The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-29 00:00:00

SEDUCTION.

RANDALL V. Lucx.—This was an action brought by the
plaintiff in the Exchequer Court, Guildhall, on Tuesday
last, before Mr. Baron Bramwell, to recover compensat;on
for the ii jury he sustained by the seduction of his step
daughter ; and the declaration contained three counts,
setting; forth that the defendant had carnal connection
with Emma Stagall, .the said stepdaughtor, that. he had
wilfully.andmaliciously enticed her from her home, and
that the defendant, knowing that she was the servant of
the -plaintiff, harboured and secreted her, thereby depriv-
ing him of her services. _

Mr: Sergeant 'Parry•and Mr. Laxton appeared for. the
plaintiff, a❑d Mr. Sergeant Shea for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Parry stated the case. The plaintiff was
a publican, the proprietor of the Acorn Tavern, Rother-
hithe, .and the defendant was a contractor at the docks,
in the same place, and he had pleaded that he was not
guilty, that the girl was not a servant of the plaintiff, and
that she had not become disordered in mind or body, as
alleged. The facts of the case, which it was his duty to
lay before the j❑ry, were of the most painful descrip-
tion, and woul I develope incidents that exhibited,
en the part of defendant, a gross violation of
social duty, and which involved a considera.ble amount
of anxiety to the plaintiff, as well as pecuniary
loss. The action was one that, according to law, was
brought for seduc,ion, but there were circumstances in
connection with it of a peculiar character and quite
different to those exhibited in actions of this kind.

The legal nature of the action_ was the loss of the
services of the young girl, who had become the victim
of the passions of the defendant, who had induced her
to leave the plaintifPg service ; and, it would be shown,
by incontelltible evidence, that tha defendant had so
induced her to leave her home. and upon that ground,
considering, the posi,ion which she occupied in the
plaintiff's establishment, that he (plaintiff) had'sustained
substantial damage. The lePndant was a man in opulent
circumstances, and lived at New Cross in some style. At
the time that he had lured the poor girl from the prote-
tion of her natural guardi ins, be was a married man, with
a family, and arrived at a period of life when he should
have been able to control bis passions, and act in
conformity , with the dictates of morality and those
principles which should influence the father of several
children, some of whom • might be as old as the young
girl whom be had sacrificed to his unhallowed desires.

The defendant had for many years been in the habit of
frequenting the house of the plaintiff, and was on most
intimate terms with the mother of the unfortunate girl,
who had been married to the plaintiff ab nit nine years
Of that intimacy he availed himself, and having obtained
admission into the family, he used the means thus afforded
him with reference to the girl to forward his purposes.
How long the intercourse between the defendant and the
girl was carried on before she left her parents' 'roof it was
not possible for him to inform the jury, but it was proba.
ble that his solicitations to induce the girl to consent
to his wishes must have been carried on for a considerable
time, for it was not likely that she should have been
induced suddenly to leave her home, considering that
she was the adopted child of the plaintiff, kindly
nurtured, and treated in every possible way, with
reference to her position; He would now come to the
facts of the case. On the 27th of August last, the girl
left her home suddenly, framing some excuse for tem-
porary absence. She did not return ; and until the 16th
of October.it was not discovered where she was concealed.
When she left her home, both her father and mother were
in a state of the greatest anxiety, for they were tenderly
attached to her e and at .considerable expense, they
instituted enquiries to ascertain where she was, but.
until a short time previous to tho date just mentioned
without success. The defendant was not suspected, aul
continued to frequent the plaintiffs for some tame, when he
discontinued his visits, from which fact, in connection with
something that transpired, suspicion was excited against
him, and tbere was little doubt that he Irld been the party
who had led the poor girl astray. In order to save her from
the further ruin and degradation that might ensue upon her
being abandoned by the defendant, and driven to a career of
profligacy and a, line of life which was one of the most
umn'tigated misery, the plaintiff employed a person to watch
the movements of the defendant, in order to ascertain where
he had conveyed his victim, and this inquiry resulted in the
discovery that the defendant was living with her in lodgings
at Pier road, Erith, under the name of Barnes. He proceeded
with the party whom he had employed to trace her residence,
to Erith, and met her with the plaintiff, walking. On
recognising him she accosted him, and in impassioned terms
stated that she was ready to go with him wherever he
wished to take her. Previous to this meeting it appeared
that the defendant and the girl had been living in another
ledgings for six weeks as man and wife.
With respect to the nature' of the evidence, the
present case was the only ono on record in which
he believed the party seduced would not be produced as
a witness because of .her distressed state of mind, and
her being under oar°. In com,rqnrocc uf the
girl's character being tainted, and the circumstances of the
case being known in the neighbourhood, she was not able
to restrese her duties- at her father's establishment, but
she was sent to an uncle's to live • but even under that pro-
tection, it appeared that the defendant exercised a sway
over her ; for he had succeeded in alienating her affections
from hor natural protectors. He did not believe that the
defendint wool 1 dare to appear before the Court ; but
it was possible that he might inflict the additional injury
on the feelings of those interested by placing the wretched
girl in the wanes's. b )x, to prove that he had nothing to do
with her leaving her home, and that she was as willing to
desert her father and mother as he was that she should do
so. The girl was only nineteen years old, and when the
defendant first became acquainted with her she was only
twelve years of age. After her return to her home she was
very ill, and she explained fully to her mother the circum-
stances that had led to her abandoning her parents'
protection, and all the falsehoods and misrepresentations
of the defendant, which had induced her to adopt that
step. Whether he would be allowed, according to the
strict rules of examination, to elicit all the facts of the girl's
statement to the mother he could not say, but he trusted
that the whole truth would be extracted. In support of
his statement, that the girl had boon seduced from
her home by the defendant, he would produce letters in
his (the defendant's) handwriting. (The learned cottage'•
here read the letters in question, which were signed " G. 8.,"
and without date. They Were to the effect that Miss

