The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(Day.)

COURT 01? EXCHEQUER.
(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock and a Special Jury.)
ALLEGED BREACH
CT PROMISE AND
SEDU
MELSOME V. WILLIAMS,

This was an action for an alleged breach of promise of
marriage and seduction, and the declaration stated that
the plaintiff and defendant agreed to marry one another,
and that the defendant refused to marry the plaintiff,
who was always ready and willing to marry him. The
defendant pleaded that he never agreed to marry the
plaintiff as alleged.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Prideaux appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Rose
for the defendant.

Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, in stating the case to the jury,
said the plaintiff was a dressmaker and milliner, se-
siding at Bristol, and the defendant, Mr. William Evans
Williams, was a gentleman residing in Wales. There
WAS a disparity in the ages of the parties, and in
other respects, the defendant being her senior, and far
above her in his position of life, which was
rather, he thought, an aggravation of the case. The
plaintiff was the daughter of respectable parents, and
during her residence with her mother the defendant ob-
traded himself very much on her attention, following her
home to find out her address. She at first repulsed him,
but having discovered her address, he called at her re-
sidence, and obtained an interview with her, which led
to her ruin and destruction after the death of her mother.
The defendant, after that, allowed her a small sum to live
on for a short time, but becoming, as was usually the case
with selfish men, tired and nauseated with the society of
one whom he had at first so ardently sought alter, had cast
her on the world with the loss of reputation and a blasted
character. Under these circumstances he called on the
jury to mark their sense of such conduct by the damages
they would award the plaintiff. The first witness called
was

Mrs. S. Mizsan, wife of a millwright, who deposed
that she lived in the house with the plaintiff and her
mother in November, 1853. The defendant visited the
plaintiff at that time ; witness opened the door to him.
On one occasion she listened at the door of plaintiff's
room, and heard the plaintiff tell the defendant she had
a young man named Vowles paying his addresses to her.
The defendant told her it she would give him up that he
would give her a silk gown, and marry her in three
months. Plaintiff replied that she alight do so if he
acted honourably. The plaintiff's mother shortly after
died, and the plaintiff left and went to reside in Jamaica-
street.

In cross examination witness said it was after the
mother's death the defendant visited her. The young
man Vowles used to frequently visit the plaintiff. lie
went in and out when he liked. _ _

Mrs. Sarah Whitworth deposed that she resided at
3, Jamaica-strett. The plaintiff lodged with her in
December, and was visited by the defendant six or seven
times. On one occasion she listened at the door and
heard the defendant press her to consent to be married
to him. The defendant used to take her to the theatre,
returning home with her between 11 and 12 o'clock,
remain some time, and then go to his hotel. She
heard a great deal said about the parties she did not like,
which she informed the defendant. She had her suspi-
cions from the first. She gave plaintiff notice to leave
her house, believing the plaintiff had yielded to the de-
fendant's solicitations.
A. letter from the solicitor to the plaintiff, named
Hare, addressed to the defendant, was put in, but only
Partly read, and withdrawn.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins having again addressed the
jury,
Mr. Chambers summed up the evidence on the part
of the defendant, characterising the case as an absurd
one. They were in total ignorance of the condition of
the defendant and many circumstances connected with
the plaintiffs which ought to have been given in evi-
dence. _ _ _ _

The Lord Chief Baron interrupted the learned coun-
sel, saying there bad not been a particle of evidence
given of the condition in life or the age of the defendant.
In fact, he had never, in the whole course of his life,
known a case brought before a court of justice in so
barren a state as this. Whether the defendant was rich
or poor, older or younger than the defendant, they knew
not. All they did know of them was that they had
arrived at the age of puberty, and their sexes. The marriage,
if it had taken place, might have been, for anything they
knew to the contrary, the most improvident and impru-
dent thing imaginable, and evidence on this head ought
to have been given by the plaintiff. It did not appear,
as he had already stated, who the defendant was, and it
might be that ho was a married man incapable of making
or fulfilling the promise, and the only evidence they had
of the promise was what two persons had overheard.
He could not help thinking, when looking at the letter
that had been putt n, that this was an attorney's action.
Mr. Prideaux said thel etter was not in evidence. it
ha 3 been withdrawn.
The Lord Chief Barou said he had heard sufficient of
the letter read to induce him to say that he suspected
this action had been brought by the attorney.
Mr. Prideaux protested against anything being said
of a letter that had been withdrawn.
The Chief Baron said he had a right t 3 draw that
opinion from the letter.

