The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-28 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

lIONIF. CIRCUIT.-HERTFORD, FEB. 27.

LOAD Cu, JVPTICI C.un.,. Yu • Coops

Jest.

I'ICM r. REST.—ACTION con SEDVCIION.
This was an action brought by Robert Wilford Page
against Isaac lied, to recover damages for the hots of the
services of his daughter, Ruth Page, iu consequence of her
seduction by the defendant. Mr. M. Chambers and Mr.
Ilawkins were for the plaintiff; sad Mr. E. James appeared
for the defendant.
Mr. Chambers, in opening the ease, said that it was
one of a very distressing character, the plaintiff being com-
pelled to come before ajury and ask at their hands compen-
sation from the defendant tor the injury he hail inflicted upon
him by seducing his (laughter. The parties filled respectable
positions in the town of Ware, the plaintiff being a
brewer and also keeping a beer-shop, and the defendant
was connected with a family currying on a respectable
and extensive business as grocers. The parties were both
very young, neither of them being at the present time
more than 21 years old ; and there had been an intimacy
between them for nearly six years. At first that intimacy
was of the ordinary kind Lbut about two years ago the
defendant succeeded in seducing the daughter of the
plaintitt, and the result of their intimacy was the birth of
a child in the course of the last year. Immediately upon
the condition of the unfortunate young woman becoming
known to her family, she was obliged to leave her
father's roof, and she had ever since been core-
!plied to take shelter with other members of her'
family. The plaintiff had suffered most deeply from the
degradation his family had sustained through the miscon-
duct of the defendant, and it was under these circumstances
that he was now compelled to seek that remedy which the
law afforded for such an injury.
Ruth Page was then culled as a witness. She deposed
that she was the daughter of the plaintiff. Her father lived
at Ware, where be carried on the business of a brewer.
The defendant lived with his brother, who was a grocer,
next door to her father. She first became intimate with the
defendant about six years ago, but three years hack their
intimacy was of a closer description, and at that period she
was very frequently in the company of the defendant, and
considered him as an honourable suitor altbobgh he never
made her any offer of marriage. In 1550, she was deli-
vered of a child. The defendant was the Feb.,&thee of that child.
The defendant had left Ware in May or June, 1849, to go
to another situation at Maldon, and in July following she
discovered that she was in the family may. When her
father became acquainted with her situation she was coin-
riled to leave her home, and she had never been there
since, but had stopped with her sisters at lioddesdon and
Breutford. After the child was born proceedings were
taken before a magistrate, who made an order upon the de-
fendant for its support.
By Mr. James—She first knew the defendant six 'years
ago. She believed he was an apprentice at that time.
The defendant was about her own age, and she was now
twenty-one. They used to meet in the yard at the buck
of their house. Some correspondence had pawed between
them, and she believed that she wrote the first
letter to the defendant. He was never introduced
to her father, or any of her friends, as her suitor. The cri-
minal intimacy first commenced about two years before the
child was born. S The defendant did not promise her mar-
riage on any occasion. She did not know precisely what
his posit Ms was, or that after he was out of his time he was
engaged as journeyman to his brother, at a salary of
251. a year. She was not aware that her mother was
seem to this action being brought. She never told her
father of the defendant paying her any particular attention.
She believed the defendant was at the present time a
journeyman to a groei r at Maldon.
Mr. James then addressed the jury for the defendant
He observed that when a father came into court to ask a !
jury ,for damages for the injury he had suffered from a
seducer the Case was one which naturally excited a yery
great deal of prejudice, but when the jury considered all
the circumstances of the present case, he felt assured they I
would see that there was an entire absence of every
one of these aggravating circumstances which were hut too
frequently found in can's of this description ; and it cer-
tainly did appear to him that the plaintiff would much
better have ',insulted the interest of his family, and that
of the unfortunate girl who had that day appeared before
them as a witness, if he had refrained from bringing the
present action, and thereby exposed her shame to the
world. The learned counsel then proceeded to urge that it
was absurd, under the circumstances that had been deposed
to. to say that the defendant had been guilty of seduction.
There was no seduction at all in the case ; or, if there
was, both parties were equally guilty. The young
woman who had been called had given her esi-
deuce most fairly and truthfully, and it was perfectly
clear that the parties, who were really only a boy and a
girl, being thrown together, had both Risen way to their
passions, and acted most improperly, hut they were both
evidently equally to blame. This being the case the
plaintiff was undoubtedly by the law entitled to recover
any expense that might have been entailed upon him as
the result of the defendant's conduct ; but he subMitted
that this was all that ought to be given him, and that it
would be most unjust towards the defendant to compel
him to pay more than nominal damages in addition to t4t
swan.