The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVE

LAW I NTELLIGENCE, Nov, 26.

-
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
LEIGH V. THORP.—SEIDUCTION.
The declaration in this case charged the defen-
dant with debauching and seducing the plaintiff's
daughter. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Philbrick were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Parry
and Mr. Morgan Lloyd for the defendant.
From the opening statement by Mr. Atkinson, it
appeared that Edward Leigh, the plaintiff, was a
journeyman painter, living at Old Ford, where his
wife kept a small shop for the sale of caps, and
that Samuel Thorp was a brevet major in the
Indian army. Major Thorp brought his child over
to England, and placed her with his grandmother,
the widow of the late Alderman Thorp, of London,
I who :lived at Walthamstow. The plaintiff's

daughter entered Mrs. Thorp's service as nurse to
the child, and after remaining there some time, left
and went to her father's. In July last, being very
much attached to the child, she went to see her at
her former mistress's, and while walking in the gar-
den the major came up and asked her if she was in
want of a situation. She replied that she was, and
he said if she would come to his lodgings, at 2, Re-

gent-square, Gray's-inn-lane, he would give her the
address of his aunt, who wanted a servant. On 15th
July she went there and saw defendant, who said
he had unfortunately lost the address, but that she
had better call on the following Monday. She called
again on that day, and the seduction was alleged to
have taken place on this occasion in the apartments
of the major, and also at several subsequent times
when she visited him at the same place. In the early
part of May she became ill and went home, where
she was delivered of a child. She was shortly after-
wards seized with puerperal mania, and for several
months remained in a state of insanity. The child
in the meantime died. The learned counsel said that
under there circumstances the father brought this
action to recover damages for the dishonour of his
daughter and for the loss of her services.
Emma Leigh, a modest-looking girl, was then
called. She said—l am the daughter of Edward
Leigh, who lives at Roman-road, Old Ford. Before
June, 1861, I had been in service at Woodford.
Previously I had been in the service of Mrs. Thorp
at Walthamstow, where Major Thorp had his
daughter. I was engaged to take care of the child.
After I left I assisted in keeping my father's house.
In July, 1861, I went to see the child at Waltham-
stow. I saw the major in the garden. He asked me
if I was in want of a situation. I said " Yes." He
said, " I will try and get you a situation at my
aunt's in the country." He gave me his address at
2, Regent-square, and said if I would call upon him
there he would give me his aunt's address. He
gave me his address on a slip of paper. I promised
to go on the following Wednesday, and I did so. I
saw the major ; he said he had received the address
of his aunt, and asked me to call next day. I said
I should not be able to come then, and it was fixed
that I should come on the following Monday.
I went on Monday, between two and three in the
afternoon. The major opened the door, and he
asked me to walk upstairs. I did so, and went into
the front drawing room. Folding doors opened
into the bedroom. Afterwards he locked the door
opening to the stairs. I asked him for the ad-
dress. Ha said I was in a great hurry, and that I
was to sit down, and take my bonnet and shawl
off. I said, why ? And he replied, " You look very
hot." I did not take them off, and he said, " If you
do not, I'll take them off for you." I advanced to
the door, and found it locked. He took off the bon-
net and shawl, and put them in the bedroom. He
asked me to have something to drink, and I said
no. He said " You mast be faint." He gave me
some gin and water, but nothing to eat. After I
drank it he wanted me to go into the bedroom, and
I refused. He pulled the blinds of the drawing-
room down, and dragged me almost into the bed-
room. I almost broke the swing looking-glass in
resisting him. He took me in his arms and put me
on the bed. He took off his coat and had inter-
course with me. He asked me if I should like to
go back to his mother's to live. I said I should not
mind it. After I began to dress ha repeated the act.
