The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-05 00:00:00

Nt4.4

11111 as I believed, to see me. I was brought to bell in November
IBM. The defendant is the father of that child. The last convents-
non 1 had with hint was on the 4!h June, 1825. I told him that I
found I was with child. Ile only said, " Well, I shall see you
again ;" but I never have seen him from that day to this. 1 can't
say at what time the intercourse took place which led to my prep-
Limey. 1 isn't correctly say when my intimacy with the defendant
commencer] ; but before l admitted he ptomised to marry me.
After I returned to my father's, I always assisted my mother in the
houeekeeping. • .
Cross-examined by Sergeant WILDS—I was in business at St.
Austel about two „sears. I was acquainted with the defendant for a
sear or more before I matted St. Austel. My intimacy with him
commenced a coneistereble thug before I left St. Austel. It begets
in the fields, and I was in the habit of 'going. with him afterwards
into the intik. My father's house is eight or nine miles bubo St.
Austel. Defendant used to coma once a week, sometimes only
once in a fortnight ; bat he seldom continued away so long as three
weeks. He is a young man. Ile lived near me at St. Austel.
Re-examined—l was attended by a surgeon, and had a nurse
when I wax confined.
Them was no other witness produeed.
Mr. Sergeant Wieue then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
He mold not conceive anything more different than the nue which
had just been psoved, and that imaginary case which his Learned
Friend had stated. If the Jury set there to witness an exhibition
of talent, and not soberly to administer justice, he sheuld admit that
the ease was excellently opened ; bat unless they could forget that
•hey were once young men—that they had passions, which, in
youth. were not controlled by reason and experience—unless they
should forget, any of them that were fathers, that they had sons
who were liable to temptations of this kind—unless they were dee
tertniaed to believe that every case where there was an illegi-
timate child was a case of gross seduction, and thai the woman was
a paragon of perfection—unless they thought thus, they must feel
that his Learned Friend's statement Wag monstrously exaggerated,
and altogether unsupported by the facts of the case. lie did not
appear as the•apologist of his client. lie would not say that blame
was not to be imputed to every man who was the cause of bringing
an illegitimate child into the world, lie was Counsel for a young
man who had erred, but who was not for that reason to be ruined
and pressed down to the earth. This young man had unfortunately
and improperly become connected with this milliner, at St. Austel ;
but it, was not a case In which be had brought a father's " grey
main with morrow to the grave," and should expiate that
crime by having his means of nubsisterce wholly destroyed. He
could not conceive what the father's abject was in bringing forward
such a case. It was said he had five other daughters ; but how
could the publication of their sisters' shame serve them ? In no
way, unless by his Learned Friend's poetical flight the Jury
should award such damages to the father as would enable him to
potion off his other daughters. He pitied the father, and would
not utter a word to wound him ; but there was no necessity for his
exposing his daughter's disgrace by such an action. The plaintiff;
in this as in all similar actions, hsd a great advantage. 'the de-
fens' rot was not allowed to Come into the box add tell how this in-
tercourse commenced. and upon what tome it was continued : and
who was to support the plaintiff's case? The witness who had the
strongest interest in it. No one ever heard of a woman who had an
illeeitimate child that did not wish to charge all the blame of the
transaction on the father. The witness wished to make herself an
honest woman ; she wished to excuse herself to lice father. She
had the strongest interest in the case. and therefore her tes-
timony should be received with caution and jealousy. Yet,
what had the evidence of this interested witness proved ?
It proved that she was on a Iced with the moat degraded of her sex.
What could the Jury think, when they found her going into fields.
where there was • liability to exposure and detection ? By this the
witness had evinced the total absence of every thing like delicacy.
Did they wish to punish the seducer? Did they wish to show their
intlignaticn towards him, when, as in the imaginary case described
by his beamed Friend, he crept into • family, and wounded a
lather's teenage, by robbing err innocent girl of her virtue? if
they did, they should not confound such cases with the present—
with a case which must constantly occur whilst there arc loose
young men and loose young women. But let them not stain society
tee supposing that a case like file was deserving of damages. It
WAS not a case of seduction. If the qeestion was put to a woman
of the witnees's age, she ought to resist. Ile admitted it was a
utmost improper question to put. hut one very different from seduc-
tion. It should not be said, the defendant, who was a young man,
ought to be ruined,- beceume the witness went with him into a field.
It was true the witness said he promised to marry her. So every
woman says ; but where were the witnesses to prove that he had
ever treated the witness as a woman he meant to espouse. The
t'uth appeared to be. that the defendant's addresses were accept-
able to the witness, and that she was indelicate enough to submit;
out he hoped no young woman, who had so disgraced herself,
wouhi be allowed to come forward, in the name of her father, and
ruin the man who had connected himself with her. It was said
that the defendant visited as a suitor ; but the Jury would observe,
that none of the plaintiff's family were called on to corrobo-
rem the witness in this particular, although they might have
heap. Taking a view of the whole of the circumstances—how
the connexion began, and how it was prosectituel—no one