Mr. Prideaux—Yes ; but not to state it to the jury.
Mr. Chambers then continued his address to the jury,
treating this as an action the most disgraceful that had
ever been presented to a jury.
The Chief Baron, in summing up, said this certainly
was a must marvellous action. After referring to the
evidence of the witnesses relative to the promise and the
present of the silk dress, and the fact of that mysterious
Vowles, who had the run of the house, said
he certainly should have liked to have heard more about
the parties than had been given in evidence.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after
an absence of 20 minutes rAurned into court, when
The Foreman said the jury were unanimously of
opinion there had been a breach of promise, but that
there was no evidence that the plaintiff had sustained
any pecuniary loss. Was it competent for them to give
damages nuclei' such circumstances ?
The Chief Baron—To give nominal damages.
The Foreman —What is meant by nominal damages ?

The Chief Baron—A shilling or 40s. If it were the
intention of the jury to give the plaintiff costs, he must
tell them that from the judgment and experienco he had
had in these matters this action had not been brought
for the benefit of the plaintiff, but for the attorney to
uut costs into his pocket.
The Foreman—Then your lordship thinks this an
attorney's action
Thelel Baron—l do.
The Foreman said the jury wished to prevent the
plaintiff from being annoyed for the future by the at-
torney._

The Chief Baron—There will be no annoyance after
this. 1 believe it is an action, "no cure no pan,
(Laughter )
The jury again retired, and in a few minutes returned
with a verdict for the plaintiff—damages one farthing.
Mr. Rose asked his lordship to certify under the act
to deprive the plaintiff of costs.
Ms lordship consented.

(Before Mr. Baron Pollock and a Cutnrnon Jury.)

WEAVER V. SENNETT.-SEDUCTION.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a ginger-
beer dealer, residing near the Borough-market, to re-
cover damages for the loss of his daughter-in-law's ser-
vices through the misconduct of the defendant, a son of
a furrier, by whom his daughter-in-law was employed.
Mr. Pearce and Mr. Brook appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Locke for the defendant.
Mr. Pearce, having addressed the jury detailing the
facts of the case, called
Rebecca Penner, who deposed she was 18 years of age
last birthday, and lived with the plaintiff. In February
last I was employed at Messrs. Sennett's, who carry on
business as furriers. On the evening; of the 20th Fe-
bruary, the defendant ordered me to be at the factory at
a quarter to 8 o'clock the following morning (Wednes-
dee ), as he wanted me particularly. The defendant was
'the superintent of the room in which I worked. I went
to the factory at the appointed time, and to the machine
room, where I worked. I there saw the defendant alone.
after I had taken off my bonnet and shawl, he locked
the door, come to me and put his hand under my clothes.
I resisted him. Ile ultimately succeeded in throwing
me down and lifting my clothes over my head, and took
advantage of me. I screamed, but no assistance came to
me. The dwelling-house was some distance from the
machine-room, and two brick walls intervened. This
occurred on Wednesday.
unwell,
Oa the Tuesday following,
feeling I told my father and mother of what had
occurred, and the ,
Rai
under
morning
surgeon, and %V I applied to Mr. Wood,
patieeetrhim a fortnight. At his advice I
became an out-
On the 30th May I became Guy's Hospital for 11 weeks.
an in-door patient, and was
under Dr. Poland for 15 weeks.
an out-door patient, and am so I then again became
connection with any other man than I have never had
connection.
defendant. My
sufferings were the result of that
in".attending to
I assisted
my father as a ginger-beer-maker, aliedet
the household duties.
Cross-examined--I have worked for Messrs. Sennett
about four years. The usual hour fer commencing work
was about 8 or a quarter past 8 o clock. About 4 re
n
100 women worked at the factory. I don't know amen
named Grogan. I have seen him, he is in court, but
I don't know what he is here for. When the women Who
work in the room came to work that morning I did not
tell them what had happened. I continued my work as
if nothing had occurred the whole of that day and till
the Thursday following ; that was the first time I felt
anything, and then I told my parents. I live with my
revreenrts at the back of the Borough Market. I
ae,ai, applied to the magietrates for a summons
° ••••4 Gr
the m„ey gang nor pawned my shawl to procure
at tothe•defen!jay for the summons. I have not worked
when toe defendant
factory since the 27th Februrary.
_I struckan t
would do it."caught hold of me he said "he
Re-ex ' ammed I tried him.
prevented me.
to leave the room, but the de-
fendant
The mother of the last
her daughter was at the witness deposed that, after
mother called.on witness hospital,and asked
the defendant and his
was ? Mrs. Sennett said ~
it -wedaher how her daughter
.would have given all the world athbead job, and she
the factory had not known it ;" the
defendantthought said "he
got rid of it." They both went to the hospital he had
that, where Mrs. Sennett askeal her daughter ifs
ie after
would
which marry the defendant. She declined, on Mrs.

Sennett left, saying, "You may do your best or do your
worst."

Other evidence was given in support of the p!aintiff's
case.

No evidence was offered for the defence.
Mr. Locke then addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages, after which
His lordship summed up, and the jury returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages 501.