Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-23 00:00:00

OXFORD CIRCII_TT.—STArraRD, JULY ',A

SEDUCTION.—LEES v. REFTON. —Mr. Sergeant Pigott
and Mr. Davies appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Huddleston and Mr. Scotland for the defendant. The
plaintiff in this action, John Lees, was the keeper of a
public-house called the Robin Hood, situate at Norton-in-
the-Woods, in this county, and he sued the defendant, a
young man living with his mother and step-father, a
farmer in the same neighbourhood, to recover damages for
the seduction of his daughter, Ann Lees. It appeared
from the evidence given by the young woman, who was
about 19 years of age, that the defendant, who was a
young man, had been in the habit of coming to the Robin
Hood for about three years. He had made her proposals
of marriage, and had been accepted by the plaintiff as ber
suitor, and continued his visits till Christmas last, from
which time his visits became less frequent. On the 11th
of March last the young woman gave birth to a child, and
on that occasion the defendant went to her bedside, and
saw her, and told her not to fear, for he would make things
right. The young woman had been invited to the wedding
when the defendant's mother was married a second time,
and Mr. Glover, the defendant's step-father, had treated
the young woman as his daughter, and, in fact, he had
called her "daughter," while she had called him " father."
The defendant had made her a present of a " Church Ser-
vice " and a hymn book, and had gone to church with her.
The father and mother both stated that the defendant had
made proposals of marriage, and had been accepted. An
attempt was made, on the cross-examination of the young
woman. to show she had allowed other young men to take
liberties with her, but she distinctly denied everything,
except one or two trifles which might innocently happen
to any pretty barmaid. Mr. Huddleston was addressing
the jury for the defendant, but was stopped by his junior,
Mr. Scotland, who stated that the action was settled.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott said the parties had agreed to settle
the action by the payment of £5O. Verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages, £5O.
AN EXPENSIVE DOG.—BATE V. BARTLETT.—Mr. Whate-
ley, Q. C., and MrPKettle appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Sergeant Piggott and qr. M'Mahon for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Thomas Bate, described himself as a fell-
monger, at Pembridge, and sued the defendant, R. 11.
Bartlett, an attorney at Wolverhampton, to recover
damages for a trespass in taking the plaintiff's dog and
converting it to his own use. The defendant pleaded the
general issue, and also that the dog in question was not
the property of the plaintiff. It appeared from the
plaintiff's evidence that in September. 1854, two puppies
had been given to him by a man named Walker, at Wolver-
hampton. The pups were greyhounds, and 'one of them
named " Patch," but afterwards " Mandoline," turned
out a "stunning runner." The defendant set up a claim
to them, and after the plaintiff had been fifteen months in
possession, Walker got one of them away from him, and
sent it down into Somersetshire, where it was Kept in the
house of the defendant's father. The defendant having
heard of the dog's whereabouts, went down into Somer.
setshire in search of it, and as he went whistling about
the neighbourhood the dog recognised the well-known
signal, and came bouncing out of the house and followed
his master home. A charge of felony was made against
the plaintiff by Walker, but this being dismissed the pre-
sent action was brought to recover the expenses to which
the plaintiff had been put in getting back his dog, and
also the stakes which tho dog had won. In the course of
the trial, Mr. Sergeant Pigott said his case was that the
dog was the defendant's, and that Walker had no authority
to part with it. Mr. Baron Martin said the plaintiff had
been allowed to keep the dog for fifteen months. His
Lordship thought the plaintiff ought to be reimbursed his
expenses, but nothing more. The counsel conferred with
one another, and eventually left it to the learned judge to
say what amount the defendant ought to pay. Mr. Baron
Martin said he thought the defendant ought to pay the
plaintiff £73. A verdict for that amount was taken.