Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
BAIL COURT.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.--Before Mr. Justice

Wightman and Common Juries)

WEBB v. WmuB.-BEntreTroN..—Mr. Edwin James,
Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Henry James were
counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr.
Field were counsel for the defendant. This was an action
for seduction. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr.
Edwin James, in stating the ease to the jury, said, the
.plaintiff, Mrs. Webb, was the widow of a farmer, residing
on her property at Lockridge, Wilts ; and the defendant
was a baker and miller, carrying on business at Marlborough,
in Wilts; and this action was brought to recover compen-
sation in damages for theseduction of her daughter; whereby
she had been deprived of her services. The plaintiff's
daughter, up to the period when she gave birth to her
child, was of unsullied reputation; but, in consequence of
the defendant's conduct towards her, she had been separated
from her friends, and had to reside in London to avoid as
much as possible the disgrace- that attached to her and her
family. The defendant, who was a malster and baker, and
possessed of considerable property, lived a few miles from
the plaintiff's residence. The daughter was now 24 years
of age, and the defendant about 12 or 13 wars- older, and
they first became acquainted in 1851, at the defendant's
cousin's, where the plaintiff's daughter visited. Lie visited
her there and at other places-up to 1853; after that hepaid
his addresses to her, and, under a solemn promise of
marriage, he seduced her in July, 1856, and she gave birth
to a child in September, 1858. The young-girl endeavoured
to 'conceal her digrace and that of the family, and on several
occasions she appealed to him to make her his wife as he
had promised. The learned counsel then read the following
letter, which the daughter had sent to the defendant on
discovering the state she was in :
"Oh, Sydney, I thought not to; have written or sent to
you again before August. I cannot suffer the pain and
misery, and keep it to myself ; may I tell mamma, or-will
you marry me before it is known ? I solemnly swear never
to say lam married to you, if you wish it. Sydney, have
the feelings of a father—let put child be born in wedlock
let' not disgrace be on its innocent head that could' not
help our faults. Sydney, I've no father to advise me. I
eau only bring disgrace and trouble on my only remaining
parent. I would rather a thousand times have suffered
death in the worst form than bring the tumble upon her,
but I could not think you would act dishonourable to me
after all that had passed. Write to me and advise me
what to do, or otherwise tell me if I can see you on Thursday
or Friday, but not to meet me with that cold, cruel, freez-
ing, and angry look you gave me last. You knew it would
give me a turn, and I could say nothing to you. Remember,
Sydney, if you do not marry me I shall be the first of our
family that ever disgraced it. Sydney, dearest Sydney, if
this letter appears unkind I cannot help: it. Consider what
my feelings are, and pray, pray, Sydney, marry me.. No
one need know when we are married, whether six or eight
months ago, or when. With best love, dearest Sydney,
yoar forsaken girl PoLLY. P.S.—Tell me in your note
where I shall meet you, or otheryise what to do. Do not
keep me in suspense. Shall I see you to-night about half-
past 7 o'clock, against the school, a little way up Sun-lane.
Do not come, dearest Sydney, if you are cross, but do not
keep me waiting if you can help it. Best and kindest love.,
good bye. God bless you.---M. W. You must come a
little way up Sun lane, before yoti see me."
That letter was written at the time she was anticipating
her confinement in September, but the defendant took no
notice of it in any manner; and this poor girl was left not
merely to bear the disgrace of her confinement and the'dis-
grace she had brought upon her family, but without the
slightest provision for the maintenance of her child.
After the birth of the child she wrote to the defendant as

follows

that your child is born, and in truth Toucan
no longer deny him, ,will you allow me n-n3-ilitng towards
his support, or will you not It is your duty to act a
father's - port to the child, as well as mine a. mother's.
Remember, Sydney, on Saturday, 20th February, 18'58,
you told me, when against Mr. Dowling's, if it proved I
was sr), you would allow me so much a 7..-eeldikto*
and if a boy, when big enough
as well as the rest you have
Cao not receive answer to this by Wednesday
NCI,' I shall take proceedings against you. Then swear
before me that yeu know nothing of me. You had better
bring your mother, brother, and sister, with Margaret,
since they are all so positive it is not yours (they are very
wise, I should think.) Tell them I feel particularly
obliged to them for troubling themselves about me, and
should be sorry to show so mean and sordid a disposition.
I hope they are the happier for what they have said. lam
none the worse. They shall see the child ere long, and
judge for themselves who it's like.—l am, sir, yours re-
spectfully, M. WEBB."
The defendant had taken no notice of this letter, and the
daughter had the burden of this child to maintain, as, well
as to bear up against being the outcast of a respectable
family believed there was no ground of palliation or
jusuuc.4,Lou. ou Law 11C:

- .
daughter's conduct was without imputation. Moralist
talked of the social evil of the present day, but it was the
conduct of men like the defendant who caused our streets to
be haunted by so many wretched creatures ; and he trusted
the jury would endeavour to find a remedy by inflicting
heavy damages when such cases came before them. He
called the following evidence :—Mrs. Jane Webb deposed :
I am the plaintiff in this action, and reside at Lockeridge,
in Wilts. In 1851, I was living at Ogburne, in Wilts, with
my two sons and daughter Mary, who is between 24 and 25
years of age. Mr. Henry Willes, a cousin of the' defen-
dant's lived near. At the end of 1851, my daughter went
on a visit to Mr.. Henry Wiles and his family, and in 1852,
I believe, she there made the defendant's acquaintance.
After that, I changed my residence to• Lockeridge, about
three miles from Itarlborough. Whilst I lived, there' she
visited at the defendant's cousin's at Whitfield. ,I have
only ' seen the defendant two or three times. I was
aware he was paying his addresses to my daughter.
The first time I saw him was . when he came
and informed ,• me he had obtained a situation for
my son, I dealt with the defendant for bread, &c.; -and
I Used ' to send my daughter there. My daughter
was delivered of a child in September, 1858. I first became,
aware she was in the familyway in April, and then I sent'
her to Mrs. Willes, the cousin, where she remained about
three weeks,- and.then went to Wroughton, near Swindon,
where she.remained till near her confinement, which took
place at Wandsworth. The child 'is still living. • I paid
the expenses of my daughter's maintenance and confinement,
and since that time I have had to support her and her child.
My daughter has never lived at home since. I have no
children now living with me. I have four sons, a married
daughter, mid Mary, the subject of the preient action. Cross-
examined by-Mr. M. Chambers : I believe my daughter was
24 last January. I don't know the exact age of my daughter.
My youngest 'son is 17 years of age. My sons are in situa-
tions. She lived with me as my housekeeper, and used to
Call on the defendant and order the bread. The defendant
was only at my house twice—the last time about two years
ago. My daughter occasionally went to Marlborough in.
the afternoon and returned in the evening ; she was later=
than usual when the defendant came home with her. I
have known her come home from Marlborough as late•
as eleven 'o'clock, after having spent the evening at the,
defendant's with him and his sisters, who resided with him..
She generally returned home between 8 and 9 o'cleelt.in
the evening in the summer timer and earlier in the winter.
I generally waited' up for her and let her in. She.• has
come home as late. as 11 -o'clock at night by herself,.but
she told me ' the defendant had accompanied her to, the
house. Re-exanained by Mr_ Hawkins : On her:- return
honie, I always. enquired of her where she had been. I
live on a small property of my own. Mary Webb,examined
by Mr. Henry James, deposed : I am the plaintiff's daugh-
ter. In 1851 I became acquainted with Mr. and' Mrs.
Henry Willes, and:on the New Year's day I- met „the
defendant there at a party. I met him there•froatime to
time, betwec then and the March following. At this
stage the leained'counsel conferred together and a verdict
was taken, for the plaintiff, by consent, for-MO, ail further
proceediuts to be stayed.

WOMAN CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTING TO
------- POISON HEE HUSBAND:
On Wednesday, at the 11 Police-court, Eetsy, Fergu-
son and Mary. Hanson were charged - with administering
arsenic to John Ferguson, furniture broker; South-street,
Hull. The woman Ferguson is the wife of the prosecutor,
and she appeared to be deeply affected while in court. The
other prisoner is an elderly woinaa, and for same months
past had let off part of her house tc* the prosecutor and his
with: In his examination prosecutor stated that on Monday
last lie had some broth and also n
Mutto for his dinner. The
,cstable witt. hinal but they did not
-kbout a cupful; and. soon became

prisOners sat at the san
taste the broth ; he too
very sick; He afterwards went to his work; and r
about ten•o'clock in the evening; ; he went into
nth,
gently, and he then saw the- prisoner Hannan wit a
in her hid; his wife •wnti standing by her taking some-
thing out ofthe
.paper with her finger and thumb, which
she put into an iron saucepan which was standing on tlis
hearthstone: They did not observe the pvosccutor; and
Hanson sad to his wife, " pots had better put a-little more
in; we are-dallving too long with him, we shall be found
out :" or something to that effiict, he could not remember thi

precise-word!

His wife then took something- more out o

put it into the

the paper, am. r ducepan. Hank
to pass the prosecutor, so he stepped quickly int(

a bad the

n, and savr her go up st
d. 'He beard

s with the pa
turn in a-Pdoor, and then Hans(

came down s

without the paper. Preseentio- noN
joined them, and they asked him- if he would hF.ve_ an.
sunner. He replied that he did not want any, as he: caul;

thin'_n•icnd- went awn!.

asked his wife

NOzt. morn.

, ----
ehather he was tio come home to hi
Ihe was to take it • with him

dinner or not, a

She tt►i

would

LIVEINPOOL COUNTY MRT—TnuRsDAt

UtFORt I! A. —IIULTotr, ESQ

CLAIM A GALVA' A IeAVIMAY COMPiInY. —B II A N tr,
THE LONDON AND'. NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.—
This was an action brought by Mr. Edward Brancker, of
19, Sweeting-street;, iti• this town, to recover the sum of
£5 ls, an- alleged overcharge made by the defendants for
conveying two horses' from London to Liverpool. The case
was heard on the 11th instant, but adjourned for the pro-
duction of further clic:Fence: Mr. lime appear d for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Conway,- barrister, instructed- by•Meisrs.
Bienkinsop, Berry, and Co:; for the defendants. It appeared
from the evidence of the plaintiff, that on the 2nd February
be purchased two entire horseS in London, or the
„
la, and gave instructions for them to be for-
per the7tondon and North Western
town- he saw the haoking-
r-r-the carriage 'of t '

walded to

o horses

.. Nvs.
Liverpool and was told that the usual charge
:,.. On the following clay
~, u
.horses at Lime-street
het
is astonisia 4' to find that £lO 23 was,
Of , ...- their carioge, being doable fare. Tiffs
11rAt reNsed to pav, en the ground that he had,
--1- 9t the tasthn-square station that the.

6d. per hot,
the

went to r

:ton, when he

',.(1 of hint for their cart

urn he at

£5 Is. The-company's servants, bow-
-4,3 payment of £lO Zs, but ultimately
emoney unde'protest ; and now, con-

evm.:'insisted u
Mr: Biancker p

iefence, adir

overchar(
that th^

4r. Conway, for

, •
sum charged in.' tins

the protection al

hat each entire he

lv cliar7ed for tl!,c conveyance

were entire horses, and

tended:. the were
of the

-third SC(

company required
separate box, which
for

Dr ordinary

al-nod coup

I delivery of the I