The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-14 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 14, 1851.

that he had been paid 71.2.. for his charges on that occa-
sion, and
Mr. Richard Martin, a surgeon. stated that he attended
the plaintiff's daughter, from September 17 to October 11,
IMO,' and that his bill was 3/. 65., but it had not been paid.
This farmed the plaintiff's MC.
Mr. llumfrey then rose to address the jury on the part of
the defendant, and he urged upon them that actions of
this nature were of a character requiring the strictest inves-
tigation. They were of two kinds ; tint, where the heart-
kesseducer hnel employed wiles and artifice to accomplish
the ruin of female innocence, and in such a case there was
no doubt that damages substantial in amount were neces-
sary to meet the great injury which had been indicted. But
it sometimes happened that pith. :aid themselves out to at-
tract the attention of gentlemiu, and were as much the
seducer. as the seduced ; and here nobody would suppose
that heavy damages were called for. In the present came he
admitted the plaintiff was entitled to the money which he had
, been out of pocket, but he contended that damages greatly
beyond that SUM were quite uncalled for. In this conclu-
sion they would no doubt agree with him when they had
heard the evidence which he should lay before them, for he
was instructed that he should be able to prove that long
before the defendant knew the plaintiff's daughter she had
intimate connexion with an officer named Colelough, and
that the alleged seduction by the defendant was of a very
different character to what lead been represented.
Amy Colville said that she lived in Menden-street, Ro-
chester, and that she knew Mi... Blackwell. She recollect...el
being at Rochester Cathedral with her in October,lB49, and
on that occasion they were spoken to by two officers. One
of them spoke to Miss Blackwell, and taxed her with haying
disappointed him. 'Upon this she said she would meet him
that evening ; but he said he would not take her word for it,
and that she must promise upon lice soul that she' would do
so. After some conversation she did so, and she wished
witness to go with her. The result was that witness and
Miss Blackwell met the defendant and Mr. Hunt at
Chatham Church door, and defendant there expressed a
wish that Miss Blackwell should go with him. She said
she would rot go, but afterwards she consented, and she
went. When they got to Lieut. Taylor's quarters they had
sonic wine, and witness and Mr. Hunt left the room toge-
ther for shout t n minute.. She was not going to say
where they went. She had not come there to speak about
herself, but about Miss Blackwell. They went where they
pleased. (A laugh.) On the Wednesday following they
all dined together, and after dinner Mr. hunt and herself
again retired where they pleased. They left Mi.., Black-
well and Lieutenant Taylor together. Miss Blackwell did
not cling to Mr. Hunt, nor did she ezpreta any unwilling-
ness to remain with -Lieutenant Taylor. Witness never
knew Mr. Hunt nor Lieutenant Taylor before she met them
with Miss Blackwell.

....,..
Crw..-examined by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins.—She was 22
years of age. She had never told Miss Blackwell that she
wan cruel in not Foing to see Lieutenant Taylor, seeing that
he was so much in love with her.
Mr. Robert Bland Hunt remembered being in company
with Lieutenant Taylor, outside the barrack gates, on a
Sunday evening. liecould not recollect whetherthis was in
September, 1849, or nut. Ile did reneemla r that they met
two girls, and Lieutenant Tayior .poke to them. and maid,
" Yuu are punctual." They then all went to Lieutenant
Taylor's quarters and had some wine. The girls made no
objection to going into the barracks, and no three was used
to get them in. After they had had the wine, he and Miss
Colville withdrew from the room, leaving Lieutenant
Taylor and Miss Blackwell alone. In a few days afterwards
they all met again at lieutenant Taylor's, anti had dinner.
Wiim as end Miss Colville again left the room. The girl
Blackwell did not cling to hint and beg him not to leave
her alone with Taylor, but, on the contrary' he asked her
to go to his rooms and see some pictures, and she refused.
When they returned the girl Blackwell did not appear
agitated or disturbed, and a little afterten they all proceeded
quietly home together.
Cross-esamined by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins—Since this
trial had been going on he had shown a paper to the last
witness. It had been written as a deposition and tent to
him to sign, but he had not signed it. Ile bad altered it,
and it contained his evidence in this action.
. . .

Lieut. George Coltlough was then calk into the box,and
he addressed his lurdiliip and said that he W3l a reluctant
witness, and had barn forced into court against his will.
During his examination he frequently apiwah,d to his lord
ship to know whether he was bound to answer the various
quo-lions put to him. His evidence was that he became
acquainted with Vise Blackwell in the latter end of
Ile met her near the dockyard. This was the first time he
had Ken her. In April or May she visited him at his
rooms, and he hail criminal connexion with her on several
occosims. This had taken place he should think as many
as 20 times.

