Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-24 00:00:00

NORTHERN DAILY TIMES.

CBefore Mr. FORSYTH, Q.C.]
William Kinsella was found guilty of having received
stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, belonging to
Captain Graham, of Blackburn. Sentence—twelve
months' imprisonment.
Michael Nolan, aged 26, charged with cutting and
wounding Jane Taylor, at Liverpool, on the 26th July
1 4.1 a ;11+.111 crravinna hada v Harm woo

Sentence deferred.

- William Sagg, aged 35, was charged with having, at
Windle, on the 30th June last, embezzled £43 65.,
which he had received on account of his master, Francis
W. Tinker. The prisoner was acquitted.

---♦-

NISI PRIUS COURT

.-YESTERDAY

[Before Mr. Justice HILL and a Special Jury.]

GALLAGHER V. BUTTERWORTH AND ANOTHER

In this case, which ws tried on Monday, and in
which the jury retired to consider their verdict, they re-
turned into court at a late hour, with a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages one farthing.

ROBERTS V. PATTERSON

In this case, which was an action for slander, arising
out of the previous case, a juror was withdrawn by mu-
tual consent.

GULSON AND ANOTHER V. HERNAMAN AND OTHERS

This was an action to recover from the assignees
of a bankrupt a large quantity of silk, which was in
his hands at the time he became bankrupt. Mr. Wilde,
Q.C., Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Bayliss, appeared for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Temple, Q.C., Dr. "Wheeler, and
Mr. Jones for the defendants.
Mr. Wilde, Q.C., stated the case on behalf of the
plaintiffs, Messrs. Gulson and Caldecott, who are silk
merchants and silkmen at Coventry, very largely en-
gaged in business, and the defendants were the assignees
of a bankrupt named Heaps, who was what is called a
silk-throwster, at Macclesfield. In the months of
February and March, in the present year, as many
as twelve bales of silk were sent to the bank-
rupt to be thrown, the weight of the silk being 1,2681b5.,
and of the value of between £7OO and £BOO. It was
necessary to observe that silk-throwsters were not gene-
rally persons in affluent circumstances, and therefore it
was of importance that the silk merchant should take
stringent precautions for the purpose of ensurinc, a re-
turn of the same weight of silk which he sent to the
silk thtowster, less the waste, which there always was
to some extent. The rule was that if the throwster did
not return the same weight of silk which he received,
the amount of difference was deducted from what he
was to be paid for throwing the silk. In May of the
present year, the bankrupt was reported to be in insol-
vent circumstances, and Mr. Caldecott, hearing of this,
went over to Macclesfield, to Heaps's warehouse, in
order to see how things really stood. On arriving
there, he found that the bankrupt had ab-
sconded. He, however, met with a Mr. Day,
the manager, and, in compliance with Mr. Calde-
cott's request, Mr. Day pointed out to him one bale of
silk which was lying on the counter. There were also
several other lots lying about, and there was a private
mark upon them which proved them to be the property
of the plaintiffs ; and, therefore, he did not think the
jury could have much doubt as to the identity of this
portion of the silk. These lots, which were in books,
and untied, consisted of 299 lbs. weight. Three other
pieces were also pointed out to Mr. Caldecott, weighing
582 lbs., which, together with the other lot, made
8811bs.' which was the quantity of silk which the
plaintiffs now claimed as their property. The next day
the silk was put into bags, and sealed, preparatory to
being taken away by the plaintiffs ; but there was a Mr.
Dean on the premises, who stated that he had a bill of
sale on the stock, and he interfered at the time
to prevent the silk from being given up to the
plaintiffs. Ultimately Mr. Caldecott was induced
not to insist upon taking the silk away that day, but to
wait until the following day. On the 27th of May
Heaps was declared bankrupt, and before Mr. Caldecott
took the silk away the creditors wished to know
whether it really belonged to Mr. Caldecott or not, and
after making an examination of the silk on the 28th,
the following day, when the defendants were present,
the creditors came to the decision that the silk belonged
to Mr. Caldecott, and that he should be allowed to take
it away ; but in June another objection was raised. On
the 24th of June the assignees were appointed, and then
Mr. Caldecott made a demand upon them for the silk,
stating at the time that the plaintiffs were ready to pay
for any of the silk which had been thrown, and that
they would send a person named Waller for the silk on
the 29th. On that day Waller accordingly went to the
warehouse, and after making some demur, the assignees
said that they were not prepared to give up the silk, and
refused to do so. The learned counsel then stated that a
large quantity of the silk was Taysaam, and having de-
scribed the particular kinds and qualities of the silk,
which enabled the plaintiffs to identify it as their property,
witnesses were called.

