The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-26 00:00:00

THE WINTER ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.—MONDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice KEATING.)
COLCIIIHOUN v. BownsT.—This action was to recover
the value of a quantity of tea. The jury found a ver-
dict for the defendant.
ACTION FOR DAMAGES BY §EDUCTION.
CARR Wei an action brought by a
father to recover Conifiensation for the of the services
'eft his daughter, o'liingib her seduction by the defendant.
Mi. Edward James, Q.C., stated the case. He said that,
although the parties concerned in this case were in an
humble situation in life; ' yet the mischief which the
plaintiff had sustained by the seduction
.of his daughter
this etitially,,as g, at i 4 if he had) occupied a very high
tation in life• lie had bepn,dei;iiiea pf ie kjiforts of
his home the morality of hisdadgliter had been, cor-
Use which the defendant had
iiade of the advantages and opportunities which . had
been given him. The plaintiff, James Carr, is a dock-
gateman at Birkenhead, in the employ of the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board, and he is also a lodging-
' house keeper The defendant, Richard Cooper; IS clerk
in the Ace of litegser. Co*i and Willianis, timber mer-
Chants, iiirkentead. AboUt 'Ore years ago he obtained
an introduction to the &lighter of the plaintiff, Margaret
• bare, then aged seventeen years. Ike seemed to have
formed anattachmen't her; arid paid htis Addre'sses in
the illy visited the house, and
..nidS most kindly received by the plaintiff and his wife,
. • who looked upon him as the accepted suitor of their
daughter, and concluded, of course, that the intentions
of a man who openly visited at the house must have
been honourable. Matters went on in that way, mid
it was elpeeted by the family that the marriage
*Mild 4leed4 take pia6e. One day: iii d'andary last the
plaintiff ittli absent; and iiia rife tverit to Liverpool,
leaving the eteNidant alonC with Misi Carr in the house.
Sei-eral hours 'elapsed before Mrs. Carr's return, and in
that interval the d itendant, after makings .a jU.omise of
marrlaie; succeededi seddeihg the woman. The
'result Was', that thi giti found herself in a way to become
atiother; and after she informed the defendant of that
fact, something very serious took place, for the jury
would find that the defendant, in order to save himself
from the natural consequences of his conduct, took to his
Vittith a &Ade toiltainiftg stfittethiu4 et other, which he
aiied het' to tit'iftit: Trip sir i t'Zii'e hitt finding
that it Made lief iii, she did not take Any more, although
the defendant pressed her to do so, and brought her
another bottleful. The learned counsel concluded by
saying he did not ask for vindictive damages, but for such
mperaltercrpmittion q would stone n flit 68 Money
could, for the injay Which the plaintiff had suffered..
James Carr, the plaintiff, was then examined.—Margaret
Carr, a good-looking young woman, about 20 years of
age, was then called, and deposed to the circumstances
already stated.—Mr. Aspinall, in addressing the jury on
behalf of the defendant, at once admitted that his client
had seduted the gift iittt he depredated the introduction
of matters of prepidiet ititO the case.. *heti man of
IC* posltioli and it4:2iE shocked ahumbler rank
life, by holding out attractive promises, it was right
that a severe penalty in the shape of heavy damages
should be imposed ; but in this case the defendant was
a young man earning his own living, who was encouraged
by the father of the girl to pay his addresses to her, in spite
of the remonstrances of the young man's parents. Not only
that was done, Wit the plaintiff and his wife gave the
young couple every opporttinity td lie together. The
defendant Was under age, and the ebriiiship was taking
place under circumstances which could have left no
doubt in the mind of the plaintiff that marriage, if it
took place at all, must be deferred for a ldh tine, be-
cause the yotth ;vas hot hi a position to marry without
the anserit of his parents. What
,ground had such a
father to comklain, eieeiisiVel§,. Of that which not at all
Unnatiiral*, under tile Sirgirliitaaeii; it:a:Plage iii cdn-
felf his4aiii of caution. The case was simply
one for moderate damages. The learned counsel ridi-
culed the girl's statement that she did what
the "stuff " was for, and contended that she was as
much to blame in•the matter as the defendant. If true,
the charge was one involving the greatest censure, and
ought to be dealt with in a different manner to that now
adopted ; but it ought not to have been brought as an
ingredient into an fiction for damages for seduction.
The girl had as much, and perhaps more, knoWledge
than the defendant of the culpability of the act. In
summing up, the learned judge alluded to the defen-
dant's rejection of the plaintiff's offer to maintain his
daughter if the defendant would keep the child; and
said that the defendant's conduct had not been that
which he could look back upon in after life as having
done credit to himself.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £5O. • ,
ALLEGED NEGLECT BY A SHERIFF'S OFFICER.
GREENHOUGH V. KIRBY.—The plaintiff is a money-
lender at St. Helens, the defendant is a sheriff's officer,
in this town ; and the action was brought to recover
damages caused by the alleged neglect of the defendant
in his official capacity. There being no jury in court,
it was agreed to leave the case in the hands of the
judge, who assessed the damage at one shilling, giving,
however, both sides leave to carry the ease to the Court
of Exchequer. Mr. Brett, Q.C., was for the plaintiff;
Mr. Quain for the defendant.
MONEY LENDING IN MANCLIESTER.
CHADWICK V. ANDERTON AND ANOTHER. Mr.
Monk, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Higgins), in opening
this case, said the plaintiff was a person carrying on the
business of a farmer at Marple, near Stockport, in
Cheshire ; one of the defendants was named Samuel
Grantham Anderton, who was pretty well known in
Manchester by the soubriquet of "Mapper Tandy ;" the
other, Mr. Hutton, was a person whom he could not
help feeling sorry to see in such a position, because he
held a situation of considerable respectability, being
deputy-serjeant-at-mace in the Manchester Court of
Record, and up to the present time had been considCred
incapable of doing such things as were charged against
him; and least of all would it he expected to see him in
close alliance with Mr. S. Grantham Anderton. The
present occupation of the gentleman last named was to'
advertise himself as a lender of money, and the jury
were doubtless aware from the revelations in the news-
papers how that kind of business was carried on. It
seems that the plaintiff is a working blacksmith, and
also a farmer. He worked all day as a blacksmith, and
his wife managed the farm. In October, 1859, they
heard that the defendant Anderton was a persen who
lent money, and Mrs. Chadwick made an application to
him for a loan of £2O, which she wanted for the pur-
pose of paying the rent. The defendant pressed
her to make the sum £3O. This, unfortunately for
herself, she consented to do. She paid him three
. guineas at that time,: which .he stated...were . expenses
actually. incurred; and he said he would go over to
Marple. On the next day he went over, accompanied by
a boy, and the plaintiff observed this boy going over the
place and taking a memorandum of all the furniture, &c.
Anderton went to the sbippon, and on his return re-
marked that the plaintiff bad a fine stock of cows. - He
then said he must have a bill of sale signed, and it was
executed by the plaintiff. Now, by one of those extra-
: ordinary events which sometimes , enabled juries to see
what parties such as the defendants were doing, the jury
would find that that. bill of sale was for £5O. The
poor people did not understand legal documents—
in fact, the plaintiff can hardly. read writing ; but,
next day, when they came to look at the document,
saw that it was a bill of sale for £5O. Naturally they
were astonished at this, and they began to be alarmed,
knowing that they had no transactions representing £5O,
nor bad they ever knowingly given security for that
amount. Shortly after the commencement of the
present year the plaintiff began . to repay the
_loan,.
and at various times they repaid the defendant a sum
amounting in the aggregate to £2B 10s., having received
only £25, less the three guineas. Mrs. Chadwick paid
for the " expenses" in the first instance.' Some period
went over, and at length the plaintiff -was a good deal
surprised by finding that somebody had taken their
• dairy stock, consisting of six cows and two calves, which
was done without a single word being. said, and without
the plaintiff knowing anything of the affair until it was
was completed. Their suspicions fell upon the. defen-
dants. The jury would find that those cows had' been
kept and sold, and the money retained by a man named
Cartner, a fellow who was employed as a bailiff by the
defendant Hutton. The plaintiff asked for heavy
damages in the case. The cows had never been returned,
and the principal means by which the plaintiff gained a
living had by that means been removed. His whole
business was broken up, his stock destroyed, and he
asked for such damages as would protect him from utter
and entire ruin. Mrs. Chadwick was then examined,
and her evidence completely supported the facts opened
by Mr. Monk. At seven o'clock his lordship said, unless
an arrangement could be come to, it was useless to sit
longer, and the case must be adjourned to Wednesday
morning.
The court was then adjourned.

NISI FRITTS COl:RT.—Mornay%
(Before Mr. Justice BLACKBURN.)
F. J. GLOYNE BItOWNE AND ANOTHER.—This was
an action brought by Mr. F. J. Gloyne, a general com-
mission agent in Manchester, and also agent, for the
Mercantile Guarantee Society, to recover compensation
for services rendered to Mr. Thomas Browne, a silk
manufacturer in Macclesfield, and Mr. John P. Moll, a
silk broker in Manchester. The hearing of the case
occupied upwards of six hours. The jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £2OO.
SIEWKS v. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.—This was an action to recover
compensation for injuries alleged to have been sustained
on the line of rails of the defendants, in consequence of
their negligence. Mr. Edward James, Q.C., and Mr.
Leresche appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. ON erend, Q.C.,
and Mr. Quaine for the defendants. It appeared that
the plaintiff, Mr. Adolphe Siemms, is a surgeon chiro-
podist practising in Liverpool and Manchester, and that
on the 18th of May he was a passenger by the ten a.m.
train which leaves the former for the latter place. lie
was proceeding to Manchester for the purpose of dis-
charging his professional duties, and it seemed that
something or other was the matter with the train, which

.(tat

was, consequently drawn up at Roby. While there, it
was db,6-i&I that d, coal or Ipggage train was coming
rapidly up, and the plaintiff, who was titthig iii a
second-class carriage, being informed that a collision
was likely to ensue, jumped out, and by so doing hurt.
and shook himself considerably. He .fortunately escaped
in time to avoid the collision that ensued. Ever since.
the acOdetit the plaintiff had suffered more or less from
the injuries he bad redeifedi
,and hied ih;d4iticm lost a
treat Ofbis prabtiCe. , stated liar he hdd I`hte6
separate estahlishitien6 id Iteq up; and thht acthaisitip
his business alone cost him from yds. to .ids. a day.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
£3O.
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—ALLEGED IMMORALITY DY