...... .
Cruss-tiamined—lle was an officer in the Artillery, and
had room.. in the Brompton barracks. At the time when
thi:e thintrs took place he had a servant at his rooms, but
this servant had never even the girl Blackwell. She had to
pa-s the sentry, and perhaps some soltlitrs in the yard, in
r to cet to his rooms.
To the Chieflustice—lle had not mer.tioned what he had
stated to Lieut. Tailor or his attorney until to-day.
Mr. Ferjeant Wilkins then replied upon the evidence
which Lad been given he the defendant with great force and
eloquence, and during he
speech he was frequently inter-
rupted by bursts of applause from the crowd which filled
the court.
The Chief Justice, in his summing up. drew the attention
of the jury to the state of the record and the issues raised
fiir them to try. and tiusti•o that they would not be led
away by the forcible appeal whirl, hail been made to
them, Lut would attend strictly to the merits of the ease.
It um. not their business to read a lesson " to anybody.
and, if they did re, the rights of pi rsons would be placed
in great peril. The learned counsel had alluded to the pro-
fession of the defendant—an honourable profession—but he
was sure that they would nut, because the defendant be-
longed to a particular class, find him guilty of what ass
laid to his eltirge, if they did not BIM.: the es idence proved
it. It did nut appear to be denied that the plaintiff wtui
entitled to • verdict, but for the defendant evidence was
given to show that the girl Blackwell hail twin unchaste
before her acquaintance with the tletintlant ; and, if they
believed that evidence, they would let it have its effect
upon the damages, for they must not give sic much—he did
not mum it offtnsivtly—for a damaged article us for a per-
fect one.
The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found a Ter-
diet for the plaintilf—Damages,

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER-7YEsur.D.ts.

Prats.—Harass Su E Pol.t•flt, Fal/V &ND • MIDDTS,

PI .I bprrna. hay.

THE AJTORNET4GL;iIAI'.;.—E"ioNDON DOCK CoM•

rANY-IXIVRTANT REVENUE CAUSE..

This camie w•as resumed this morning, when the follow-
hag witnesses were called :
William Trein examined bv. .Ir. Peacock ,Q.C.—I have been
in the employ of the London .Dock Company fur several year•,
a. labour:lr. lam at No. 3 warehouse, and am employed
picking and cleaning sweepings. I •weep the floors every
day. All are put together, from all the floors of the ware-
house, and the sweepings are picked at room No. It. 1 hev
go through different skies. I have nothing to do with
sugar. I have never known a mingk bag of cocoa taken '
from the bulk or heap for the sweepings. The principal
part of the 13 bags hail been collected under my care. I
got from the bweepings in one year all the bags .eized.
Home sweeping. came from No. I warehouse, hut they were
mixed, and had very little cocoa. I never received any
bonus or gratuity from the Dock Company.
Cro,--examimd 17 the Solicitor-General I generally
commence the sweeping, at the forepart of the day, alter
the delivery of the day before. Wooding and Collins assist
me in the sweepings. I had their assistance from Novem-
ber to March. The sweepings were placed in bags, which
are placed out of the way. I hays signed a paper once at
the head office. I don't know the gentleman's name who
handed me the paper to sign. I think it is only one. I
think it: was; Mr. Humphrey. I get 1.55. a week in long
days. In short days I get Ids. a week. I think I signed a
paper at Mr. l'ace's office concerning the half hundred-
weight. I don't recollect having signed any other paper in
Mr. I'acels office, except that about the half hundred-

weight.
Re-examined—A gentleman asked me question,. I an-
swered th.lm. lie took• them down, read them to me, and
I signed them.
George Collin• examined by Mr. Macanky, Q.C.—I have
been about 10 years iu the employ of the company. I have
been an extra Labourer. I worked at No. 2 and 3. I know
about 11 of the 13 bags. I had assisted in picking about
eight of them. I picked them out of all sorts of rubbish—
coffer, pepper, and dirt. 1 did the picking on the Hoot
where the bags were seized. It was picked at No. 16. It
was 'awns.* dons openly, and in the ordinary COMIC of
business (never had any instructions to conceal anything I
did.