could impute anything more to the defendant than the mere
f in of his having an illegitimate child. Under such cir.
eumstances, then, what damages ought to be given ? Would
the Jury give the expenses which the plaintiff had been put to
during his daughter's confinement, or would they give more ? They
certainly would non give as much in this case, where the daughter's
continet had evinced the absence of all decency and delicacy, as it'
the plaintiff was tabbed of the services of a virtuous daughter.
His Learned Friend had appealed to them as fathers, but if they
had daughters, they had sons also, and they ought to protect the
suns as well as the daughters. Let them fancy themselves at their
sawn firesides, and what would they think of such a case?, lie
knew they would feel as he did. They would pity the father who
had the misfortune to have a daughter that misconducted herself
hut he besought them not to let the young woman who had so dis-
graced herself, take away, perhaps, the very means of this young
man'. existence. As to the father, he ought not to have published
hes daughter's shame ; and if money was his object, the Jury were
eaare that there was another mode by which the defendant could
have been compelled to support the child. He contended that this
would have been the fit and proper mode to have taken. The de-
fendant's conduct was improper, but he had. used no arts to gain
poesension of the witness. Ile could imagine no one more des-
gracedthan one who had acted, and long continued to act, as she
hail done. In conclusion, he submitted that there was no case
onsue out to warrant the Jury in giving any damages.
After summing up, the Learned Juno tt said that the plaintiff
must have some damages, because he was put to expense when his
(laughter was confined. Ile had never seen a case, however, which
was so bare of evidence calculated to increase the amount of
demure,. Considering all the circumstanced, and eseecially the
sisughter's conduct, it was for the duty to say whether the plaintiff
was en bled to any cnumensation fur the violence done to his &d-
-oge. The verdict must be for the plaintiff but no very consieere
able damages could he expected.
Atter a short consultation the Jury found for the plaintiff—
Damages Phi.
Mr. Justice OASELEE (with evilent surprise)—Do you say 801.
gentlemen ?
Foreman—We do. my Lon!.
The et edict was then recorded.
HOBBS V. HILL.
This was an action brought to recover 21. 13s. 3d. the value of
23 pane* of glass.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom was Mr. CARTER) stated
that the parties is this action were resident in the borough or
Tamer, where a great many strange things had been lately enacted,
but the defendant HiU, not thinking that there were enough of
odd things going on there, had thought proper to mid to the
number by pine and breaking almost every pane of glass in the
niaintle's window. it seemed that Hobbs was a Blue, and his
Learned Friend Mr. C. F. Williams, and his party, were Greys.
(A Laugh) There were some quarrels between these parties, and
rot wee estd that Mr. Hill took offence at something which he saw
iti the plaintiff's window. Ile was instructed to state, however,
that there was nothing in Hobbs's window at which the defendant
r Add reasonably take offence ' • but if there had been, he was not
1 ..t.f,ed in taking the law intohis own hands. No doubt, however,
N.. 11111 had got credit with his party for doing a bold thing, but
ate bevel he would not enjoy that credit at the plaintiff's ex-
pense. He knew nothing of the defence : If Mr. Williams had
wititessi et to 'trainee, let him call them ; if lie only wanted to
make a speech, let loin have it; but, said the Learned Sergeant
(Cl me, gentlemen, hate the 21. 13s. 3.1.
John -Frown examined—Lives; it Fowey. Knows the plaintiff, who
keeps a shoemaker's shop in the Iligh.street. On the 2.41 of 3lav
lase saw Rib coming down the street, with s stick in his hand. He
lnaked into Robbe's shop for some time, and then took up his stick
leisurely way, and smashed the windows one by one, in the
tem nest manner possible. 'The witness here proceeded to give a pane
enueimtc representation of the manner in which the defendant coo.
f j...t.eft to ventilate the plaintiff shop, which excited much masse.
Inent.l The defendant oniy left five panes of glass whole in tie
nmedow. He contrived " to get through twenty-three panne."'
When he finished his work he went away. (bauehter.)
:roes-examined by Mr. WILLIAMMI—Did not. see a caricature
liohba's window. Does not know there was a caricature of
kir. Hill
James Whitford, glazier, proved that he had repaired the
window, and was paid ?1. 13s. 3d. He knew nothing ut the cari-
cature,
lr. C. F. NV t.I.IAMS said his client did not deny the damage
weld; he was pnwed tub have committed ; but the tevet was, he had
seen in Hobbs's window what had roused his Indignation, and he
lamed to have been able to show the Jury that lie was justified in
reeling such a degree ot indignation.lndeed no one could believe that
111211 cf Mr. Hill's respectability would break any
.one's Winslow
withput great provocation. However, upon looking into the plead.
mope he found that his client had not a legal detence, and he had
teerefore advised hies not to take up the time of the Court and the
Jury, by offering any. He was sorry that his Learned Friend had
letroduced the Bluets and the Geer; but, as they were mentioned,
ne tweet say, that whenever the Greys appeared, their opponents
1 totted very blase indeed. (Luigi:Eery.
teerdict bur the plaintiff—Damages, 21. 13s. 3,1.
iVEDYE:DAT, AVG.
CROWS COURT.
:Awe Vorthose, a woman of very respectable appearseme, was
charged with online venous articles of cotton tied hosiery, the
property of Henry Molyneux, a linen-draper at l'enzance.
It appeared that the prisoner had bees employed big Clue last four
years as an assistant In the prreecutor'e shop, but a hurt time age
bed notice to leave. Sonic suspicion hanng been excited by the
praeuer'e appearance in a dress ursuitable :o her co:Mitten, before
jesting the proeecutoel house, her boat, were !tanned; tied the

