The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-11-18 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

A case has just been adjudicated upon in the Court
of Exchequer, where Emma Disborough was the plaintiff,
and Weinman Ho'mes, the proprietor of the Coach and
Horses, Shadwell, London, defendant, to recover damages for
pecuniary losses sustained by what turned out to be a cri-
minal assault: The facts of this extraordinary case will be
gleaned by the following evidence : —The plaintiff, on
being sworn, testified that she entered the defendant's
service, as nursery maid, in September 1854. When there
some time, the defendant met her going up stairs, seized
hold of her, and attempted to throw her down. For this
she gave him a "spank" in the face, and threatened to tell
her mistress. She held that this was a counter assault. A
day or two after he repeated the assault in the kitchen,
when she struck him with a knife. He then promised a
sovereign, and tried to pull her down into the cellar. Three
weeks after he attacked her in the nursery, when he effected
his criminal purpose, although she resisted all in her power,
after which he went down stairs. The offence was repeated
about a fortnight after, in the same place. On the last
occasion it occurred in the middle of the day, in the month
of April, in the cook's bed-room, he having come into the
room when I was in the act of making the bed. In May,
when I was going upstairs, he urged me to go into my
mistress's bed-room, and on my declining to do so he asked
me what was the matter with me, observing, "Are you in
the family way ?" I said, " Yes." He said "D
waist,
it." He then took hold of me round the but 1
resisted and would not go into the room. Mrs, Holmes
was sorry to part with me. I left on the 19th of November,
when Mrs. Holmes paid me my wages, 30s, and Mr.
Holmes gave me £.l to buy baby linen with, saying that
was all be could do at present. I asked him if that was all
he could do for me, and he replied that he could do nothing
more, and that I must father the child on either W. Imas or
David Midgeley, who were barmen in the defendant's service.
Three months after my confinement I went with my sister
to see the defendant, who, having been called out of his
house, and being asked if he would do anything for me and
the child, said with an oath that he would not. Cross
examined : Each and every time the defendant had inter-
course with me was against my will. He had connection
with me four times, and on each occasion I resisted, but did
not hallow out. I tried todo so, but was unable in consequence
of his placing bis apron over my mouth. When be threw
me on the bed in the cook's room he turned the bed clothes
over my face. I did not tell the cook what had occurred,
nor did I tell my sister, but I said I never could go about in
consequence:of my master's misconduct. Mrs. Holmes was
confined about two months before I left. Mrs. Holmes's
sister, who was in the h use at the time, discovered that I
was in the family way, but Mrs. Holmes never asked me
who the father of the child was. She said she thought she
knew whose child it was. I said the father of the child was
not in the house at that time, as Mr. Holmes was then out
walking. Mr. Ballantine : When did you first discover that
Mr. Holmes had connection with you ? Witness : I should
say when he committed the assaults. (Laughter.) One of
the barmen, William Imas, came into the room when I was
making the bed, as it was my duty to do, and I left it at
once. I don't know where Imas is ; I have not seen him since
I left the defendant's service. Mr. Ballantine : Did you go
out walking with the barmen ? Witness : That is my business.
Mr. Ballantine : Now, on your oath, did you ever go out
with that young man, William Imes ? Witness : I did.
Once I went to Primrose bill with him on a Sunday, and
returned home about ten o'clock at night, having parted
with him, and having gone to see my sister. He came
home before me. I never gave him my likeness. He gave
me his likeness, but I returned it to him. Mr. Ballantine :
Was it like the b thy ? Witness : No. I gave it back
because I did not wish to encourage his advances, inconse-
quence of my master's misconduct. Mr. Ballantine : NOW,
girl, have a care. Have you been seen in Imas's bed ?
Witness : Never, except on one occasion, when the cook
was sitting on his bed with me. The cook and Imas had
been " larking" in the other bed-room, and he threw her
on the bed. After this they left the room. I never had
improper intercourse with any man except the defendant.
Elizabeth Disborough, the sister of the last witness, was
next called, and corroborated the statement made by her
sister as to the interview with the defendant, and as to her
sister having incurred the expense of lodging in consequence
of her confinement. Elizabeth Chacup proved that the
plaintiff had taken apartments in her house, where she had
been confined, This having closed the case on behalf of
the plaintiff, the following evidence was adduced for the
defence. D. Midgeley said : I was formerly human in the
defendant's service. There was another barman, named Wm.
Imes. I left in July, 1855, and went to keep the King's Arms,
at Shadwell. During the time I was at the defendant's I
observed familarities between William Imes and the plain-
tiff, Emma Disborough. About a month or two after she
carve I proposed familiarities to her, and she told me that
she was on intimate terms with William, and, therefore, did
not wish to have anything to say to me. She told me that
she had William's likeness, I have seen Emma Disborough
leave William Irnas's room on several occasions. I have
seen them kiss and " cuddle" each other in the bedroom
and kitchen. I have also seen him tumbling her about on
one occasion on the bed.—Cross-examined : I have never
taken a liberty with the plaintiff, although I may
have pulled hey about. I have never bad improper
connection with her. I did not know that she was in
the family way till after the child was born. I then
paid my addresses to her. I was not familiar with her.