Mr. Caldecott, one of the plaintiffs, was examined by
Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and confirmed the opening state-
ment of the learned counsel.

Mr. Day, formerly manager to Mr. heaps, the bank-
rupt, deposed to pointing out the different lots of silk
to the last witness as the property of the plaintiffs.
With the exception of a small quantity of silk which
had come from Mr. Fisher, there was no other silk of the
same kind in the warehouse at the time.

By the Judge : Mr. Fisher's silk was not there the
day that Mr. Caldecott came into the warehouse. None
of Mr. Fisher's silk was put up in the bags by Mr.
Caldecott. The silk was subsequently taken possession
of by the messenger.
Cross-examined by Mr. Temple, Q.C. : I do not re-
member Taysaam silks like that sent by the plaintiffs
being brought into the warehouse to be wrought by Mr.
B:,;:ips on his own account, and not for customers. Mr.
Heal:* told me that the silk I pointed out to Mr. Cal-
decott to be worked up for the plaintiffs. The wit-
ness was fara2er interrogated as to silks received from
other parties, besides the plaintiffs, with the object of
showing that the sirs in question might belong to other
customers of the bank-riipt.
His Lordship interposeb; and said that unless the
learned counsel could_ prove thtzt the silk really did not
belong to the plaintiffs, his course of cross-eiamination
was irregular, and a waste of time.
_

Mr. temple observed that had he i;pen allowed a
greater extent of discretion in conducting hio own case,
at least half an hour might have been spared.
His Lordship desired the learned counsel to pro:eed,
and not make remarks.

Some other witnesses having been examined, Mr.
Caldecott was recalled, and stated that the value of the
silk held by the defendants was £796.

Mr. Temple, Q.C. addressed the jury on the part of
the defendants. Hei admitted that the plaintiffs were
entitled to a verdict for a portion of the silk which had
been worked, and that they should have that particular
portion handed over to them on payment of £63 to the
assignees, which was the cost of working the silk. With
regard to the rest, the learned counsel contended that
the plaintiffs had failed to make out that it belonged to
them, there being no proof that it was the identical silk
which was delivered to the bankrupt by the plaintiffs fox
the purpose of being thrown. In the absence of such
proof, the plaintiffs must come in with the rest of the
creditors for any dividend which the bankrupt's estate
might ultimately realise.
Witnesses were about to be called for the defendants,
when the jury stated that they were satisfied, from the
evidence of Mr. Day, that all the silk pointed out to Mr.
Caldecott by Mr. Day was the property of the plaintiffs.
Mr. Temple then said that he had abundant evidence
to show the improbability of the silk being that of the
plaintiffs; but if the jury relied so entirely on the
evidence of Mr. Day, he did not see the utility of carrying
the case further.

The jury then returnee a verdict for the plaintiffs for
£796.

SIDEBOTTOM V. SIDEBOTTOM.

In this case Mr. Monk, Q.C. appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Overend, Q.C. for the defendant. The
plaintiff, Emily Sidebottom, sought to recover the sum
of between £6O and £7O from the defendant, John Side-
bottom, who was her brother, being the amount of
interest on a principal sum of £417, lent him by the
plaintiff in 1846. On the ease being about to be
opened, Mr. Overend, on the part of the defendant, said,
as this was a purely family dispute it was desirable that
it should be settled without the details coming before
the court. Mr. Monk said he should be glad to assent
to any suggestion of his lordship, but he must say that
there never was a case in which the defendant better
deserved exposure, and lie (the learned counsel) should
certainly use strong language if the case proceeded.
Mr. Overend said the whole was the result of a mis-
understanding between the parties, and on the part of
the defendant he did not wish any iaputation to be cast
upon the plaintiff. The defendant, it was understood,
was to have had the use of the money without the payment
of interest, but this the plaintiff, from having misunder-
stood the terms, denied. however, the defendant was
now willing to pay 21 per cent. interest for the use of
the money. Mr. Monk most emphatically denied that
no interest was to be paid. Ultimately, at the sugges-

tion of the judge, the defendant's offer was accepted,
and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff upon the
terms proposed by the defendant. -

ACTION FOR SEDUCTION.-LEECH V. UNGARO,

In this case, the parties reside at Ashton-under-Lyne.
Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Aspland appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Monk, Q.C., and Mr. Spinks for the

ueienuant. iue uectaraiton stateu mac Lae (Lei...—.
had seduced the plaintiff's daughter, and that she gave
birth to a child, and afterwards died.