articles in question discovered. The property was fully identified.
Nothing substantial was offered in the prisoner's defence, but seve.
ral respectable witnessts were called, and stated that she always had
borne an excellent character. She was stated to have been very
respectably connected.
After a short consultation, the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner appeared to be deeply affected with the result of the
trial.
She was sentenced to be imprisoned for twelve months.
CIVIL. SIDI:.
Mr. Justice GaseLßE WAS occupied during the greater part of
the day, in a case ,nvolving the right to the ferry at I'adstow in
this county. It appeared that the gr. atest negligence was evinced
by the present owner or the ferry, and that the public suffered se-
riously by the manner in which it was attended to. It was proved
that many of the passengers were detained for hours, before they
were provided with a ferry. Under these circumstances another
ferry-boat was engaged to ply, and the owner of the ferry, who
claimed franchise under the Crown, in right of the Duchy of Corn-
wall, brought the present action.
The beamed Junco: thought that the negligence did not
amount to an abandonment of the right, though it was not so clear
that an action would not lie against the proprietor for detaining the
passengers.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Dernagen, One Shilling.
- -
A'Uli
TIIRRN CIRCUIT.

CARLIaLe, AuO. 2.
(Before Mr. Justice PancT
Betty Son was indicted teethe murder of her bastard child, on
the 3lst of May last.
Alr. COURT NAT and Mr. Amt./mime conducted the prose-
cution.
The prisoner had no Counsel; but at the suggestion of Mr.
Justice PARK, Alr. Jones was sent for, and undertook her defence.
Johr. Noble—l am an overseer of Illennerhasset. I know the
prisoner, Betty Scott. I had occasion to take her before a 3lagis.
trate in the first or second week of May last. I told the pristner,
before I took her before the Magistrate, that she was suspected of
being with child. She denied that she was. I then took her before
the Alagistrates, and she repeated her denial. She was in conse-
quence dismissed.
Ruth Graves—l have known the prisoner for three or four years.
She is between 30 and 40 years of age. I have lived next door to
her. t-he has had a child hefore. I remember going to call upon
her after hearing a repot t about her. The prisoner said that she had
had a very bad night, and had not expected to see morning. She
said she was then better. Sh► said I should see a very great change
in her appearance. The mother of the prisoner made the same re-
mark. I had seen the prisoner two or there days before, and I did
now se a great change in her appearance. Two or three days after,
ss I was going to the cow-house, I saw the primmer and her mother
standing behind the house. about three or four yards from the ash
midden. I had some suspicion, which I communicated to my hus.
band. _ . .

