The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-01 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 1. 1853.

any business, but speculate a hula in mining shares. My
<taught r (phintilf) left say houee inJulv,lSl9, end returned
again in a fortnight or three "he**. I did not know why
she went away. I called on the defendant last February.
I saw Mts. Newton. and she applied fur me to see him. I
saw hint at his counting lc use. He said he knew
Isnuint Truseott, my slaughter. I said I fu.:nd from certain
letters that he had made promises to her. He said he had
picked her up in the , and that he had as much right
to do so as a bishop, or a parson, or try other person—
(laughter) —and I c should not make any satisfaction. !said
it was conduct very unfit fur a guardian of the pari-h ; and
he should hear from m solicitor. Th: plaintiff is now
living with me ; her health, bodily end mentally, is very
indifferent now. My daughter ban told me of Me. Newton's
property. I went yesterday to look at it.

Cross-examined by Mr. James—l did not know where my
daughters lived after they left me, or whether they lived
together. I did not charge defendant with seducing my
daughter, but with a breach of promise of marriage.

Rebecca Fountain, examined by Mr. Pearson—l know
the defendant. lam a tenant of him. I occupy a house of
his. I remember about two can aeo Mr. Newton coming
to my house with a young lady in his chaise. I joked him
about marrying at one time, and he said he hid got a good
wife.

Mr. Pearson here proposed to call the plaintiff. Ile
knew that be could not do 11 upon the main facts, as
breaches of promise of marriage were excepted from the
new Law of Et idence Act; but ho should call her to prove
that the defendant took the chain against her will.
Mr. James objected, as the defendant could not be called.
Mr. Baron Martin said the plaintiff might be called to
give evidence as to the first count, which alleged that the
defendant had wrongfully broken open a box, &c , and
taken a gold chain. That count might have been put in to
enable the plaintiff to he called. He thought an 'poll-
cation ought to hate been made to a judgo to strike that
count Out.

The plaintiff was then called.
Mr. Jamnuid he did not know what course to adopt;
but he shouLl.feel at liberty to ask the plaintiff any ques-
tions which might tend to affect her credit.
Louisa Lloyd Truscott—l am the plaintiff. Defendant
had given me a watch-chain, He took it away from me
twice. The second time was against my will. The first
time I gave it to him. I have asked ham for it, and he
said his daughter had got it, and he could not get it back
again. lie told me it was worth thirteen or fourteen
guineu. He wrote me a number of letters, which I kept
an a box. I have some, and others he destroyed against my
will. I had left the box open.
Cres-examined by Mr. James—On what day did you
meet Mr. Newton first? Did you ever see him before the
Ist of September, 1860, at the Royal Exchange ?—I
can't say when. It is so many peen ago.
Mr. Baron Martin said the learned gentleman was incom-
petent to put such a question.
Mr. James said it applied to her credibility.
The examination was then proceeded with.
I first mct the defendant in 1848 at the Royal Exchange.
I was living at Hatch's in 1850. I knew defendant before
I went there. I u knew a man called Edwards, or who
went by that name, except the defendant.
[Min Hatch eras'here called into court and recognised by
the witness.]
I persevere In saying I did not know a man called Ed-
wards. I know Trego, the builder. I went there abut
a man called Hare. Something occurred at the house
;where I lived, and that gentleman had been spiteful to me.
I went to him about it. I never charged him seriously
with being the father of my child. I never said much
about it. It was in consequence of something Miss Hatch
had said. The man at Trego'a came to Hatch's after me.
He did not pass by the name of Edwards. He was an
elderly person, and a married man. He never slept at
Hatch's. I met Hare when I was disappointed, at a place
where I had been to meet Mr. Newton, and was disap-
pointed. I felt very unhappy, and was crying, and this
gentleman saw me, and spoke to me ; and he met me after-
wards. I never said positively that he was the father of
my child. I used to laugh and say I did not know anything
about it. I saw Mr. Newton before I was confined. I
never went with him to any particular place. We used to
ride in calm. I first introduced defendant to my sister in
August, 1850. I lost sight of the defendant for some time.
Re-examined—Who was the father of your child ?—He
always satcl he was, and the other said be was not.
Mr. Baron Martin—Who was the father of your child ?
—I believe the defendant was.

By Mr. Pearson—The defendant spoke to me of mar-
riage the first time I saw him. The defendant passed as
Mr. Edwards. He told me that was his name when I first
saw him. Hare came to Hatch's, and Miss Hatch said all
sorts of things against me, and I went to Trego's to bays it
explained. I afterwards took lodgings under the name of
" Lloyd," at the defendant's request. I first knew that
defendant's wife was dead by • letter, in which he said
he wished me to be at the Cemetery at the funeral ; and I
went.

