The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-31 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

OIPORD CIRCUIT.
--••••••--
MONMOUTH ASSIZES..—.IIo,DAT, Mmicis 28.

Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALL.
WELCH EJECTMENT.
EDMUNDS, WIDOW AAAAA AND OTAITILS.
Mr. Coos, opened the pleisdings.
Mr. TAUNTON stated, that this was an action for • forcible
entry brought by the plaintiff; who was a widow and a very poor
old woman, against the defendants, for a most aggravated trespass
in entering the plaintiff's cottage at Aberystwith, and taking away
her goods, and as soon as they had done so they se{ in* las gook
and to the cottage, and the whole were burnt.
The Rev. John Davis proved the will of the husband of the
plaintiff, under which the plaintiff claimed the
This gentleman was cross-examined at soasocargth by Mr.
CAMPBELL, and, though a clergyman, he seas -14 no means as
fait et the English language ; Indeed be andwiaml same of the
questions so imperfectly that one of dm Jetty enspooi abet the
Rev. Haldeman would understood better if he were interrogated in
Welch.
Morgan Morgan said, I was sent for by the defendants, and ac-
companied them to the plaintiff's cottage ; one of them is a consta-
ble, another of them overseer of the poor. They are all
farmers. When we got to the plaintiff's cottage she was out, but
her sat was at home. The defendants asked the plaintiff's son to
go with them and look for a house, and he went with them for
that purpose. The house they were to look fur was foe her son to
live in.
Cross4xarnined by Mr. Mau rs—The plaintiff's husband was
upon the parish sometimes. I don't know that the cottage was
built upon the waste.
William Lewis Edmunds, the eon of the plaintiff; being unable
to speak English was examined in Welch through an interpreter :
he said—l remember the defendants corning to my mother's house ;
one of them named Henry Samuel told me I must go out of the
cottage as 1 had no business there, and they said they would go
and get me • house to take my goods into; the plaintiff', furniture
was then thrown out of doors by the defendants. They threw it
out on the common, and took possession of the cottage, and in three
days it was down. I saw several dogs there.
frees-examined by Mr. CAMPBELL.-1 am 39; 1 remember
my father taking in a piece of ground from the waste, but that was
more than 20 years ago. I lived with my mother, as did my sister
and her husband ; we had frequent quarrels, and went often before
Mr. Moggeridge, the Magistrate; my mother was not in the pos-
session of any other house for more than a fortnight.
Joan Arthur tail, lan the daughter of the plaintiff. One day
my mother and I went out, and returned the next day ; on our re-
turn I saw several persons, and our furniture was out of the cottage
on the ground. Henry Samuel, one of the defendants, told me to
come and take my goods; but I saidorou took them not of the house
and you shall give them to mein the house again. Ile said he would
not, and told my mother to take her things, which she refused ; a few
days after this I went again to the house, and saw the defendant,
Samuel. I said " This is dear work for you ;" and he replied,
•'I don't care for you ; there is nothing belonging to you in the
hostee." At that time the whole of my mother's goods were out on
the common and had been spoiled by the rain. I went again on
the next day, and saw the house burning, and the defendants car-
rying away the doors and the other parts of the house. The house
is quite down now, and my mother lust a good many of her goods.
She lost three bedsteads, a feather bed, a pail, and some knives and
forks. Some of her clothes were spoilt.
Cornelius Arthur, the husband of the last witness, confirmed her
testimony.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed die Jury for the defendants, and con-
tended that there was no evidence of a forcible entry, and that at
most the facts proved only amounted to a trespass. To the case,
as a trespass, lie had no defence in point of law, and therefore for
the simple trespass there must be a verdict for the plaintiff; but
he trusted that the damages would be very moderate.
Mr. Justice LIT T LTDALIC, in charging the Jury, observed that
an action for a forcible entry was a proceeding founded on a statute
passed in the reign of Henry VI., and was now rare in practice, and
could not be supported unless the par'y grieved were in possession of
the property, and had a right to a freehold interest in it, and were
forcibly put out of possession. And if they were satisfied that that
were the case here, the plaintiff would be entitled to treble damages
—but whether they thought there was a forcible entry or not, the
plaintiff was entitled to damages fur the trespass, in the removal of
die goods. His Lordship then summed up the evidence, and left
the amount of damages to the Jury.
After a short consultation, the Jury found that there had been no
forcible entry, and found a verdict for the plaintiff for the trespass
—Damages 201.
TUESDAY% MARCH 29.
[Before Mr. Justice LITTEDALE.I
SEDUCTION.
EDWARDS N. THOMAS.
' •