Croas-examined—There was no attempt on the part of the pri-
soner to conceal the change in her appearance. She was the that to
draw my attention to it.
Samuel Grace-1 am the husband of the last witnest. In conse-
quence of what nty wl!e told me, I spoke to William Moore, an
overseer. Moore and I, and a constable named Fell, went to the
house of the mother of the prisoner, on the 2d of June. We went
to make a search. We saw some soil newly turned up, and we dug
there. We came to a bas.l about two feet deep. I t.lok the board
up, and there was something in a bag lying below. It turned out
to be a female child. We gave the body to the prisoner's mother,
and told her to take care of it.
Cross-examined—This was two days after my wife had been at
the prisoner's, and had been told about the change in her appear-
ance. . .

John Poole—l am a surgeon. I first attended the prisoner in
the latter end of November. I was called in to mellow certain
obstructions which were supposed to exist. I administered
medicine, but it produced no effect. I observed the prisoner's
appearance, and suspected that her illness arose from a different
cause to that which she attributed It. I was again called to exa-
mine the person of the prisoner on the 9d June: I was perfectly
satisfied that she had given birth tb a Child within a few days.
During that examination the prisoner trade a communication,
which induced me to go to a field with the mother of the prisoner ;
and there, slightly covered with ashes, I found the placenta. 1
examined the body of a child in the house of the prisoner's mother.
The child was covered with a cap. 1 found a considerable de-
pression on the left side of the forehead. There was no other
mark of external violence but that; 1 observed no external disco-
louration that arose from violence. On removing the scalp, I found
two large extravasations of blood, one on each temple. There
were four or six smaller extravasations on the hinder part of the
head. The lung, were rather livid, and contained air. The child was
larger titan the average of children, and in my opinion the mother
must have gone her lull time. The violence which I observed on
the left temple of the child must (if ailininistered during the life of
the child) have caused Its death. lam more inclined to attribute
it to the weight of the child lying on that side. I suppose the
death of the child to have proceeded front a concussion of the brain
produced by the blows on the temple and back of the had. Ex-
travasation of blood can only take place in a living subject. The
blood must be in a 'state of circulation when extravasation tal!.
place. The air which I found in the lungs must, I think, have
been produced by respiration. One breath would have been suf-
&lent.
Cross-examined—Supposing a woman to be thirty.five years of
age, great pain and d roger to the child would exist. Ido not
think that, if it is not the first child, a woman of that age expe-
riences greater pain or danger than a younger woman.
This was the case fur the prosecution.
Ilfr Justice PARK carefully summed up the evidence, and told
the Jury that if they were of opinion the prisoner had not been
guilty of murder, they would then consider whether she had been
guilty of concealing the birth.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict acquit-
ting the prisoner of murder, but finding her guilty of concealing
the birth.

CIVIL. SIDE.
[Before Air. Baron HuLLocu.l
urx r. BANTER AND ANOTHER.

Mr. RAMA:TT Staled the plaintiff's case. This woe an indict-
ment preferred by a person of the name of Mitchell against the
defendant, for a riot end assault. It appeared, that on the 19th of
November last, Mitchell had been desired by a Mrs. Capes, in
whose employ he lived, to watch a rabbit warren, of which she was
the proprietor. For sonic reason or other, the proceeding was
viewed with dislike by a great number of persons who assembled to.
ether in a tumultuous manner, and attacked Mitchell. The de-
fendants, it was believed, constituted a part of that assembly, and
fortunately, It would not be difficult to identify them, as they had
on a former occasion lived in the service of Mrs. Capes, together
with Mitchell, who would prove the share which the defendants had
taken in the assault.
Alexander Mitchell stated that lie was in the service of Mr.
Capes in November last, and used to assist the keeper of the warren,
Henry Sandy. On the evening of the 19tli November, he was
going towards the warren, aid observed a number of persons at a
short distance. He knew the defendant Gibbon, but dal not know
the rest, and him lie (witness) knew because he used to live at Mr.
Capes. Witness called to the persons assembled, but they gave no
answer. Witness saw Gibbon take up atones and throw them at
him. Witness then ran away, until he met with Sandy, the
keeper of the warren, and with him be returned. He then saw
Baxter. the other defendant, hunting with other people in the field.
Baxter mimicked Mc. Capes voice, and desired them to come on.
They then followed witness, and struck him on the kit side of the
head. Gibbon seized him, and struck him on the ribs. Whams
received a blow on the head, which was not well fora month.
Henry Sandy continued the account of the last witness.
The care proceeded until
Mr. Baron Hut.i.ocx suggested, that the defendants had better
withdraw their plea at,d plead guilty, and enter into their own recog-
, nizances to keep th,t peace for two years.
The suggestion was complied with on both tides.
AIIIISTRONC: V. JORDAN.
. .

Mr. Baot:e.itA at stated the case—This was an action of slander.
The plaintiff was an attorney now residing at Liverpool, hut had
formerly lived at Carlisle. The defendant, on the other hand, was
a grocer; and it appeared that, among other commodities, he ear.
tied On a trade in the. snide of slander. It would be proved to
them, that the defendant, in April last, came Into a hotel in Car-
lisle, where a Mr. Irving, with whom he was acquainted, happened
to be sitting. The two friends entered into some conversation about
the plaintiff leaving Leask.. and the defendant put some question
to his companion, us to the manner in which the plaintiff was get.
ling on at Liverpool. Mr. Irving replied, that the plaintiff was
getting on well; upon which the defendant said, that the plaintif
was a pettifogging attorney. and a blood-sucking designing vil-
lain. and that he lied rolbentalward Beaumont of the Pine-apple
public-bouse, of 71. or bit . lie (Mr. Brougham) did not mean to
assert that that slanderous attack upon the plaintiff' had been
ruinous to his reputation, nor did he Ctlr. Brougham) claim, on
that account, any particular damages; but still he agreed with the
plaintiff in thinking that such an attack upon a respectable pram-
/done! man could not be submitted to without an appeal to a Court
of Justice. By the present proceeding the defendant had an comae-
tunny of justifying his statement, and offering proof of its truth.
The defendant, however, appeared to have been satisfied with
uttering the slander, for he had not in his pleaSentured upon a jus-
tification. Doubtless he had adapted that course, because he felt
that a justification was impossible, and was conscious that the slan-
derous words had been uttered merely to gratify a feeling of malice
and revenge.
Joeeph. Irving sworn—l live at Liverpool, and know the plain-
tiff., who is an attorney, practising at Liverpool. Sometime in
A pril last I was at the liing's Arms id this town, where I saw the
rlitentlant. Ile inquired how Mr. Armstrong was getting on at
Liverpool ? I said he had a good business. Plaintiff disputed that
fact. Ile awn said, •• Julie Armstrong isa pettifogging attorney,
and a blued-sucking designing villain ; he robbed Edw. Beaumont,
of the Pine apple publie-house, of 7/. or Ill."
Cruet.examined—l lived in Carlisle tour Years ego. The land •
lord of the public-house was present when the defendant made this
statement. We conversed about ocher subjects. The name of
Mr. Armstrong was first mentioned by the defendant. The defen.
dint said that the pinintilf had robbed the defendant by bringing
an action against him. The other language used by the defendant
warin reference to that action. I did not write the words down ; I
told them to 4r. Armstrong a few days after I got to Liverpool.
Armstrong sometimes comes to my house. We are good friends.
We came together by the coach to Carlisle. I never promised the
defendant nut to disclose what I had heard. Mr. Armstrong has
not lost his appetite. I believe he eats as well as he ever did.
hCAIILLTT, for the defence, observed that it was ev tactic