The Express.
London, England, 1864-07-07 00:00:00

LAW'INTELLIGENCE.
EQUITY 0017RT8.—Jci.2 6.
(Bsteso the Lards Jostler of Appal)
isersa v. Ammar.
This ors was hood bikes Vierobancielke Kigdarshey es
April 27 and 28, soil May 2, and his Honour's lodgment
was reported in ear 00111141111 Of, Jane 8. The bill was
filed by Ellen Kamm and her infant daughter. Lucy Cover '
dale, against Mr. Hoary Edward Handley, formerly a Hem
Meant en the Soots Greys, red boom in sporting Moles
by the name of CoverdaLs ; and it sought specific
peeforemace of an alleged agreement to grant two
annuities of 1001. sad BO& per annum to Ellen
Keenan and Lucy Comrade nepeetively. Ellen Keenan
bad formerly cohabited with Mr.liandley. and they bad
lived together sa Yr, and Mrs. Coverdale, at Serbiton,
where the 00-plaintiff, of whom Mr. Handley always
acknowledged himself lo be the father, was born. The
plaintiff and defeelEin,afterwards resided at Marione, near
Metres, in Hort( as Mr. and Yoe. Handley. The
plaintiff alleged f the defendant had promised
to marry her, and when the cohabitation aimed in
October, 1861, the defendant wrote a letter to her
offering to allow her 1501. a year for her and her child. In-
structioos were given to • solicitor, who prepared two
deeds, granting upon certain conditims an annuity of 1001.
par annum to Ellen Keenan, and an annuity of 501. to Lucy
Coverdale ; the consideration for which was expressed to Ma
release by Ellen Klemm of the alleged promise of mar.
rage. The deeds were however never anceted; the defendant
refused to carry out the mounting, and had since married.
The bill was filed to compel specific performance of the
alleged agreement upon which the above arrangement wee
founded. At the hearing before Vice-Ohamellor Kin-
denley Elm Keenan and Mr. Handley wars both cross-ex-
amined rive mos in mart upon the iIIIOS whether prior to
October, 1861, the defendant had not promised to marry
the plaintiff. Mr. Headley swore positively that be had
never made any such promise. His Honour Mice-Chan-
calor, however, decided in favour of thetiff, aad
decreed specific performance. From this thane the dden-
dant now appenled.
Mr. Glasse and Hemmings appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Bally and Mr. Toultnin for defer dent.
Their krthhips agreed with Vice-Chancellor Eradicably,
and dismissed the appeal with costs.

COURT OF QITRICN'S BENCH.-July 6.

After Term Nisi Prima lllittinp at Guildhell.—(Baton
Lord Chief Justin Oookbara sad a Special Jury.)
now r. TO151:11.

This was an ectionioreeOnrrompensation in damages
for pommel injuries eastaised through the alleged negli•
pots of the defendant's wrest.
Mr. Serjeent Ballantiee and Mr. H. James ware wound
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Matthews
were counsel for the defendant.

The defendant bad paid 1001, into court, and the question
wee whether the plaintiff had sustained sash injuries as en-
titled him to a further sum.

After haulm the medical testimosy,
The jury retaroad a verdict for the plaintiff for 2251. in
addition to the 1001. paid into wart.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Judos Mellor sod Common Jury.)
PARLIER.V. COLL/Tr.-lIIDUCTION.

The plaintiff in this case. • men engez in the Custom.
house, nought to recover damages against the defendant, •
clerk in the Allies°, Bank, for the seduction of hie
daughter. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Howard, appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. HdleMon, Q.C., and Mr. Sleigh, for the de-
fendant.
It appeared that the plaintifre daughter was • young lady
about 19 years of age, and that the parties had Ent met in
August, 1862. According to the plaintiff's came they became
intimate, and an engagement was the result. The parties
continued to meet until last November, when her father
became first acquainted with the engagement. Meddle:slant
then told him that he wished the engagement to be kept
secret, as his father might object, and the eansequesos
might be that he would lose some property which be might
otherwise pauses. Under these circumstances the plaintiff,
believing his intentions to be honourable, bad allowed him
to continue hie WISH/ to the beam In the following Deem-
bee the young lady went with the defendant to the Colos-
seum, and during their return borne is • cab the seduction
took place, and resulted in the birth of • girl. The young
lady shortly afterwards informed the defendant that she was
encisiete, whereupon the defendant gave her some medicine,
which she took, but ft had not the result anticipated. On
being premed to fulfil his engagement, the defendant, not.
withstanding his former promise, declined te marry the
young lady without his father's consent, whisk the latter
refuse&