Mr. James, Q.C. said this was quite a different case to
the run of cases which had been brought before the jury
within the last few days. It was an action brought by the
plaintiff to recover compensation for an injury which he
had received at the hands of the defendant ; and, when
the jury had heard the circumstances in connection with
the case, he thought they would say the plaintiff had
very good grounds indeed for the course which he had
taken. The plaintiff in this action was a corn
dealer, a grocer, and a yeast merchant, carrying
on business in the borough of Ashton-wider-
Lyne, and the defendant was a butcher, and a
cattle dealer, carrying on business in the same
town, and near to the plaintiff. He was also a mem-
ber of the town council of Ashton-under-Lyne ; the
defendant was a man advanced in life, being upwards
of fifty years of age ; the youtg woman, who unfortu-
nately was no more the daughter of the plaintiff, was
a young lady of the age of twenty-six when she died.
It would be made to appear to the jury that an
intimacy sprung tip between the defendant and this
unfortunate young lady when she was much younger
than she was when she died. It was in the year
1855, when the deceased was between twenty-one and
twenty-two years of age. That intimacy did not meet
with the approbation of the plaintiff, who expressed
his decided disapproval of it ; and as soon as he learned
that the defendant was paying his addresses to his
daughter from circumstances with which he was familiar,
and which he would relate to the jury when he got into
the witness box, ielative to the character, the conduct,
and the conversation of the defendant, he refused to allow
his daughter to receive the defendant's addresses, and
he told the defendant himself that he insisted on no
further intercourse taking place between them ' • and, in
addition to that, although hitherto he had been on
terms of intimacy with the defendant, he told him him-
self that from that time he would not meet him in
society. Unfortunately the young lady did not attend,
as she ought to have done, to the instructions of her
father • and it would appear that the plaintiff's daugh-
ter s and the defendant continued to correspond in ~a
clandestine manner, and the defendant then went
the length himself of proposing a matrimonial
alliance. This she never communicated to her father,
but carried on the intercourse in spite of her father's
wishes. This went on during the years 1856, 1857,
and 1858, when, on the 29th of March last, she
was brought to her confinement ; she suffered much
during that confinement, and onthe 9th of April
she died in consequence. Now the question
was, who was the seducer of that young
woman ? He should lay before them most conclusive
evidence that the defendant was the' seducer and the
father of that child, and he felt assured they would
have no doubt that he took the opportunity of securing
the affections of the deceased in a manner by no
means creditable to himself ; and that although,
in the first instance, he tried to convince her
that his intentions were honourable, and that matrimony
was to be the result of his connection with her, yet, that
having effected her ruin—having obtained possession of
her person, and having had his passions gratified,
—his manner towards her became cool, and
at length he acted as though he wished to have
nothing more to do with her. There was not,
unfortunately, the evidence of the young woman
herself, but he should show the jury, by the evidence of
other witnesses, the tendency of the intercourse which
had existed between the parties. He would also show
them that, when the plaintiff's daughter was ill, the defen-
dant expressed sympathy with her situation, and wished to
see her, which was not allowed. He also made a proposal
for the support of the child. He should now take the
liberty of reading to the jury four or five letters, which
were found in the possession of the young woman after
her death. He did not mean to read over the whole of
the letters, but only a few of them. The first letter he
would read was as follows :