Mr. James objected to this, as bearing directly on the
issue of the breach of promise.
Mr. Baron Martin said that after Mr. James's cross-
examination, Mr. Pearson was at liberty to go intn the
whole ease.
Mr. James asked the learned Judge to take a note of his
objecti•n.
Mr. Pearson declined to put any further questions.
Mr. Simmonds stated that he knew the defendant. lie
knew ho was married. Be told him so about a week ago.
He believed him to be a man of large property. He was a
wharlinger, and had always some thousands of pounds'
worth oi wood on the wharf. He was also a coal mer-
chant. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

Mr. E. Junes then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He wonld prove that the plaintiff first met the defendant
on the let Sept., 1860. He had left his gig at the Royal
Eichange, and met the plaintiff walking about the streets.
She web then lodging at Hatch's. She took the lodgings for
Mr. end Mn. Edwards," and lived there with a person
called Edwards from the spring of 1860. She told witness
after witness that Edwards was the father of her child.
Edwards slept with her night after night, and continued to
do so up to the let of Sept. The sister of the plaintiff said
she did not hear of Mr. Newton until Au-
gust, 1850. The case had been trumped up, for there never
had beta a promise of marriage, or any intention on the part
of the defendant to marry the plaintiff. He regretted the
conduct of the defendant, as a married man, and the father
of a family ; but that was not a court of morality and the
only question which the jury had to try was whether the
promise to marry had been made or not. The " promise" to
which defendant alluded in ono of his letters, had reference
no doubt to the plaintiff's being chaste to him ; and be
cautioned her, and her sister, against being out late at
night, lest she • hould break that promise. He should call
his witnesses to prove the facts he bad stated—facts which
were known to the defendant, and he would leave the
jury to judge whether his client could have intended to
marry such a person as the plaintiff or not. There was, in
fact, no pretence for saying so, end it was merely an attempt
to extort money from the defendant.
Miss Match examined by Mr. Hawkins—l was living
with my father in New Union-street in 1850. The plaintiff
called, we had lodgings to let. She said her name was
Edwards, and that she was married. I think it was about
Midsummer. She said her.busband was engaged at night.
She took the lodgings at 2s. 6d. per week. She came
in about a week after. I first saw a
.gentleman call on her
about a fortnight afterwards. It was Mr. Edwards. I
know the defendant—it was not him. It was a tall person.
Mr. Edwards used to come generally in the afternoon, and
remain about three hours. I don't know whether he ever
slept in the house. Plaintiff on one occasion said that Mr.
Edwards did not wish her to goafter him to Mr. Trego's,
because she disgraced him before the clerks. A quarrel
took place between Mill Trueeott and Mr. ?Awards, two or
three months after she had been at our boom. Plaintiff
told witness it was became she disgraced him by going to
Mr. Trego•tr. Mr. Edwards came with two policemen
when the quarrel took place. After the policemen had
gone, I had some convened= with plaintiff about a child.
She asked me what Edwards had said. I told her what he
had said about disgracing him at the office, when she burst
into tears, and said that he was the man that took
her from her home and seduced her, and by whom
she had bad a child. Mr. Edwards came 'gain in about
a month, and continued his visite for about two months. I
never saw Mr. Newton until Mr. Edwards bad left. Mr.
Newton came one evening and stopped all night. I saw
him come down stain in the morning, and I asked her how
it was she allowed a gentleman to remain all night, and
she said it was her father who was taken suddenly ill, and
lay on the floor daring the night. He came afterwards.
Notice was given to plaintiff to leave, because the neigh-
bean wondered at our having such a character in the
house. She was there altogether about 12 months. I met
her one day after she had left. She said she was living at
Horton, and had everything she could wish for ; that the
'gentleman was very kind to her, and that she had done
with Edwards altogether.
Cross-examined—Her father was a pensioner of the Dra-
pers' Company. Her father had known Mr. Newton for
many years. Mr. Newton did not go under the name of
Edwards. He slept at the house on an average two nights'
a week. _ . .

Edward Hatch, the brother of the laat witness, stated
that his father was too ill to be present. He knew of Mr.
Edwards's coming to see the plaintiff. Witness knew the
defendant well ; tt was not him. Edwards continued to
visit the plaintiff for four or five month.. Remembered Mr.
Edwards coming there with two police officers. He knocked
at plaintiff's door, but did not receive any answer. He
came down and saw witness's sister, and told her:that plain-
tiff was not his wife, but that she was a woman following
him about for money. Mr. Edwards worked at Mr.
Trcgo's. Witness's father gave her notice to quit. Mr.
Newton came to see the plaintiff about three weeks before
she left. There were other lodgers in the house who bad
complained of the plaintiff being there.
Mr. Serjeant NS' ilkins then replied, and contended that
the defendant had not made any substantial defence. There
could be no doubt that he had obtained possesion of the
gold chain which he had given to the plaintiff against her
will, and that would entitle her to a verdict on the first
count. And then, as to the promise of marriage, there was
no question that it had been made, and the conduct of the
defendant in attempting to deny it was most cowardly and
contemptible.
Mr. Baron Martin told the jury that the first question
for their consideration was, whe'her the defendant had
taken the gold chain ; secondly, if he had made the promise
to marry the plaintiff; and, if so, what amount of damages
she was entitled to ? That was a question entirely for the
jury. The plaintiff had carefully guarded herself from
saying that the defendant was the father of her child ; and,
looking at all the circumstances, the jury must say what
sum they considered her entitled to, if they thought the
promise to marry was proved.
The jury after a few minutes' consideration, found •
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 108 L-1001. for the breach
of prcooleo of asarriage, sod 81. for the gold chain.

THE POLICE COURT'S.

MARLBOROUGH S:CREET.

John Ellis was brought before Mr Liugham, charged
with fraudulently obtaining • half-crown from Granule
Edward Harcourt Vernon, Esq , M.P. fer Newark.
The prosecutor stated that that morning, ahrict ten
o'clock, the prisoner CUM to him at his resiorei,ce, No. 2,
Albemarle-street, aad represented himself to be the son of
Mr. Else, a respectable baker is Newark, and one of his
constituents, which place prisoner said he left nine tin) s
ego, in search of employment in London in some up-
holstery business. Prisoner also said his brother had been
employed by Mr. Smith, in Piccadilly; but that Le Lad
failed in obtaining any employment, and was in the greati,st
possible distress, and wanted to get home. Prosecutor
questioned hint as to all the most respectable and best
known persons in Newark, and found that he knew nothing
at all about the place. Prosecutor's suspicions were then
aroused, and he then sent for his servaut, and in his pre-
sence gave prisoner a half-crown. Ile then sent for a con-
stable and gave him in charge.
11.9berts, 152 C, said he took charge of tie prisoner, and
on the way to the station he asked him if the story was
correct that he told the gentleman. Prisoner said it was,
hut he subsequently admitted that it was not true, and that
he was not the son of the bakt r he had represented him,elf
to be, and it was of no use the gentleman writing down to
Newark. _ _

11; prisoner, in defence, vid he wee bred and born in
Newark, and being in diVtress, and knowing that prosecutor
was the member fur Newark, he went to ask hint for a little
assistance to help him on the way home.
Mr. Bingham said the trick wu so clumsily done, that be
was inclined to believe that the prisoner was new to the
business, and that this might be his first offence. He should,
however, remand him till Saturday next, in order that some
inquiries might be made about him.
Mr. Vernon said he took up the caso on public grounds,
as he had been repeatedly imposed upon by other persons.
HAMMERSMITH,

Mr. Martin, solicitor, applied to Mr. Deaden for a sum-
mons against Julia Wilson, calling herself Mrs. Heald, of
No. 1, Old Field-terrace, Acton—who on Monday week
laid charged one of her servants, Mary Ann Jackson, with
stealing two diamond rings, and failed to appear against
her on the day app, inted—tor detaining the young woman's
clothes.

Mr. Martin said the complainant went to Mrs. Heald's
house, accompanied by a witness, on Wednesday, for the
purpose of demanding her clothes and a fortnight's wages,
that being the time she was in her service. She claimed
24e., being 12s. per week, as she was on board wages. She
saw one of the servants, who told her that Mrs. Heald ex-
pected a receipt before she paid her the wages or deliver
up her things. The young woman told her that Mrs.
Heald knew what was due to her, and, also what clothes
belonged to her, and that there was no necessity for any
receipt. The servant went up stairs, and soon afterwards
Mrs. Heald looked out of window. She made use of an
offensive expression and threatened to give his client two
black eyes it she did not immediately quit her premises.
The young woman and her witness then quickly left the
place.
Mr. Beadon granted the summons.