The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-10 00:00:00

performs his duty as counsel gratuitously ; and as he
cannot recover any fees for his addvocacy, neither
can he be made responsible for neg lect in the per-
formance ot it. Mr. Kennedy was not satisfied with
this theory. Though a barrister, he had certainly
acted not, so mica as a counsel, but as a friend.
He had left his home in ~the country, had come up
o London, had taken a house. and had, in fact, de-
voted his whole time and ersucia. of his money to
promote the cause of Mrs. Swin!en. According to
his own account in May, 1869, be.
not only induced
her to execute a deed by which she gave him
£20,000, but she even promised
him marriage.
From the year 1856 until that time
Mr. Kennedy
had continued his attentions; but, un. fortunately,
in 1859 Mrs. Swinfen fell in with a
tr. Broun,
who captivated the affections of the litigiou.s widow,
and neutralised the influence of Mr. Kennedy.
From that moment the two frieuds became deadiy
foes, and Mrs. Swinfen, who bad already become
Mrs. Broun, probably under the advice of
her husband, determined to repudiate the deed of
gift which she had executed, and to resume posses-
sive of her property. It is not surprising that Mr.
Kennedy should have resisted itsis apparently un-
gracious act by every means in Os power. He
br,sught an action against Mrs. Svinfen for the
£20,t,,20, and actually obtained a vernier • but the
Court of
Common Pleas decided that Mr. Kennedy's
•
barrister position as is disabled him trona making
any contract co: remuneration with his client,
and
therefore set the verdict aside. Undismayed by his
failure, Mr. Kennedy had recourse to the deed of
gift by which he had .
obtained £20,000; but Mrs,
Broun, in order to defeat him, took proceedings to
set aside this deed on the ground that it was ob-
tained by undue influence, and on this contest the
Master of the Rolls has delivered judgment in the
lady's favour.
EXAMlNER.—Diversities must be expected
is
justice, as pot homines, tot sententice, nay, caprices
hardly surprise us, but what is indeed startling is
extraordinary leniency where extraordinary severity
seems called for, as if the worse the offence the
'tighter the punishment, and the opposite. There
is no place where women travelling also are so much
exposed to the danger of insult and outrage as rail-
way carriages. Between one stopping station and
another a solitary female is completely at the mercy
of any ruffian who, by chance of design, is in the
same carriage, without any other company. A
woman so circumstanced and assaulted has iso means
of communicating with the guard, and cries are not
to be heard in the noise of the rattling of the train,
In proportion to the danger to which females are
thus exposed, it might be supposed would be the
care of the magistracy to throw around them all the
protection of the law, and to visit with exemplary
punishment all insults and outrages to women in
railway travelling. Let us see whether this is done.
A married man gets into a first-class carriage with
a young lady to whom he is known, when the train
is in motion he attempts to kiss her, and being re-
pulsed, proceeds to gross liberties. The young lady
resists successfully, and when the train stops at s
station is about to charge him with indecent assault,
when, by his entreaties, professions of sorrow for
his conduct, and representation of what the conse-
quence of exposure would be to his family, she is
'nduced to be silent. No sooner, however, is the
train again in motion than he recommences his
attempts, and upon arrival at the next station the
lady charges him with his offence. The case is proved,
and what is the punishment for a gross outrage
against modesty, once pardoned, and deliberately
repeated with the return of a dastardly °Wile;
nity ? A fine, forsooth, of £6, a mere trifle to a rate
in good circumstances, whose condition may is
inferred from this circumstance, that his nalue only
suppressed in the reports, a favour exhibited 011147.
to very respectable offenders, that is to say, the nu
fians who are, in the common phrase, “so well to
do in the world " as to do ill with complete ire.'
punity. The effect of the example is that on thla
Midland line a fellow who can afford to throw IMO
five pounds may take any forcible liberties he pleases
with a lady unfortunate enough to be his fellow
traveller and unprotected. Let us compare with this
decision the view that a Southwark magistrate
takes of an offence of a far less serious nature. The
case before Mr. Burcham was not that of a woman
shut up in a railway carriage with an assailant of
her modesty, and as much out of reach of present
.
help and succour as if she had been in a desert ; bit
it was that of a married woman walking the streets
under the protection of her husband, and who
w,ass
pushed against rudely and, as it was at first thought'
indecently, by a young man half intoxicated. Upon
investigation of the charge of indecent assault, it
soon appeared that there was no intentional in
decency in the defendant's conduct, but Mr. Bur-
n
cham very properly insisted on making this pt
quite clear before he consented to treat the matter
as an ordinary assault, for which a fine of forty
shillings might suffice and in passing sentence the
magistrate most justly remarked:—" Fortunately
for the defendant there was not sufficient evidence
to convict him of the indecent assault. Had it been
so, he should either have sent him to the sessions
for trial, or :have sentenced him to a long term of
imprisonment without the option of paying a fine."
And had the indecency been proved, Mr. Burcham
would have done well in doing as he states; but
what, then, is to be thought of the country justices
in a case much worse, who, instead of sentencing
the filthy offender to a long term of imprisonment,
let him off with a paltry fine of five pounds ?