Monday, Feb. 23, 1857.
MY DEAR MARY,—I hope you will read this note, and this
time take notice of one that is not allowed to see you. Your
father says he will not have anything to do with it, so Brad-
shaw tells me. Dear Mary, you misunderstood my note, lam
quite sure; and Martha, too. I told Martha it was very hard,
and I would like to be comfortable. Now, Mary, if you will
send me the size of the ring, and the day you will be married
on, I will not want to see you until I meet you at the church,
without any further preparation, for it is all that that has made
both you and me so very unhappy. Name the day, and I will
buy the ring. The bride-cake was made last week but one,
the cards are printed, and there is a heart and home for you
the moment you may choose to say " I will ;" without you it
is a void. If you will not see me, nor be married, you can
have the license for the marriage ; it will be of no use to me,
as it is made for you and me. I had it in my pocket on Thurs-
day, at Holmfirth, but I must not see you ; and my heart was
too full to make any disturbance, for I saw that all had been
taken the wrong way. Mary, ask yourself a few questions,
and yon will find your heart cannot refuse to speak. You
may think for a moment, when all those around you are laying
down the black side, that you will despise me ; but for you I
will either die or live, I will not, cannot have another; and if
you will not be married, my life shall be devoted to you, for I
shall never again know real pleasure, such as I have passed in
your company. I may seem cheerful ; but, no, Mary, I will
never marry another; and you have often told me that, and it
is the only wish of my heart that you will stick to that. I have
been too sanguine of making you happy, and bringing you home
honourably, and now they wont have anything to do with it.
Mary, review some of our past life, and see how happy we have
been in each other's company, and how often we have pledged
to love no other upon this earth. I now repeat mine, and hope
you will yours, and a life of love shall repay you. The friends
that have fetched you and received you with such apparent
kindness, Mary, may sometime be as they have been before;
and, as it affects our whole life, Mary, do consider it, and let
us make each other happy.
My sister Mary, in Stamford-street, will be most happy to
see Martha, or receive any communication you may think
proper. Mary, think at our plighted vows, and mine would
and shall be carried into effect this day, week, but for this un-
happy mistake. It shall be any day you may nam.e; Mary. DO
forgive one unkind act. You know if you take •it for unkind-
ness, it is the first in my-life to you.—Whether or not, I
remain, yours until death, J. LINOARD.
Now, on the 14th of March, in the present year, he
again writes in these terms—

Saturday Evening, March 14, 1857

Mir DEAR MARX, —Your kind and welcome note is to hand.
You cannot conceive how unhappy I have been for this three
or four days, for every day I expected to hear from you, but
could not. I could tell what was the reason. I left you the
night I saw you for your sake, for fear of Martha seeing us
together, and then making you unhappy. Mary, if ever man
loved woman, Ido you, and will do all I can for you. I never
made one pledge but I intend to make good. I feel as if
I could not live without you, and I hope you feel the same
towards me. My dear Mary, as far as I have led you I intend
to lead you further, I intend to lead you to the altar, and there
all the vows and promises I have made to you; make you
my laiyful wife, and lead you to the end of our existence.
Now, Ma.ry, calm your fears about me and my promises, for if
I live and ~'u willing, then shall all be made good when you
desire. Do not think of leaving home until you come to a
home, and lover that will endeavour to make your life one of
happiness for ever, aid repay you for all that you have under-
gone for him that you say you can live with and love for ever.
If you cannot see me, write and tell me what to do about the
wedding, for I shall make nozort of stir now until it is over ;
and, my dear Mary, do not be so very much afraid about them ;
for, if through you seeing me closes you one moment's
displeasure, the morning following shall see you my wife.
Mary, I have made up my mind, and Ido not value them. If
by any pretext you could go out to-morrow eight, or to night;
if you can only let me know, I will meet you aigi set all your
fears on one side. If you choose not to be married for a week
or two, it is perfectly right. I am willing to accOgimodate
you any way I can ; but you know, Mary, we cannot get
married without the ring, and 1 cannot get one without ybp.
I should very much like to see and have some talk with you.
You know we ought to see each other, and then we can say
more than we can write.—But believe me yonrs until death
doth us part. J. LINOARD.
Now, there was a postscript to the letter which might
throw a little light on her fears, and which might prove
that those fears were Rot altogether groundless :—" The
talk about Elizabeth is all scandal. I speak to no one ;
neither can they get to, know if I have seen you."
This postscript showed that the poor girl thought that his
attentions to others were not such as they ought to have
been, considering the relations between them. On the
9th of January, 1858, he again wrote to her the follow-
ing letter

January 9, 1858,

Air DEAR MARY,—I must confess your mite did not contain
much consolation. You very justly said you could not say
much ; but what you did say was very hard upon me, and I
think partially uncalled for. If, on calm reflection, you can
write so cool and sarcastic a note, I wonder what it would
have been had I been at your side, to have heard your tongue
at the same time. Now, Mary, one word from you would have
been more consolation than all that some people could say,
and for that reason I eased my mind by writing to you, little
expecting so short and cutting a reply ; for, at least, I thought
you the only person to afford consolation and to sympathise
with me, knowing that my affairs, my business, and every
action of mine is identified with you, and must tend to your
social and domestic comfort. Now, Mary, would this be the
case when I come home, or look to you for advice and infor-
mation, as well as comfort and consolation ? Is this the way
you intend to give it ? for I can assure you I would not have
wrote to you if I had thought that would have been the sort
of answer I should have got. You very well know that if
anything has come across me I have always told you, in full
confidence of your advice and sympathy; and I do hope it was
only a flying word without meaning, and not such as you
would say upon calm reflection. You never thought of speak-
ing to me again. Am I to take that as meaning you never
wish to see me any more ; or what does it apply to ? Is it my
conduct on Sunday night towards you : was it so unkind, or
is something else? for I can assure you that whatever opinion
you may form, or what construction you may put upon it, it
was, sorry
tonything, but pure affection on my part, and am
very set) it put you about all. But enough anti: I see