I never obtained the address of the aunt. When this
happened I was 18. He asked me tocall again on the
following Wednesday, but I did not until Monday
fortnight. I went altogether four times to Regent-
square between July and September, and the inter-
course was renewed on each occasion. In Septem-
ber I went to a situation, but was obliged to leave
it in consequence of illness. I then returned to my
father. I was confined on the 3d of May. The
child died in August following. Major Thorp is
the father of the child. I never in my life had in-
tercourse with any other man than Major Thorp.
Cross-examined—l don't remember the date when
I first called. It was about the, middle of July. I
' was nurse of the major's child, who was about three
years old. Mrs. Thorp, the grandmother engaged
me. I left her service in February, 1859. I gave
her notice ; she did not dismiss me. 1. was a fort-
night out of a situation. I had left Mrs. Thorp
two years before. I went to see the little girl in
July. I had not been with her more than nine
months. I eften saw the major. He had his
meals and slept at his mother's. I was not dis-
missed in consequence of my too great familiarity
with Robert Hubble, .the defendant's groom. I
left because my mother did not like me to be where
there were so many men about. I did not know
Regent-square before this event. I knew Sidmouth-
street, Gray's-inn-lane, before I went to Major
Thorp's. I did not meet Hubble there at a public-
house or coffee-house in June, 1861. I recollect
meeting him in Sidmouth-street in July, after I
had called the second time in Regentzsquare. I
met him between three and four in the afternoon
after I first had intercourse with Major Thorp.
Wright, the gardener, was with him. I don't
think we had any ale or spirits together. I think
I had some ham and tea. Wright slept at the
coffee-house all night. Hubble walked home with
me to Walthamstow. I did not get home until 10
o'clock at eignt. When the first intercourse with
tee defendant took place I might have been there
half an hour. I went to see him on the following
Monday, and then a fortnight afterwards. I did not
tell my mother what happened ; no one knew any-
thing about it until after my confinement. I was
not treated for the dropsy by any surgeon. I took no
notice to anyone that I was pregnant. I never saw
the defendant after the 3d Sept. until now. After
my confinement I told my mother how the matter
happened. I did not tell her that Robert Hubble
drove me up to No. 2, Regent-square, to see the
major about a situation, nor that the major took
something out of a bottle on the chimney-piece and
gave it me in a wine glass, that I immediately after-
wards became senseless. He gave me some warm
gin and water in a tumbler. There was sugar in it,
but no lemon. (A laugh.) I did not say that Thorp
and the groom drove me up to Regent-square under
pretence of getting me a situation, nor that Thorp
dragged me into some hovel and violated my person.
I remember in July the major prosecuting a servant
at Clerkenwell Police-court. That was the day I
met Hubble. I did not call upon the major of my
own accord when I first went. He asked me if it
would not be bet! er for me to learn sewing by ma-
chinery instead of getting another situation. I said
I had no money to pay for learning. He gave me
half a sovereign, and said he would lend me two
sovereigns, if it was necessary, to learn the work.
I said if I could learn it I should repay the money.
On the first occasion I called at Regent-square the
landlady opened the door; afterwards defendant
always opened it.
Re-examined—Beyond mere conversation with
Hubble, who was a fellow-servant, nothing improper
took place between us. I never had any sexual in-
tercourse with him. The major kept horses but no
carriages at Walthamstow.
Edward Leigh, the father, said his daughter was
bred up carefully, and was a well-conducted girl.
She assisted her sisters in cap-making. When she
came home he saw she was ill, but never suspected
she
three was
or
she was in the family way. He did not know it
until
actuallyfour
d ayis labour
during Sheth a t kepttime hershe
senses
called him into the room and said she hoped he
She also and
would forgive her. stated that Major
Thorp was the father
of the child. She lost her
senses for four months, and was at
raving mad. He had to keep her all times nearly
the doctor's bill amounted to £l3 or saa4t time anal
Cross-examined—She never told me that the
groom drove her to Regent-square, and that
there Major Thorp dragged her into a place and
violated her person. I believe my brother-in-
law wrote a letter to the major, but without my
authority; and I do not know what it contained. I
was away from home at work at the time. I did not
authorise my brother-in-law to say that the villain
had dragged her into a hovel and effected her ruin.