At this stage of the proceedings .several letters dated in
Dscember, 1854, and January, 1855, were handed to the
witness, which he admitted he had written, and which
began, "My dear Emma," and after having expressed
himself in most affectionate terms, went on to inquire in
allusion to the plaintiff's confinement, whether she had
made any application to Mr. Holmes, adding, "The least
he can do is to give you a character so as to enable you to
obtain a situation, anTif he does not he must put up with
the consequences." Examination continued : I mean to
swear that previous to writing these letters I had seen the
plaintiff carrying on the improper intimacies with 'William
Imes to which I have spoken. I did not know when I wrote
those letters that the defendant was the father of the child,
anti she Dever told me so, Mr. Serjeant Thomas : What ?
Why, your letter states the contrary. What do you mean by
saying that Mr. Holmes must "put up with the consequences"?
Mr. Baron Martin: What do you mean by stating that you
were not familiar with the girl, after what you wrote to
her? The witness did not answer, and having become
deadly pale, was obliged to be supported in the witness box.
Having taken a glass of water, he said he was prepared to
go on with the examination. Mr. Serjeant Thomas : Were
you intimate with that girl in an improper way. Witness :
No. Mr. Serjeant Thomas: Did she tell you that the
defendant was the father of the child ? Witness: No. Mr.
Serjeant Thomas : Then, why did you write that letter to
the plaintiff in allusion to the defendant being the father of
the child? Witness: Because I had her word for
it that Holmes was the father of the child. (Sense-
just said that she did not tell you.
tion.) Mr. Serjeant Thomas : Then she did tell you.
Why, you' have
What do you mean, sir, by this trifling and pre-
varication? I have no amore que.tions to put to you.
Re-examined : I have been married since the occurrences
I have spoken of. I never mentioned to the defendant's
solicitor that I had carried on a correspondence with the
plaintiff. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine : Do you mean to say
that you have not carried on an ellicit connection with
the plaintiff? The witness hesitated, appearing incapable
of making a reply. Mr. Baron Martin : Tell the truth,
my man. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine : I must implore of
I
you to
answerr `Pain ans mquestion truly. Witness : On my oath
hHolmes, the defendant, was
next examined: He said lam la
married man, with four
children. I never took any liberties with, or had con.
nection with the plaintiff, either in the nursery, on the
bed, or the floor, or elsewhere. I have never taken the
liberty of speaking to her, except on business. I seldom
speak to my servants. Cross-examined: I never gave her
any money except as wages. I met the plaintiff and her
sister in the street, and when they asked me for money
I told them to go away, and refused to give them any.
James Taylor stated that he had seen Imas pull the plain-
tiff about. Mrs. Mary Holmes, the wife of the defendant,
said, I discovered that the plaintiff was in the family way
during my confinement in September. I accused her of
it, and she did not deny it. I asked her who was the
father of the child, and she replied, "No one in this
house, or any one that has ever been in it." I heard the
plaintiff's sister say when she called, that she would
make my husband support the child whether it was his or
not. Cross-examined : It was the plaintiff's duty to make
the beds in which the barmen slept. Mary Iverson, the
cook to the defendant, was called, and stated that she
had never witnessed any romping between the plaintiff
and William Imas, in the manner spoken to by the
witness Midgeley. The learned counsel on either side
having addressed the jury at considerable length, Mr.
Baron Martin told the jury in the course of his sum-
ming up, that this was a case of considerable importance,
and one which demanded of them their utmost care and
attention. This was the first instance that he was aware
of where a woman brought an action to recover damages
for a criminal assault; for if the plaintiff was to be believed,
such had been committed. There were many instances
in which a young woman objected at first to improper
intercourse being had with her, but when it was followed
by further intimacies, that would have the effect of getting
rid of the charge of a criminal assault, and had in this
ease leave and license been pleaded, it would have been a
bar to the action. However, that had not been done,
and the action was brought for an assault which, if the
plaintiff's version of the case was true, was of a
very serious character. There was clearly no rape
or ravishment, according to the plaintiff's own statement.
There was no doubt but that the most wicked perjury had
been committed on one side or the other, and it was for
th,rn to say on which side it lay. The case on behalf of
tho plaintiff rested entirely on her own evidence, and was
in-direct opposition to that of the defendant, by which it
was intended to be shown that William Imas was the
father of the child. The witness Midgeley would doubt-
less have deposed to this, had not his letters written to the
plaintiff been produced. The learned judge said, for his
part, he believed that Midgeley was the father of the
child, and that he had conspired with the woman to
affiliate it on the defendant, who was on the other hand
led to believe that Midgeley could prove that Imas was
the father of the child. It was difficult to direct them as
to the amount of damages they would award in the event
of their returning a verdict in favour of the plaintiff.
That he must leave to themselves. The jury retired, and
atter being absent for some considerable time, returned
into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £2O.