you, for you deprived me of my sleep last night. I could not
go to sleep after reading your note, for I could' not believe
myself that you meant what you said. If I am to see you
to-morrow, will you name the time and place ? I think we
might have seen each other this week, if you bad thought
proper. Hoping you are quite well, believe me to be yours
until death, .1. LIIMARD.
P.S.---I have seen J. W. Mellor since dark, and he says I
am all right ; but I am going to see ltim to-morrow forenoon,
and than I shall kw.. unnr.
- •

There were two or three more short scraps that he would
read to them ; and then, after having called witnesses,
he would leave the case in their hands. There were
some written without any date, evidently towards the
last, and one of the scraps found contained the follow-
ing :—" If I could see you to night I should be most
happy. Pluck up your spirits. Go out. Never mind.
I have spoken to Mr. Light to-day about marrying us."
He thought the jury might very well see from that what
had passed between them; and when he was inviting
her to keep up her spirits, and never to mind, there
could be little doubt as to what had passed, and what
was distressing her at the time. The next letter was
the last he would read to the jury. It was as follows:

DEAR MART,—Would you believe it ; Miss Wild has been
married this morning, and she said she met you when she was
coming here, but could not speak. They were just having
some coffee when I came from the shop ; and when I motioned
to you they were just going to the railway. They arc gone to
Southport. They wanted me to rub against her. Our Eliza
said you were at the door when they came in. Now I fancy
you got up before your breakfast this morning ; did you not?
I think you and me will have a cheap trip again some day ;
what think you? I expect if I ask, you will say no to going to
have a walk to-morrow evening. Hoping you have a more
conte ited mind than I have, I remain, yours ever.

J. LINGARD.
T'L.ose, then, were the letters. On the face of them they
breathed a strong feeling of attachment towards the
deceased, and it was reasonable to believe that the man
who wrote them had honourable intentions. The jury
would also find that this young woman would have
done anything—would have sacrificed herself and
married the defendant—in order to save herself from the
infamy which she knew awaited her. She was not the
party to give up the engagement between them ; but the
defendant, having gratified his own grovelling inclina-
tions, had then left the poor creature to die in misery
and in disgrace. The jury were now called upon to
award compensation to the plaintiff. His wounded feel-
ings, it was true, were entirely beyond the reach of any
of them ; but the laws of this land offered no other
remedy to a man for such an injury as this, than an ac-
tion for the deprivation. of his daughter's society, but
when they were considering what amount of damages
they were to award as compensation for such an injury,
they were not bound to limit their views of compensa-
tion to the mere money amount which the services of
his daughter had been worth to her father, but they
were to take into consideration all the circumstances,
and he trusted they would inflict such an amount of
damages as would enable the plaintiff to go before his
friends with the intimation that a jury of his country
had responded to his call.
Witnesses were then called.