wwc.
Croas-examined by Mr. Watson, Q.C.—I get 13a. a week.
I am a picker. I picked the eight bags between November
and March 1330. There might have been marks upon them.
The hags were sent to the gangway where we were pick-
ing. I never signed a piper except at Mr. Pace's. It
might have licen before the seizure that I signed it. It
might have been nine or ten days ago for aughtl know.
He-examined by Mr. Macauley—A number of weights
were brought up from under tho staircase to weigh six or
so eases of valise wh( n the deficient one was discovered.
Cross-examined--I was not spoken to last night or this
morning about that weight. I was spoken to by Mr. Pace
previous to this case coming on. I have newer seen the
weight before, that I know of. The weights are adjusted four
times a-year.
lie-examined by Sir F. Kelly—We have never used it
since it was discovered to be deficient. Mr. Pace asked me
what I knew, and I told him. It was written before I went
there. (Laughter.)
Thomas Wooding, examined by Mr. Grates-1 have been
employed as a labourer for about eighteen years.
was employed in coca, picking from November to March.
The picked cocoa was placed generally in the gangways. I
know 13 bags that have beta seized. I picked them with
Collins and- Trein. I have never received any bonus or
• gratuity from the company.
IThe witness was not cross-examined.
John Nolan examined by Mr. Peacock, Q.C—I have been
Ste yearn in the employ of the company. lam a sweeper.
I have received no bonuses or gratuity from the company.
By the jury—There is a large propwtion of cocoa id the
! swee.pings I collect.
The ites. was not cross-examined.
John Wignell examined by Mr. Macauley, Q.C...4 have
hewn 19 years in the employ of the company as a labourer.
/ have been in No. 3 for 12 years. I sweep the doors and
the garrets. I carry what I collect to the pickers. It can-
i lists of coffee, cocoa, pepper, sap, and dust. Cocoa is
the smallest proportion I find. Every floor has all kinds
of cargo.
Cmss-examined—There is a very small quantity of cocoa.
Re-examined—l sweep every day after the delivery.
Horatio Scott, examined by Mr. Peacock, Q.C.-4 have
been 12 years in the employ of the dock company. lam

• delivery foreman. My duties are confined to the ground
floor. Some cocoa is an No. I. Cocoa frequently escapee
from the lin, in removal. Sweepings have been collected
In any warcliinue and sent to No. 4 warehouse. Three bags
were sent there on Bth December, 1649. They were
j cleaned lieMre they were sent. They were sent openly on a
', truck, after they were picked. I never knew any instance
'• in my warehouse in which cocoa was taken from the bulk
land carried to the sweepings. We take the cocoa from the
I picked sweepings, but nut a bag of cocoa. We never supply
a bag from any pile. I received 3/. in 1848 for 1,200
hours. That gratuity had no re krence to the quantity of
sweeping:, collected. I never kr.ew marks obliterated, and
marks put on other bags to corre,pond with them.
John Eiger examined by Mr. Groves--I have been em-
' ploycd in picking the sweepings for 23 years. 1 have been
about 9 years in No. 1 warehouse. There were three bags
of cocoa sent away from No. 1. I picked it myself. Thom
sweeping bed been there for many years. I have never
r received one limiting of bonus or gratuity.
- - -

Cross-ex-Imin ml by Mr. Watson, Q.C.—I suppose I could
do about half a cwt. a week of cocoa sweepings. I picked
and tilled th. three bags myself. I get Mc a week. I
should think the greater putt of the three bags have been
picked within three months before March, 1850. I signed
no paper at Mr. Pace's or at Mr. Robson 's.
Re-examined by Sir F. Kelly—l was about two years
and a half picking those three hags. From the time I was
appointed to do that duty until now was two years and a
half. lam now superannuated, since last January.

William Sawyer esamined by Mr. 'Macau!, y, Q.C—t am
delivery foreman at Nu. 4. I have been so two years and a
half. I have been seven years in the cm;loy of the de-
fendant,. I know the cask of cocoa that was seised in
No. 4. Them were four bags of clean cocoa collected by
myself and my men. I mean collected after various deli-
veries from the place where the pile had stood. It required
cleaning, and it wr.s afterwards cleaned under my direc-
tions. Cocoa was one of the smaller items; sugar was the
principal. We bad no cocoa in casks. I never km wnn
instance where- the bags would not take the quantity in
them. I never v.:Ji a patty to the removal of any part of
the bulk for goseral sweepings. I remember the Queen of
Shield's cargo. A part of her cargo was weighed as sweep-
ings. lam not certain whether it was two or three bags.
They were piled with the rest and delivered as cargo. I am
nut aware that I have ever taken a Tu:lingo from any other
pile to be supplied fur a missing one.
Cross-exaained by the Solicitor-General.—The sweepings
were trampled under foot, and were not fit to be put with
the rest of the cargo. The stowage book will show it.
I went to No. 4in the early part of 1515. I don't remem-
ber whether that cargo was the tint or second that came
there in 1519. There were no overtakers for the Queen, of
Shields, cargo. I have signed a paper at No. 5 warehouse.
Mr. Ellis is the warehouse-keeper. I was asked to read it.
I was told to do as I pleased about it. I read it and I signed
it. That is the only paper I ever signed fur the dock com-
pany except parteg.
By the jury—That was what is called the foreman's de-
claration.