Mr. C. PIIILLIrs stated, that this action was brought to re-
cover a compensation for the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter.
The plaintiff was a man in humble life, but was a freeholder of
the county of Monmouth. The defendant was what is called
stock-taker to Messrs. Paley, who are eminent iron masters.
About three years ago the defendant became acquainted with this
family, and made honourable proposals to their daughter, which
were only objected to on the ground of the extreme youth of their
child, she being then but 17 years of age. He, however, was still
intimate with the family, and often visited their house, they not
suspecting any ill, as the defendant had been already married.
Under these circumstances he accomplished the seduction of the
unfortunate girl. She very mon communicated her situation to
her seducer, who, bad as his conduct had been, instead of perform-
ing his promises, immediately abandoned hew. Her parents acted
very properly; they did not turn her into the wide world, but they
took proper care of her. The defendant, though lie bad no regard
for any one else, had a special regard to himself, for he had heard
from some self-styled lawyer, that if lie compelled her to swear
the child to him, that would be a bar to the action. But
this trick did nut succeed; for, though she did swear the child
to the plaintiff, It was no burden to die parish, but was main-
tained at the expense of the plaintiff. It would be necessary
for him to anticipate • few of the topics of the defence. A very
common muse was, to asperse the character of the seduced part ;
but he challenged the defendant to traduce her character; for if tits
defendant attacked her character by evidence—he would say that he
that this unfortunate girl was of a character spotless and had a host
of witnesses to prove unblemished. The next topic of defence he
supported world be, that the plaintiff was poor. He would admit that
the plaintiff was a man in humble life, but God forbid that
because a man was poor, the comfort of his cottage should not be
protected. and it was doubly a crime to destroy the {happiness of
his cottage because the rich man in his trouble had many consola-
tions from his wealth, but the poor man bad no comfort but in the
happinem of his family. The only remaining topic usual in such
driences as this was, the poverty of the defendant; the feet was that
he was not poor. Ile was a man In a station of great trust ; his
master would not appear in pursuance of their summons, and the
inference from that circumstance was clear; but even if' the defend-
ant was not worth • farthing he would ask them to give such da-
mages as they thought right, for if the defendant could not pay
them, they of course could rot receive them, but if the jury would
give them the damages, they would take the chance of recovering
them.
Mary Edwards, a rather pretty Welch girl, apparently about
20 years of age, was examined through an interpreter ; she was
dressed in a brown great mat, and round beaver hst (the usual dress
of the Welch f es); she said, I itm the daughter of the plaintiff,
and au) now near twenty years of age. I have six brothers and
two sisters. The defendant is about 90. He is a widower. Be-
tween two and three years ago he used to come to the house of my
father, who is a farmer; he came to keep company with me ; he Aid
so with the knowledge of my father and mother. The defendant
was living at the Nantyglo iron-works, which belonged to Messrs.
Paley. 'I he defendant was employed in weighing the iron. After
he had kept my company about a year, I was seduced by the de.
fendant. I told the defendant he umst fulfil his promises, but he
has never spoken to me since. I had a child abort Christmas last
—my father is at the expense of the child.
Cross-examined by Mr. CAMPBELL—I now live at the house
of Mr. Paley, the defendant's master, as a wet nurse. The de-
fendant never offered to marry me after ha knew of my situation—
be never came near me--I was at Mr. Powell's—he is a magistrate.
The defendant did not say. at Mr. Powell's, that I ever heard
my father told me he bad said so, but when I sent fur him he re.
faxed to come ; my lather never aid he was unwilling th it I should
marry the defendant, except on the ground that I was too young. I
never refused to marry the defendant—l receive twelve pounds a.
year wages at Mr. Paley's. The defendant has several men under
him in the iron works. . _

Mr. Abraham Rowland said. iam a surgeon-1 attended the
plaintiff's daughter—the plaintiff is a farmer—the defendant is a
respectable man, about 30 or 35 years of age.
Mr. CAMPAELL addressed the pry for the defendant. He com.
pialned that his friend Sir. Phillips had much exaggerated the
case; he would have had them believe that there was a deliberate
system of seduction practised by the defendant, who had, under tea'
mask of honourable proposals, seduced the young woman, sad
then basely abandoned her, and then, to save his pocket, had forced
her to Fo before a magistrate—but this was not borne out by tin
case. l'he Learned Gentleman had also anticipated certain topic'',
which were expected to be briught forward on the part of the 416
fence; but he would say that no irteotion was ever entertained of
attacking the character of the plaintiff, abo was, he believed, a
young woman of excellent character, and the fact was, that the de-
fendanr