Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-18 00:00:00

ABDUCTION OF A JEWESS.

BEFORE LORD CAMPBELL AND A SPECIAL JURY.
THE QUEEN v. Ertessie.—This case was tried in the
Court of Queen's Bench, yesterday. It will be remem-
bered that the defendant in this case was indicted at the
Old Bailey, on the charge of felony, in inducing the
daughter of a Jew, named Goodman, to elope with him,
she being under 16 years of age. The trial was removed
by a writ of certiorari to this court, and came on,
yesterday morning for trial. The defendant had
been in the Austrian army, but is at present in the Middle-
sex Militia. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine appeared for the
Crown, and Mr. Sergeant Shee for the defendant. Mr.
Sergeant Ballantine stated the case. This was a matter of
great importance to the public, and the charge against
the defendant was of a very grave character. The
indictment was preferred under the 9th of George 111.,
cap. 31, sec. 2, which made it a felony to entice from her
home a girl under sixteen years of age. The girl whose
abduction formed the subject of the indictment, was
living with her father and mother, at 3570. 106, New-road,
Hammersmith. up to the beginning of last August. Her
mother was at that time in very bad health, and had since
died, though he did not mean to attribute to the defen-
dant's conduct that event. Her father had to attend to
avocations in the City, so that the young girl was left very
much to heself, and the society of another girl, a cousin,
about her own period of life. In their walks they met the
defendant, who, on the first occasion, entered into conver-
sation with Miss Goodman, the latter, from her
tender years, not having the discretion to repeal
his advances. Having remained for some time after-
wards at Hammersmith, Mr. Goodman removed with
his family to Brighton, where the defendant followed
them, and renewed his intercourse with Miss Good-
man, to whom he expressed himself very warmly.
The family then returned to London, still followed by the
defendant, who ultimately induced her to elope with him.
During the whole of this time the defendant represented
that his views were honourable, that he intended to marry
the girl, and was only prevented from doing so by the fact
of his mother being very religious, and opposed to his
marriage with a Jewess. He added, however, that if she
would go abroad with him to Brtusele, he would write to
his mother in Frankfort, who, he stated, would consent to
the marriage if it were not celebrated in England. In
consecinence of these representations, Miss Goodman was
induced to leave her father in August last, and proceeded,
first to Boulogne, and then to Amiens. Previous to leaving
her father, she stated that she was going on a visit to a
female relative, but her absence excited apprehension, and
on inquiries being made, the father ascertained the truth,
and instantly followed the fugitives, whom he traced
to Boulogne, which they had left before his arrival. He
then lost alt clue to them. From Amiens the defendant
and Miss Goodman proceeded to Mayence. Though the
defendant did not fulfil his promise of marrying her, she
did not apprehend, that he intended to ruin her, but at
length he admitted that he was a married man, and she
then vefused to cohabit with him any longer, Quarrels
ensued, and he subsequntly abandoned her at the Hotel in
Mayence, where they had been staying. She then wrote
to her father, who came to Mayence, and with whom she
returned to London. Previous to their departure they
met the defendant, who followed there to the trier, and
the father said that if ever he (defendant) came to England
he would give him into custody. It was not Mr. Good-
man's intention to have taken any steps against the
defendant until the beginning of last April, when
he was seen loitering about by Miss Goodman, who
at once communicated the circumstance to her father. The
police were then instructed to apprehend the defendant,
who was taken into custody, and the present proceedings
were instituted. The learned counsel having cited the
celebrated case of the " Queen v. Manklow," in which the
law on thirt question had been Isid down, called Rose
Gcodman, who gave her evidence in a very low tone, and
who is stated to be about 15 years old. In addition to the
details 'of the learned counsel, she stated in her evidence,
that she refused to accede to the proposals of the defendant
several timee.—Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeaut Shea:
Went several times, while living at Hammersmith, to the
militia barracks, at Turnham Green, in company with ter
cousin, Rosa Cowan. Had not spoken to the officers before
she became acquainted with Captain Erlam. Captain
Erlam gave her his card, but she never told him where she
lived: She gave the card to her father some time after she
received it. Made an appointment at Brighton to meet the
defendant, and on one occasion threw out of the window an
envelope stating the hour she would meet him. Did not
know that the woman with whom she was lodging at
Brighton was not married to the person who passed for
her husband. The eross-examination of the witness

pr ,ceecle i with, with the object. of showing that the flther
if the girl was a consenting party, but it was satisfactorily
pro ed that he was tot. Evidence was given proving that
Miss Go,ltirnan was not sixteen years old ; whereupon Mr.
geant retir d from- the case, and the jury, under
his lordship's direction, ietorned a verdict of guilty. The
lefeedant wis then cAed, and his lordship havi! g cmn-
fnentecl on the enormity of djendar,t's c oidue, r; to irked
that he w ul l infli,t a 11.3 'vier puni,hment than he intended
do,.if there .were not mitigitisg circa mstan-Tes in the
ease. Sa,tenc7. !hr .e calendar ninths' imprisonment in
the Mildlesat Tlout-e of G,rrcetion.