The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-03 00:00:00

Thit was an action to recover demur • for breach of pro-
mise of marriage, brought by Caroline Matilda G•sodwin
against Edward Morrison Pegge. This de:eudant pleaded
—drat, that he Dryer promised; and, secmdly, that the
after the time of making the promise had lewdly
and in4ropsey conducted herself with Charles Young, a
man named Ifibberd, and same others. Upon these plea
issue we'
_Holed.
Mr. Caemliere, Q C., with Mr. Prentice, appeared for
the plaiht.ll, Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Johnson I.r
the det.itilaiit.

Mr. Chem'. rs said that the plaintiff wu one of thirteen
thildren, her father being a respectable man living at Bet-
e •, in Susses. In 1817 the defendant was introduced to the
plaintiff, who was then residing at Battle, he pail atten-
tion to tier, sail ultimately became her accepted suitor. He
took advantage of his position, and under these circum-
stances the plaintiff became pregnant. She went to
Brighton, sad was there confined. The fart of the preg-
nancy was (uncoiled from the knowledge of the father.
She bad a second child by the defendant. The defendant
then went into the north of England, but kept up the most
intraday intercourse with the plaintiff. Thus continued
natters from 1847 to 18.52, the defendant continuing his
attentions during the whole of this period. In 1852 he
Inarriel a woman possessing some money, and left the
plaintiff with one child (the other having died) alone
and lielph as. It might be said that the plaintiff, having
dwitted the path of virtue, had forfeited her claim to
amages, but it was not for her seducer to turn
round with this plea. Again, a most wicked statement
had been put upon the record. It had been said
that the plaintiff since the time of the promise of marriage
had been living a lewd and improper life ; the only answer
he would make to this was to defy the learned es rjeant on
the otht r side to prove such to be the case.
Harriett Eliza Goodwin was then called and examined.
She mid—l am the sister of the plaintiff. lat present reside
with my lather and mother at Long Sutton, near Maidstone.
My father is a brewer. In 1347 my father fell into difficul•
ties. My sister and I then opened a milliner's shop at
Battle. We had a house and lived together. The defen-
dant was then introduced by Mr. Charles Young, the
brother to the solicitor fur the defence. After this he often
came to sue us. He was steward to Sir G. Webster, of
Battle Abbey. The plaintiff and defendant used
to meet at church every Sunday, and after
church Purge used to juin my sister and myself
in the park. We used to walk about for an hour or so. I
wa.; always told to run on. The plaintiff and defendant
walked together. He used to visit us in this manner, and
the walks on • Sunday continued until 1819. My sister
left our house in 1849. She went to Brighton. She said
she was gt.ttig for a holiday. 1 saw my sister with this
ring (producing a ring) upon her finger is 1849. She came
boost one day with it on. I chaffed the defendant about
the ring. I said to the detendant, " You have given
Carry tan engaged ring." It was a figured ring, without
any stone. Ile replied, I shall give her • plain one some
day." I know a person named Ilibberd. Ile was an ar-
titled clerk to Mr. Young. Mr. Young was my father's
lawyer. I became acquainted with Mr. Hibberd through
Mr. C Young, an articied clerk in Mr. Young's office.
Defendant on one onasion said to me, Mr. Ilibberd ad-
mired nay elate, very much, and asked whether my sister
thoezht anything of hint. The defendant also said it had
been reported that Ilibberd said he would cut him (Pegge)
out. Ile then asked if I knew whether Hibberd had made
her an offer. I said. lt Yes, but that my sister thought of
r.n one hut him." lie replied, If she doee' I will
bre di off the engagement, and will not make her may
wife." My sister was at Brighton two cr three
months. When she came back I earned from her
that she had been confined. I did sot toll my father and
mother. lam aware that the child died. I know the de•
tendant's handwriting. These three etten are in the
handwriting of the defendant. (Three letters were then
put in and read. In the tied, the plaintiff spoke of his visit
to Xasehester, and expressed his desire to enjoy her com-
pany. In the second, the defendant said that hie thought/
had been upon the plaintiff all day, that ha could think of
nothing else ; that her letters, although she thought here II
no let•er writer, were of great consolation to him. In the
third letter be signed himself, " Your unfortunate lover.")
Essmination resumed—When my sister returned from
Ilrisihtoc, both she and I went to reside at my father's ; the
defendant visited the plaintiff there. My sister afterwards
went to live at the house of Mrs. Buckingham (another of
my sisters.) She afterwards left Mn. Buckingham's house
sod came to Logsdon. The defendant is now an al:Mouser
at Hastings.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins—My father
keeps a her/160p as well as a brewery. Ho kept a beer-
shop at Battle. I have been living with my father lately.
I have also lived for two or three weeks at Marestrect.
Hammond-road. Mrs. Stokes keeps the house. Mrs.
blokes is not • relative of mine. My sister also is living
there. My sister and I took the first floor. We went there
because of my sister having to come up to see the lawyers
on this matter. They reside in Furnivareimn. Mr. Young
has called at our house 2 or 3 times, when we kept • mil-
liner's shop. The house contained two dwellings
with one door. A Mr. Ford, a blacksmith, occupied one of
the dwelling., we the other. Mr. Charles Young has not
beta in oar house at night. He has walked with me early
In the evening, before amok, in the summer time. That
has ocennell frequently when be his been with Pegg.. I
have not bed intercourse with Mr. C. Young. Ile did not
have connexia with me in the presence of my sister. I
will net answer the question whether I have had connesion
with any men. lam not obliged to do so. I have not had
counesion with a man while another named George Biddler
was under the bed. I krow Mr. Wagner. I /*collect Mr.
Wagner throwing stones against our window, and Mr. Ford,
who loved in the nest dwelling, being awakened thereby. I
came to the window. Wagner said, " Let me in, my dear."
He then ran off. My sister and I slept together. I thought
to myself she was in the (emit) way when she left for
Brighton. I knew Walter Levy. I will not answer the
questMa whether or not I have had connexion with him.
When my sister came back from Brighton she was much
altered. She went to live with her father and mother.
The ring was given in December; the intimacy commenced
in June. The defendant mover passed • sight at our house.
No one ever did so. Mr. C. Yams amilamstbat gentleman
never had wine there. lam la die drammskias business. I
am not much at home. Igo out to work. Ido nothing but
dressmaking and millinery for a living. The rent of the
Loose which I and my sister occupied was 101. a year. My
',Later had a second child. I think it was born in BM.
The defendant allows is. a week for the child's keep. The
plaintiff is older than I.
Reexamined—We went to Mary.street because we knew
the neighbourhood. My sister has been several times to
Mr. Baslam's, the lawyer's, since we have come up. I
only know Mr. Wagner by sight. The time alluded to
when he threw up the mope was in 1848. There were some
other men eanding by laughing. Charles and Henry
Young and Mr. Hibbard an hen. I have seen them
Den.