Stegall should meet the writer at the Brighton station, at
an hour specified the following morning). In addition to
the loss which the plaintiff and his wife sustained by the
departure of the gia,they had suffered intense anxiety, which
should be considered by the jurywhen they awarded damages.
141 r. George Randall examined by Mr. Lawton : Emma
Stegall assisted him in the bar, and he always found her in
picket money and clothes. Knew the derendant intimately
for the last nine years. Never perceived any intimacy
between the defendant and his stepdaughter. When he
found she had left her home, he employed a person n lined
Stanley to endeavour to did her. Went with him to Erith,
where it was discovered that she was living with the
defendant under the name of Barnes. She was walking
with the defendant, and when she saw him, exclaimed,
"My God, is that you P" and she appeared very much
distressed iu her mind. She then consented to return
home with him, and they went to defendant's lo Igings,
No. 5. Pier road, Erith. While there, the defendant
said, aThis is a bad job. The defendant i then asked
him if he was a man of the world, to which he (wit-
ness) replied that ho thought he was old enough. The
letters produced, which were addressed to his step-daughter
were in the handwriting of the defendant. She was very
ill both in body and mind, for some time of er she
returned home, and he was obliged to procure her medical
attendance, Ile had not received his doctorie bill, but ho
could sta'e positively that he had paid Stanley £3l
for his labour in endeavouring to di:cover where h
step-daughter was secreted. He met the defendant
subsevent to the return of his daughter, and told
him that he had commenced an action against him.
Defendant asked him if he continued in the same
opinion in reference to legal proceedings then as when
he commenced the suit, and he (plaintiff) replied in the
affirmative, stating that he (defendant) was a pretty sort of
a man to take a girl away from her home, anti buoy her up
with hopes which no honourable man would excite. He
alluded to the statements which had been made to his
daughter, which was, that the (defendant's) wife was suffer-
ing from an inward tumour, that she was given over by the
family, and that immediately on her decease he would marry
her. He (plaintiff) then said to the defendant that after
the kindness the latter had received from his family, he
would as soon have suspected a son of his own of being guilty
of his (defendant's) couduet, Mr. Baron Bramwell here
intimated his conviction that three was no proof that
the girl was a servant of the plaintiff, as there
was no contract of servitude, If the defendant had
carried the girl away and married her, an action would lie.
Mr. Serjeant Parry contended that tho plaintiff was dam-
nified by the act of the defendant. Mrs. Ann Randell
(mother of the plaintiff) examined : Her daughter assisted
her in the household work, and when she went away she
was obliged to employ another person. Had never made
any actual arrangement with her daughter as to remunera-
“ee hut her clothes and Pocket money amounted to more
than ordinary wages. • Mr. Serjeant Shee contended that
this witness's evidence rendered the ease against the plaintiff
stronger. Mr. Austin, a surgeon, was next examined. He
stated that he attended Miss Stegall after her return home,
and she was suffering bodily and mentally. With respect
to the former, there were appearances that might have been
produced from miscarriage, but he could not swear that they
were attributable to that cause. Mr. Baron Bramwell
stated that it was his opinion there was no case to go to the
jury, The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited,