The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-09 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings u.t Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Mr.

Baron Martin, and a Common Jury.)

BEADMAN V. FISH-ASSAULT AND SLANDER.

Mr. Ribton and Mr. Daly were counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins and Mr. C. Pollock for
the defendant.

Mr. Ribton said that this and the following ac-
tion in the eause list arose out of the same transac-
tion. The plaintiff, Jane Beadman, brought the
first action, through her father, as next friend,
against Mr. C. Fish, a builder, of Cambridge wharf,
Grosvenor-road, Pimlico, for an assault committed
upon her by him while she was in his service. The
learned counsel then detailed the nature of the trans-
action as given in the following evidence :
Jane Beadman, the plaintiff, said—l entered the
service of the defendant on the 23d of November last
as a servant. I had been with a Mrs. Nicholls before.
In January last my master called me. He was
coming down stairs from the bed-room; it was in
the morning. He said, " Jane, come here, I want
you." I went into the dining-room, where he had
gone before me. He shut the door, took hold of
my hands, and placed his back against the door.
He put my hands behind me and kissed me. He
did it violently.
Mr. Pollock—He kissed you violently? (laughter.)
Witness—He put my hands violently behind me.
I tried to get from him. He sat down on a chair and
pulled me on his knee, still holding my hands. He
tried to raise my clothes in an indecent manner,
and to pass his hands up my petticoats. I asked
him to let me go, or I would tell Mrs. Fish
and call out. - I got away from him. He again
took my hands and tried to kiss me. I
then got away and went into the kitchen.
About five minutes afterwards he came into the
kitchen. I got up and stood against the kitchen
table. He tried to catch hold of me round the table.
He did not succeed, and he went into the yard. He
told the groom to bring his boots. They were
brought, and he put them on. He then said, " Jane,
I think you and I had better sleep together.
(Laughter.) Yoh perfectly understand me. I will
leave you to fix your own time." I said, " I don't
know what you mean." He then left. Immediately
afterwards I saw Mrs. Pigott, a person in the yard.
I sent the groom, whose name is Noble, to fetch her.
Mr. Follock objected to what she said to Mrs.
Pigott being given in evidence.
Mr. Baron Martin allowed the objection.
Examination resumed—The same day I wrote a
letter to my mother. The defendant returned in
the evening. I went into the dining-room. He
touched me under the chin and said, " How cross
you look." I said, " Yes, and I intend to leave you
to-night." He said, " What do you mean 2" I said,
" You know perfectly well what I mean. You
grossly insulted me this morning." My mother
came about nine o'clock the same evening, and we
both had an interview with Mr. Fish. Mother said,
"Jane, repeat everything you said Mr. Fish did to
you." He denied it at first. He said, " I cannot
understand it; I don't know what you are going to
leave for." Afterwards he said, " Jane, you must
remember you gave me a little encouragement." I
dared him to say so at his peril, and denied that I
gave him any encouragement. I left with my
mother the same night. I called with my mother
in the morning and saw Mrs. Fish. In the even-
ing I saw the defendant in the dining-room. My
mother, Mrs. Fish, and her sister were present.
Mrs. Fish asked me to repeat what I had said, and
I did so. She said she did not believe it. The
defendant said I must have some other object in
view in doing what I did. I said I had no other
object, and that I had until then been very com-
fortable in my situation.

Cross-exam'ined—l had been in the defendant's
service from November to January. There are
four bed-rooms. Before this Mr. Fish had kissed
me once, but nothing more. It was on the night of
a party in January, when we were in the dining-
room. I said "Do not you do that again if you
please, sir." I did not mention that to any one at
the time. He has two children, one of them is 11
years old. (in the night before he called me as I
was coming upstairs he had been out with the
children till two o'clock. They were let in by Mrs.
Fish. The defendant only kissed me once when he
had hold of my hands. I said, " Do not do it again,
sir." I did not call out. If I had done so I might
have been heard in the yard, but not up stairs. I
struggled, but I did not call out, because he let me
go as soon as I told him. He touched my knees
with his hand. His dress was not disarranged. I
sent the letter to my mother by a boy. After the
defendant went out I went upstairs and helped my
mistress to dress. She told me she was going to
take her little girl to school, and that she would
most likely not be home to dinner. Mr. Fish came
home and dined with a Mr. Prestige, and I waited
upon them. Mr. Prestige went into the office to
get some books, and while he was away, Mr. Fish
said, " How cross you look." Mr. Prestige was
only absent a few minutes. I never told Mrs
Nicholls, with whom I before lived, that Mr.
Nicholls used often, after I left, to come over the
bridge to see me. I said Mrs. Nicholls, on Christ-
mas morning, passed a joke about people going
over the bridge. Mrs. Nicholls lives in the Wands-
worth-road.

Mr. Baron Martin said that during a very long
experience of courts of justice he had never known
a case of this kind tried before.

Ribton said it would not have been brought
but for the second action, which was for slander,
seriously affecting the plaintiff's character.
Mr. Baron Martin thought that the two cases
ought to have been tried together.
Mr. Ribton said that when his lordship heard the
second case he would see the necessity of trying the
present one first.
Mr. Baron Martin said if such actions were to
be brought there must be a new court for the trial
of them. He thought that the matter might be
discussed much more satisfactorily in a private
room than in a public court.
Upon the suggestion of the learned judge it was
agreed that the two actions should be tried at the
same time.
Mr. Ribton then opened the case of Beadman v.
Fish and Wife," which, he said, was an action for
slander uttered by Mrs. Fish to Mrs. Nicholls on
( the 25th of January, the day following the alleged
assault. The words complained of were—" Jane
Beadman has brought a false charge against my
husband of taking improper liberties with her.
While in my service I missed some collars and din-
ner napkins, and I believe she has stolen them, I
also believe she was in the family way when she
left my house." The learned counsel said that those
charges seriously affected the character and pros-
pects of a young woman like the plaintiff, whose
father had been in a much better position in life.
In consequence of Mrs. Fish's statement Mrs.
Nicholls had refused to give her a character ; and
although two applications had been made to
the defendant for a satisfactory apology none
whatever had been offered, and the plaintiff was
compelled to bring an action.
Jane Beadman, the plaintiff, was again cross-
examined, and denied that before she went to Mr.
Fish Mts. Nieholle refused to give her a character.
I never walked out arm in arm with Mr. Nicholls.
I never told Mrs. Fish that Mrs. Nicholls was
' jealous of me, because he came over Vauxhall.
bridge to see me. In a joke Mrs. Nicholls said " It
must have cost him a good many pennies to come
over the bridge to see you." I merely laughed.
Mrs. Fish told me that she had missed several
collars and other things, and that she believed the
I laundress had got them. She also said that some
napkins were missing.
Re-examined—My father is a butcher by trade,
and works for a Mr. Smith. I am 19, and have
been in service four years. I have had five situa-
tions during that time. Mrs. Nicholls gave me a
character to Mrs. Fish. There is no pretence for
saying I am in the family way, or for saying that I
took the collars and napkins,
Mrs. Pigott deposed to the defendant calling
upon her at nine o clock in the evening of the as-
sault, and asking her what Jane Beadman was
going to leave for. Witness told him that she com-
plained he had been very indecent to her_ He said
he knew nothing about it, and added, " It is a very
pretty thing for Mrs. Fish to know when she comes
home." Next day Mrs. Fish asked witness if the
plaintiff had said anything about money. Witness
replied that the plaintiff had said that Mr. Fish had
offered her £5 on the night she left. Mrs. Fish
told witness, after a letter had been received from
the solicitor, that she had said that the plaintiff
was in the family way, and that she believed so
still. She also said that she thought the plaintiff
had the missing collarkand napkins.
Crosi-examined—l am wife of the carman, who
has been seven years in the defendant's service,
and I lived on the premises. I left his service
in February last. My husband has also left. I have
not heard my husband say that the defendant com-
plained of his not using his corn fairly. All I heard
was that the corn came in short weight. My hus-
band gave the defendant notice. Mrs. Fish had
before said that she would sack us as soon as this
affair had blown over. I also heard her say that I
was "a sly- person." (Laughter.) She also called
me a sly hussey. We left on Feb. 24, and the as-
sault took place on Jan. 24.
Mrs. Beadman, the mother of the plaintiff, said
that on January 24" she received a letter from her
daughter saying— Come directly ; I have had a
great upset with master ; come for my sake. I shall
expect you directly. If you do not come you must
expect me home to-night." (The letter was put in
and read.) She then corroborated the evidence of
her daughter as to the interview with the defen-
dant. Mr. Fish said, "She (the plaintiff) mutt have

some other object in view. She has trumped up this
tale against me in order to get away." He also said
to the plaintiff, " Why did you not scream out, or
go upstairs and tell your mistress ?" Witness re-
plied, " That is the only loophole you have to creep
out of." Witness then asked Mrs Fish if she would
give her daughter a character. Mrs. Fish said, " I
never shall;' and, looking to her husband, "Nor
shall you."
Mrs. Nicholls said that Mrs. Fish called upon her
on the 25th of January, and said that she believed
the charge the plaintiff had made against her
husband (Mr. Fish) was not true. She also
told her that she believed the plaintiff had
robbed her, and that she was in the family way.
On a subsequent occasion Mrs. Beadman called and
complained that Mrs. Fish would not give
Jane a character. Witness said, "In that case
she will be thrown out of a place. I will give
her a second character." Afterwards she said,
" I will give her a recommendation. I shall not be
justified in giving her a second character." Mrs.
Beadman said, " She cannot take that, but must
clear her character." Witness said that if a lady
came to her for her character she would tell her
what she had heard from Mrs. Fish.

This being the case for the plaintiff,
Mr. Pollock submitted that no case of slander or
special damage had been made out.
The learned Judge said there was no case of
slander, unless he amended the declaration, and the
special damage had been clearly disproved.
Upon the application of Mr. Ribton,
His Lordship amended the declaration, and said
he would give leave to move the Court above upon
the question whether the conversation with Mrs.
Nicholls was a privileged communication, and in the
event of the Court being of opinion that it was a
nonsuit would be entered on the slander counts.

Mr. Pollock then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, and contended that the whole story of the
plaintiff as to the assault was totally devoid of
truth.

Mr. Fish. the defendant, was then examined, and
denied in toto that he had ever kissed or taken in-
decent liberties with the plaintiff, or asked her to
sleep with him. _ _

Mrs. Fish said that the plaintiff did not appear
at all excited or flurried when she came up to her
bed-room on the morning of the alleged occurrence
or the next day. She asked the plaintiff why she
did not tell her before, and she replied that she was
so good a mistress that she did not like to hurt her
feelings. Witness denied having said to Mrs.
Nicholls that the plaintiff robbed her. She told Mrs.
Nicholls that the plaintiff had accused her husband
of having taken liberties with her, and Mrs. Ni-
cholls replied, " Don't believe it—a 'bigger liar
never came into a house." Witness did not say the
plaintiff was in the family way, but she remarked,
" Perhaps she is in the family way and wants a
father. We read of such things in the newspapers."
(Laughter.) Mrs. Nicholls said, "Do you think
so ?" and she answered " No ; I do not say that is
the case."

Mr. Prestige, the defendant's clerk, denied that
he ever left the room while he was dining with his
master on the 24th January.
Upon the conclusion of the evidence for the de-
fence, the trial was adjourned.