Ik-examined by Si: F. Kelly—l keep the stowage book.
It contains the meonut of all t'sings in the warehouse, with
the places where they are stowed away.
James Smith Northcote examined by Mr. Peacock, Q.C.
—I am deputy warehouse-keeper of No. 4 and 5 warehouse.
I recollect a ea.k and a bag of cocoa seized at No. 14 room of
No. 4 warehouse. That eaak had bleu filled about three
months before the seizure. It came from sweepings.
Some from Nos. 4 and 6, and part from No. 1.
The sweepings in the hog were collected after the cask
was filled. It had been picked. I have never known any
instance in which cocoa lin. been token from the bulk for
the company's awe( pings. Deficiencies are always supplied
from the sweepings that have been cleaned or picked. 1
never knew an entire bag of cocoa. The Queen of Shields'
cargo we, bulked At No. 4. I think there were two bags of
sweepings. These were merchants' sweeings. They were
weighed and carried to their account. 'Abe cargo belonged

to two merchant.. The other was carried to itecou nt after-
ward.. The three bags were weighed by the Customs.
There wa., to my knowledge, no cocoa in the cook or bag,
except original sweeping., to which the company was enti-
tled. There wte, no concealment in picking the cocoa or
putting it into the casks. I signed this paper on the ISth of
December, 1849.

Sir F. Kelly statzsl that since yestenlay they had the
good fortune to find the bunale of Inlssing documents, and
this was one of them.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General—l have not geen
this paper since I signed it. When 1 applied to the sur-
veyor of Cu•tonn the , :Ton was still on the Boor. Cocoa i.
deficient in weight in hot weather. If it was only one or
two pounds the merchant would not notice it. I•hare not
had much experience with cocoa. 1 have been deputy
warehouse-keeper three years. I cannot ►ay whether there
was any cargo after the icisure. I should ray we have had
only 1,000 or 1,200 hugo altogether.

Ite-examined by Sir F. Kelly—The cask was packed at
No. 14 mom. It was not hidden there. I have mewed
bonus which had nothing at all to do with the sweepings.
The Solicitor-General—Have you got any of your men to
slim papers Mating to these transactions and seizures?
Witness--I don't understand gnat papers you are allud-
ing to. None of the men signed papers at my office.
None of them attended at my warehouse to sign any paper.
I never prepaml a paper myself for their signatures. 1
have men no paper at nay office for signature. I have seen
no paper connected with this infinity. My men arc Neil,
Sawyer, &e. 1 don't remember Briggs ever having a pen
in his hand.
Dv the Court—The foremen made a declaration, but the
warehousemen had nothing to do with it. I saw tire or six
men sign parchment, but I did not sign it.
Donald Sotherland examined by Mr. Macauley, Q.C.—T
have been sampler at the London Docks for upwards of 17
years. I know the cask of cocoa seized at No. 4 warehouse.
It was sweepings. The task was filled under my superin-
tendence. It was tilled up about the 12th of December,
1819. It was filled for the purpose of making a return to
the Customs. Thai quantity drawn for ',unities of sugar does
not amount to two ounec.. We could get through 200 or
300 in an hour. It is quite impossible to avoid spilling. at
the samplings. When a cargo exceeds the landing entry,
we stud notice of it to the owner. That has happened 100
times to my knowledge. I received 101. for one work,
which would not amount to a farthing an hour. I was
present when the Queen of Shields' cargo was bulked.
No considerable part of the cargo could he taken away, and
in fact no part of it was taken away. After the cargo was
weighed up I placed two hugs to one part, and one bag
to another. I don't know of the other myself.
Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General—We elainZd
the two bags of sweepings that we put to the Queen of
Shields. In bulking cocoa, I could always get the cocoa
into bags. It is different with casks. About 1 cwt.
of sugar would be obtained from spilling' of a
cargo of Mauritius sugar. Since the seizure there has
been an alteration. We have altered the practice so far as
the overdrawing' arc concerned ; not immediately after the
seizures, but three or four months ago. I never said that it
would he better to throw the coffee into the dust bin, fur
they must have known it was all fraudulently obtained. I
have signed a paper at our own office at the docks. The
soperintendent received the paper, and asked us if we would
sign it. I refused to sign. a paper drawn up by Mr.
Chandler. I could not consistently sign it. Two or three
objected to sign the first paver—l ter one. The second was
sent. I refused to sign it. I was then at the Widens
Duck, anal ant there mid. All cheerfully subscribed to the
second paper.
••