Charles Augustus Goodwin, the father of the plaintiff,
was this esteemed. He said—l keep a beerskop and
brewery. I settled in Battle in 1810. I have bad 13
children. One I lost in the mash•tub. I know Mr.Youag.
He acted as attorney for the mortgagees of my property.
I left my brewery at Battle in 1846. I hired premises for
my daughters to set up in bunion,. I know Mr. l'egge. I
knew he was keeping my daughter Caroline's company
when she kept the shop at Battle. Peggy afterwards
•isited her at my house frequently, I allowed my daughter
to walk out with I'egge. I took him for a respectable
man.

Charles Inskip was then culled and ezamined. He said
—I am an auctioneer. I married one of Mr. Goodwin's
daughters. It was about 14 years ago. I knew Mr. Pegg,
is 1147. I have men Pewee with the defendant. I knew
that he was paying his addressee to my sister-in-law. Mr.
Peggy is living at Hastings with a lady, and I believe him
to be married. _ _

This concluded the plaintiff's ease.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins said he had a sliest painful duty to
perform. He would, however, in :he execution of his duty,
state that the witness Hemet Goodwin and the plaintiff
were in no way to be relied on. If he were well iostructad
the two litters had in fact kept a brothel. The plaintiff
had not brought this action and laid the venue in her own
county because she knew that her character was too well
known in her own neighbourhood. The letters put in
proved no promise, nor had any witness made out • proof,
with the exception of the sister, whose evidence he sub-
mitted was not to be relied upon. But the evidence he
would call would show that, even though a promise had
been made, the conduct of the plaintiff had been such as to
exonerate the defendant from all blame.
Mr. Walter Levy was then called, but his evidence in no
way affected the plaintiff.
John Feed was nest called—Be said, I live at Battle. I
am • blacksmith. I recollect the plaintiff and her sister
occupying the dwelling ',joining mine. I did not notice
anything particularize their conduct. I have heard men
talent.; sometimes as late as 8,9, and 10 o'clock at night.
I rer..lltct • man, whom I believe to be Mr. Wagner,
eallinf. It was about 2 o'clock in the morning. I went to
the window. lie said Come down, my dear, and let me