-
The plaintiff's daughter was called, and said she wee intro-
duced to the defendant by • Miss Elisio a street in Pimlico,
about 8 o'clock in the evened. They afterwards met on
several occasione, sad be shortly after commenced patio(
his addressee to her, she baring communicated the circum-
stance to her parents. On her father making some objec-
tion, the doteodaat called upon him, and said that hie inten-
tions were bouourable. Under these circumstenoes, the de-
fendant was allowed to visit the house, and to walk out with
her. They went in September together to the Colosseum,
and as than return be seduced her in • cab.
He often said he eoesidaved her hie wife In the
sight of Heaven. Oa her father discovering she was
in the family way he tamed her out of doors,
on which she went to the defendant, who, in answer to
her application, said he had placed the matter in his
father's bands. She thee wrote • letter to the defendant,
in which she implored him, if he bad ever bad any love for
her. for pity's sake to save her from the disgrace of load-
toting legal procesdiags. She told him in that letter that
her father had turned her out of doors, and that she should
be a poor outcast upon the world,
,tigoing herself " Your
despised and broken-hearted Carry.
In her croweemuninatioa she admitted that she bad bad
a photograph of • Mr. nudism in bee possession, which ber
father bad burnt, aid that she was gang to meet that gen.
Oman when she was first introduord to the defendant. She
had walked several times with Mr. Hudson previously. She
dialed that she knew • Mr. Morns and • Mr. Stone. She
also denied that she bad goes to the Alhambra or that
abe had walked up and down the Haymarket with Mrs.
Ball. She admitted baring walked with a Mr. Evans in
the London Crystal Palace. whom she that met for the
first time, and that they had since correspoeded. She
further admitted she bad walked with other gentlemen
whom she had met °vitally in the streets. The defendant
had taken some amatory verges from her.
In no-examinatiou she denied that any improper libertise
had been taken with her before.

The defendant wee Galled, who said be was now 21 years
of age, and that be had an teepee of 1201. per annum. He
was introduced under • fictitious DUMB to the young lady.
who also gave • &titters Baum He did not meet her
again for two months. They occasionally met until
the following February, when they became more
intimate. He aceroely over met her but she
was talking to some other man. She had mentioeed to hint
the names of several other young men she was in the habit
of walking with, and detailed to him in • muner
the liberties they had attempted to take with She told
his that she had bees to Oxford. where some seder-
graduates had rue after her and another young lady who
was with her, and had kissed them, and that she aad her
friend had goes out welkin with them at night. She also
told him that on the arrival of the Prinosesof Wade in Lou-
doe she had gate to see her pan in Pall-mall to the °Moe of
a Mr. Green, and whilst she was looking out of the window
some geotisman who win the room felt her legs. De-
fendant milked her it she resisted the liberty, and the replied
in anything bat • modest and becornieg manner.
In cross-examination he stated that she had sever been
to any place of amusement with him before the night in
question, because she said her parents would not allow her
to atop out. He had frequently kissed her before the
night of the seduction. He indignantly denied that he gave
her mediates for the purposes of mourner abortion, or that
be had given her anything of a stupefying nature on any
occasion. He denied that be had ever promised to marry
her, and that be bad told her father when he saw him most
distinctly that be had not the slightest idea of marrying
her. He called upon her father lamase he found that he
was making inquiries respecting him, and he did not wish
there should be say mistake upon the subject.
The jury ultimately returned • verdict for the plaintiff
—disneges,lsol.