Ik-examined by Sir F. Kelly—ln sampling we never
spill more than we cart help, and we place us much as in
possible to the Customs' account.
Mr. Edward Bailer, examined by Sir F. Kelly.—l have
the management of the dock department in the house of Cow-
an, Brothers. They imported a cargo of cocoa by the Queen
of Shields in 1849. That is the landing account ; it states
321 bags. There is a sweeping account us well (handed to
wanes...) We had no account of any greater quantity
than that. We afterwards received an account from the
dock company, and I proceeded to take the cargo in Sep-
tentlx,r, 1819. The date of entry was 12th September,
1849, and it was rendered on the 24th December. The
excess weighed 8 cwt. and 19 lb., which was got in
consequence of the information of the company.
1 hove landed sugar at the West India and Lon-
don Docks. The loss is on the average the same
We have had no OCCab:011 to cum lain et the company, al-
though we import very largely. 1 have no cause to com-
plain of the mode in st hich sugar is sampled. I have been
in the employ of Cowan and Cu. upwards of fourteen years,
and have been connected w ith the docks upwards of twenty
years.

_ by Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C.—One of the
partners of Cowan and Co. is a director of the Dock Com-
pany. I donee know whether there was a ►top put on these
goods before the notice to Cowan and Co. We import East
and West India sugar.
John Neil, examined by Mr. Groves—l ant foreman to
No. 4 and 5 Loudon Docks. I have been nearly 20 years in
their terrier. I know the cask of cocoa which was seized.
It was compo,ed of tour bags of our own warehouse and
three from No. 1. 1 superintended the picking of the cask
myself. The cask was filled Dec. 8,1849.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wilde—l remember the Bth of
December, because I have Friuli a receipt, which I saw two
or three days new. I have been foreman billet. 12th :siovem-
ber, 1849. There was more coffee than cocoa.
liescxamined by Mr. Groves—This is the receipt I gave
for the three bags of cocoa from No. 1 (Dec. 8, 1849).
Johu Stone csagained by Mr. Peacock, Q.C.—I am a
labourer employed by the London Dock Company. I was
employed to pick sweepings at No. 4. I separated the
cocoa from the dirt. I was picking cocoa for about ten
mouths. I received 1.55. a week. After I picked it it was
put into a bag and tied up. Mr. Neil was the foreman.
The witness was not cross-examined.

Thomas Righy, examined by Mr. Macauley, Q.C.—I am
employed at the London Docks as labourer. I have been
engaged in them for two years and a half. Four bags of
cocoa were at No. 4, and three bags were received from
No. 1. I don't think that any part of the Queen of Shields'
cargo was taken away.
Creo4-examined by Sir F. Thesigcr—l signed a paper
which was read to me by Mr. Ellis. I have signed three
papers. I signed the first about three weeks ago ; the other
about three days before this trial, and the third between
both.

Peter Chalice examined by Mr. Groves—l have been five
years in the company's employ. I know the cask of cocoa
which has been seized. It was composed of sweepinp.
The witness was not cross-examined.

The Lord Chief Baron expressed his apprehension that
the cause would not he brought to a termination during
the sittings. They had made very little progress in it
to-day.
The rout was adjourned at 5 o'clock.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS—YEstrimy.
EIPOill Ms. 19/11.11LANT Ana.r, AITIVTAaT Jt'SAIL
A PUEETITE BEADLE.
Thonota Doyle, the beadle of a chapel in Charlotte-street,
Pimlico, the service in which was said to be conducted iu '
the Paseyitc manner, was called upon his rccogniaanccs to
answer an indictment charging him with having, on tho
evening of the 29th of December, in the said chapel, and
during the celebration of the service, 'moulted Mr. Edward
Simms, timber merchant, of 36, Gillingham-street, by
forcibly ejecting him from the chapel into the strut.
The defendant did not appear.
The prosecutor said he had compromised the core. the de-
fendant having promised to make a public apo:olty in the
newspapers.
The Court ordered the case to be struck out of to paper.

THE POLICE COURTS.
BOW-STREET.

DF.EETION OF AN INFANT.-111zabetA /7yiin, charged
with having deserted her illegitimate female infant, by
placing it upon a thing-heap in Bear-lard, Lincoln's-inn-
gelds, esposcd to the e.dd and rain, was sentenced to be
imprisoned for two calendar months in the House of Cor-
rection, with hard labour.