Mr. Robert Leech, the plaintiff, examined.—l carry
on the business of a corn-dealer, a grocer, and a yeast
merchant, at Ashton-under-Lyne. My wife died in
1854. I had three daughters. Since my wife's death,
my daughters carried on my house. My deceased
daughter, Mary, was the eldest ; she assisted me in the
business and in the house. The defendant, who is a
butcher and cattle-dealer, resides near me ; he is a
member of the Town Council, and has been so for some
years. In 1855, I learnt that the defendant was paying
his attentions to my daughter. I at once saw the de-
fendant on the subject of the rumour. I asked him
what the rumour meant about him and my daughter.
He replied that it was all her grandmother. I then
said to him, " I'll cut thy acquaintance." Some cus-
tomers came in, and I left the shop. I had my reasons
for not desiring a connection between my daughter and
defendant. He told me ten years ago that he went to the
house of a lady, in Manchester, who had got married ;
and that in a fortnight afterwards her husband threw
a cup of coffee at her, in consequence of his visit. He
afterwards often visited her, and she came to see him.
On another occasion, he told me that he was in a railway
carriage with a young lady going to Rotherham, and took
liberties with her, and that he had some money to give
her in order to make it up. He also spoke to me on
another occasion about getting hold of a female
when she fainted, and he thought she would have died
In consequence of having heard these stories from the
defendant himself, I objected to my daughter having
anything to do with him. I put a stop to it, as I
thought, at once, and it was not until March of the
present year, that I found that the acquaintance be-
tween them had been still carried on. Shortly after-
wards I discovered that my daughter was in the family
way. She became very ill, and died on the 7th of
April. The child also died. I was put to about £45
expense in funeral charges and medical attendance.
Cross-examined by Mr. Monk.—My daughter was
confined on the 31st of March, and died on the 7th of
April. I never saw her during her illness. lam sure
the defendant is 45 or 50 years old. My daughter Martha
is here. She was present when I thrashed the deceased
with a stick. I had not that night seen her walking
with the defendant. My daughter Martha came be-
tween us. I did not attempt to thrash her as well. It
was a walking stick that I thrashed the deceased with.
It might be in January, 1857. I may have said in the
presence of my daughter Martha that I would not keep
a w—e for Joe Lingard. I believe I have said so.
I did not turn her out of the house the night I struck
her. She did not sleep at home that night, nor for six
weeks. I was never at Holmfirth with the deceased. She
returned from Holmfirth to my. house. I do not remem-
ber a man namel Bradshaw coming from Lingard to ask
my consent to marry my daughter. I don't recollect
saying that Lingard might hang himself. I said he
might hang his clothes and drown himself. Bradshaw
said Lingard had told him to come and make it up. A
man named Grundy called upon me, and said Lingard
wanted to settle the matter. I told him that if he
wanted to settle it, he must go to his lawyer. I did not
threaten to go to the reporters for the papers, and have
a full report of the case published all over England.
Re-examined.—The deceased was my eldest daughter,
and had attended to all the arrangements of my house.
I did not see her when she was confined, because I con-
sidered my presence would make her worse. I provided
medical attendance for her.

Martha Leech, examined by Mr. Aspland.—l am the
second daughter of the plaintiff. I remember the de-
fendant first becoming intimately acquainted with my
sister. It was in 1855. My father, on hearing of it, on
his return from Holland, was very angry. lam aware
that after that my sister kept up an acquaintance with
the defendant. I was not their confidante. I
did not approve of it. My father did not strike me at
the time he struck my sister. On the night he struck
my sister I left the house with her, and that night we
slept at a neighbour's house. The next day I went with
her to Holmfirtb. I returned the next day. She re-
turned from Holmfirth in 1857. Whilst my sister was
at Holmfirth, defendant wished me to write to her, and
said it was through me that they were not married. I
wrote to her, and told her what he had said to me. I
said nothing more. He afterwards said that my letter
to my sister was the reason why he did not marry her.
Cross-examined.—l swear that after my sister's return
from Holmfirth I did not how that the defendant cor-
responded with her. I never carried letters between
them. lam not aware that my youngest sister did. I
did not know that my sister was in the family-way until
after the child was born.

Mary Ann Gill examined.—l am sister of the late
wife of the plaintiff. It was about August, 1855, that
I heard the acquaintance between'the deceased and the
defendant was going on. I did not communicate it to
the plaintiff. In the Spring of the present year I heard
that she was in the family-way. I was very much
shocked about it. I remember her attending Dr. Turner
in December last. She kept her state quite secret.
Cross-examined.--4 knew of the acquaintance between
the deceased and the defendant after her return from
Holmfirth ; I also knew that her father could not
be indncei to give his consent to the marriage
Mr. Galt, surgeon, of Ashton-under-Lyne, was next
ailed, and deposed to being called in to see the deceased,
but it was not until after the child was been : the
deceased's death was the result of child-birth.

Cross-examined ti-Mrt---Alonkr. SW—the defen-
dant after the deceased was confined, and he looked
much dejected. He desired me to tell her to keep
her spirits up, and that as soon as she could be
removed she should come to his house, and he would
marry her.
Re-examined by Mr. James.—He also said that he
would deposit £2OO in the bank for her and the child.
Elizabeth Taylor examined.—l know both the plain-
tiff and the defendant. I remember talking to the de-
fendant after the present action was brought. I told him
that I had heard that he had offered to give £2OO, and
that £lOO was to be returned if the child died. He
did not deny it.
This was the whole of the evidence on the part of the
plaintiff; and Mr. Monk having intimated that he did
not intend to call witnesses, Mr. James addressed the
jury on the evidence.
Mr. Monk then addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant in a powerful and eloquent speeeb, and urged