Ann Leigh, the mother, said her daughter was
very well behaved, and that she never in her life
saw any harm in her. She asked her several times
if she was pregnant, but she never received any
answer.
Cross-examined—My daughter never said that
Robert Hubble drove her to Regent-square. She
did say that the major gave her a cake and some-
think to drink, and that she came over stupid. I
might have mentioned to Mrs. Hubble that her son
took her to Major Thorp's. That was my impres-
sion at the time ; but my daughter was out of her
mind and did not knew what she was saying.
By the Judge—She talked a good deal while she
was insane, and I repeated to Mrs. Hobble what I
gathered from her.
Mr: Muggleston, a surgeon, who attended the
daughter in her confinement, said she was attacked
by Puerperal mania. She was mad from the 4th
May until the 18th August, when be discontinued
his attendance and she remained so afterwards.

Daring her illness she said very little. It was more
melancholy, but anything she said during that time
was certainly not to be depended upon.
Dr. T. Ansell, who had been called in consulta-
tion on the 13th May, said she was suffering from
a melancholy form of insanity, and that he also
thought no statement she made while in that condi-
tion could be relied on.
Mr. Sergeant Parry then addressed the jury on
the part of the defendant. He admitted that as
the young woman had undoubtedly been betrayed
and ruined by a sane man she commanded every
one's sympathy, but he earnestly appealed to the
jury not to allow their feelings to influence their
judgment, but to give a fair and impartial conside-
ration to the case for the defence. He then showed
the fearful nature of the issue to the defendant, as
almost the only answer to the charge must come
from himself, and a verdict averse to him would be
tantamount to his utter ruin in his profession and
the society in which he mixed. A woman could
easily make an accusation of this kind against a
man, even though there was no foundation for it,
and he stood in the perilous position of being alone
in giving it a contradiction. Though the man knew
the falsehood of the charge, he required great
moral courage to resist it; and in the present case,
if Major Thorp were guilty of having seduced this
young woman, was it probable, when he could easily
bare compromised the action for a sum of money he
could have readily paid, that he would come into
court and brave a public exposure of the whole cir-
cumstance ? Knowing, however, that the young
woman's story was a fabrication from beginning to
end, as a gentleman and a man of honour he was
determined not to enter into any settlement of that
kind, but to have the matter fully investigated. The
learned counsel then said that the defendant was
between 35 and 40 years of age, and had served
with the army during the mutiny in India. He was
a widower, and havingobtained leave of absence he
came back to this country, and had resided a part
of the time with his mother at Walthamstow. lie
would have returned to India before this, but he
asked for additional leave of absence in order to be
present at the trial of the action. Mr. Sergeant
Parry then commented on some of the discrepancies
in the young woman's narrative, and said it was
impossible to believe that two or three hours after
she, a chaste girl, had been seduced for the first
time io her life, she went, as she herself repre-
sented, dangling about the streets with the groom
Hubble until a late hour at night. He stated that
he should call Hubble, and also the defendant him-
self, and he believed their evidence would satisfy
the jury that there was no ground whatever for the
action.
Mr. Baron Martin said as it was an important
case, and they had arrived at:an advanced hour, he
thought it better to adjourn the trial.
The case was then adjourned until to-morrow
day).

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.
PHELAN V. PHELAN AND WALTERS.
Mr. Prideaus and Mr. Pritchard for the peti-
tioner.
The parties were married at Clifton, in Novem
ber, 1855. After a few days' cohabitation the hus
band, who was a sailor, went to sea, and in his ab-
sence the respondent lived with the co-respondent,
a one-legged street sweeper in Bristol, to whom she
said she was married.
Decree nisi, with costs.
LAMB V. LAMB AND SHEIL.
Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner, who was
a master mariner. He married Ann Lundy at Ar-
broath, in 1846, and had five children by her, of
whom two were living. After cohabiting in Scot-
land till 1859, they removed to Liverpool, that
being Capt Lamb's usual port of departure. Here
he took a house for his family, whom he allowed £8
per month while he was absent on his voyages.
Mrs. Lamb also let apartments. Amongst her
lodgers was a young man named Samuel Sheil,who
slept in the room next to the respondent's. A ser-
vant girl, Fanny Eddle, said that she had set n Sheil
kissing her mistress, and deposed to other familia-
rities which she had witnessed between them. Mrs.
Lamb was once ill, and had to keep her bed for
about three days. During that time the co-respon-
dent waited on her himself. Another servant stated
that the respondent had ordered her to regard Sheil
as the master of the house, alleging that her hus-
band had put him there as her guardian and pro-
tector. The witness remarked that that was very
strange, considering that Captain Lamb was always
quarrelling with her about him. The respondent
replied that if witness did not like it she might
leave. Had frequently seen the respondents go into
each other's bedrooms, sometimes only half-dressed,
and always without knocking at the door. Mr.
Hughes, a neighbour of the petitioner,said that one
night the respondent came and said that her hus-
I band had turned her out of the house. She stated
that he had been drinking, and was very violent.
At his wife's intercession witness allowed her to
stay at his house. After a while Samuel Sheil
came to see her. He called her mother, and used
to go into her bedroom, as he said to read the Bible
to her. Witness afterwards found out that the lad
was not her son, and on making further inquiries
he was satisfied that there must have been an im-
proper intimacy between them. Communicated to
him what witness had heard. The young man at
first was speechless, but at last said, " Mr. Hughes,
I can deny nothing." He subsequently called on
witness, and after telling him that he was going to
be married, he asked witness his advice. Told him
that he ought to make Capt. Lamb every reparation
in his power. Capt. Lamb had been to witness se-
veral times, and had begged him to reconcile his
wife to him, but witness could not do so.
After some confirmatory evidence,
The Court reserved its decision.
WALLACE V. WALLACE, MUTER, AND MACNAMARA.
The Queen's Advocate and Mr. Pritchard for the
petitioner ; Dr. Spinks for the co-respondent Mac-
namara.
The petitioner was the son of a retired banker in
Scotland. He married his cousin, Miss M. Catherine
Theresa Macdonald, on the 7th of Aug., 1849. The
lady was a Roman Catholic, and the ceremony was
performed in a church of that persuasion in St.
Marylebone. After the marriage the parties lived
at various places in England and Ireland, princi-
pally on an allowance which was made them by the
petitioner's father. They had three children, of
whom one survived. The first adultery was charged
to have been committed in Boulogne with a lieute-
nant in the 15th .ttegiment of the French army. In
the spring of 1855 the respondent addressed a let-
ter to her husband, of which the following are the
more material portions :
a, 11, Bedford-street, Bedford-square, London,
April, 1855.
"My dear Friend ,—I have received your kind letter, and
for which I thank you. My dear William, I have been to
find the good priest who married us. I held with his good
opinion, and meanwhile God has given me strength to tell
him what I had in my heart. I had the happiness of re-
ceiving the sacrament on Easter Sunday, and as God has
pardoned, as the priest has pronounced the words of absolu-
tion over no, do thou also pardon me, my friend. Alas,
how many fall before God every day. I am not infallible,
and my temptations have been very great. * * *—Your
repentant and devoted wife, MARY WALLACE."
Atter this letter the petitioner ceased to cohabit
with her; and evidence (taken by a commissioner
in Paris) was now read, showing that she was ex-
pelled from several lodgings on account ot, her im-
prudent behaviour towards French officers. The
respondent, subsequently to the separation, went to
Paris, and was charged with 'laving committed
adultery with a fellow-lodger named Macnamara at
an hotel iu Rue Grillon.
Sir C. Cresswell said he had never known a case
in which the evidence was more slender, but he
would adjourn the further hearing ,to permit addi-
tional witnesses to be called.