Justice Quain
had tholubt about one-third was sufficient in a c irel,eiore
Lint. Perh £lOO might he obtained.
His Lordship wished it to be understood that he gave no
opinion as to what would he a sofficient sum as damages.
1,1 because he bad mentioned £2lO It was not to be con-
sul-red that he I,lieved it was a proper amount. He was
disposed to grant the appliestion if that sum was paid into

tftelr...nome farther disenr,ion the learned Judge made an

order thtt 4.50 be .1,111—int;;-,17t In-a"frlnigltt and on
inch deersit the further proceedings in the acti d. to be
!stayed till next Term.
Cyder accordingly.