The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-27 00:00:00

lher behalf, Mr. Martin came to witness and said
it was a pity the case should go further. Witness
told him that nothing could be done until his eliont
admitted that the proceedings with reference to ti:Q
second child were erroneous and fraudulent He
said he would advise his client to admit it. She
was called over, and fiat negotiations were talked
over, and the condition of the abandonment of fur-
ther proceedings was, that the first child should be
given up to the defendant after a certain time. She
became violent about it, and the arrangements were
nut an end to. Mr. Metcalfe 'after that said he
would have nothing to do with the case, and handed
his brief over to another barrister. The case was
called on, and after a few remarks from the learned
counsel, Mr. Bodkin, the assistant judge, spoke to
second
plaintiff and the case wan adjourned. On the
occasion she did not appear, nor any cue to
represent her. He was examined y the assistant
e 'udee as to any collusion. Oa thefirst occasion she
said she would go into the KensingtonaliViea on
orkhohueser
and make the parish prosecute. He c
napotpeal
andthe dtaoyldbehfoerre
tthh:
esoencosnegcluleineaeteesngofofhetrhe
at-
tending.
Mrs. Taylor's evidence—an elderly lady, %ttiftooil.!
to attend—was put in and read, relative to ?let
conduct during tee time she was in her service.
This closed the defendant's case.
Mr. Mills addressed the jury for the plaintiff, and
detailed the facts he intended to rely on, and urged
that no proof of molestation after the agreement
was given had been adduced, except the proceed-
ings in bastardy could be so construed.
Johanna Lane deposed—l am in service at 41,
Sutherland -street, Pimlico. I have knuyvn the de-
fendant npwards of six years. I was between 15
and 16 years of age when I first saw him at the
New road Dispensary, where I was a patient for an
accident. He attended me there. He was living
then at No. 10, Gloucesrer-terrace. Three or four
months after I first went to his house, by his invi-
tation, to let him know how I was going on, and it
was not till three or four months after that that an
improper intimacy took place. He used to write
to me to come and see him, when I got a day's holi-
day. The letters produced are in his handwriting.
He can write two or three different handwritings.
The footman in the house taught him so to write.
(Laughter.) There were two or three other letters
so disgraceful that I burnt them. He signed the
letters " Red, White, and Blue." (Laughter.)
Lord Chief Justice—What is the meaning of that?
Defendant—The child was to be called that. He
wished it. (Laughter.) The child born in 1858 was
the second child. I miscarried the first time. I first
received money for my child through Mrs. Gott and
her husband. Appleyard, the defendant's milkman,
paid me for a little while. I had no fixed sum.
Sometimes I was paid 65., 6s. 6d., and 7s. 6d. per
week. Defendant left £6 with Mrs. Gott and a ring,
which she was to pledge if she wanted more money
Whilst he was in America. On his return I acciden
tally met him in the street. He ran against me and
said, " Well, Ann." I looked at him and said, ".1
know Sou; you are Thomas's father." He slid,
" No." I said he was. He afterwards wished
to go home with me that night, but he could
not because I had a female living with me. After
he gave me the agreement the money was regularly
paid to me for a short time. The latter end of 1859
I had an unfurnished room at Mrs. Reynolds's,
where he visited me and resumed his intimacy. He
gave me there £2 on one occasion for myself and the
child Thomas. Afterwards I went into the service
of Mrs. Powell, where I -remained until I was
obliged to leave to be confined of my second child.
I went to Dr. Panton's house once whilst. lewas in
Mrs. Powell's service—the defendant is the father
of that child. Mr. Turner, solicitor, paid. me my
money before Mr. Ennis. Because I would not take
£l5 and 6s. per week for my eldest boy, and no-
thing for the second, Mr. Martin " squashed" my
case. I was so distressed that I was obliged to go
with my children into the Kensington workhouse.
I was so poor and distressed that I had to beg for a
month to get bread for myself and children. I had
no means with which to defend the appeal against
the order in bastardy.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton—You say you
were 15 or 16 years of age when you met the de-
fendant. What year were you born ;,n
Defendant—l was born'd in Ireland- (Laughter.)
Well, but that is no reason why y ou should not
know P—l was brought up without aay parents, by
my aunt. (Laughter.)
Then you do not recollect the year you were born
in (laughter) ?—No, sir, Ido not. if I had been
born in England my birth would ha'Te been regis-
tered. lam alone in the world—wieehout parents,
or brother, or sister. -The last time I was intimate
with Dr. Panton was in his little co. asulting-room
in his own house. I took a gentlemesn home with
me to Mrs. :Reynolds's to show how the defendant
was keeping me. It was months befolne. I was paid
the £2 by the defendant. One night ad .3rUnken brick-
layer came to the house to see his swee abeart. I had
a female friend staying with me, and to keep him
quiet I allowed him to come into tlao room and
sleep in his clothes. We got up and dressed before
he awoke. After the birth of my se et nd child I
went to a house for an immoral purpose.: with a gen-
tleman I accidentally met in the street. Before the
birth of the second child I was seen derinking in a
public-house with a gentleman Mrs. Reynolds called
" the rat catdher" (Laughter.)
By the Lord Chief Justice—l informed Mr, Tur-
ner before the second child was born tha,t Dr. Pan-
ton was the father. Giles Newman vise the foot-
man who taught De. Panton to write different
hands. The four letters produced are in the de-
fendant's handwriting.
The Lord Chief Justice handed the lei sters to the
jury. Two of them were evidentally written by an
educated man, and he spelt her name " A7anie." The
other two spelt it " Ann," were ungramm etical, and
ill-spelt, such as " hatt," " welcomb," " bist friend,"
" wourld," " promis," letters being used to express
dates.

Joseph Reynolds, lately residing in Por tobello-
lane, Notting hill, deposed to seeing the defendant
at his house on one occasion when the plaintiff was
there, but he was unable to fix the date. S lie had
two sovereigns afterwards.
Mary Leader Reynolds, wife of the last witness
—Plaintiff has lived with me, on and off, for three
years. Dr. Panton has called five or six times and
seen the plaintiff there. His last visit was just
before Christmas, 1859. He came at night, and on
one occasion he was there from 9 till 12 o'clock. Dr.
Panton was last there about a fortnight before the
plaintiff went into Mrs. Powell's service. Ido not
think he Called after hie marriage. I beard he was
married before the second child was born.
The witness in cross-examination was unable to
fix any date either to the defendant's visits or to
her hearing of his marriage, or state positively that
he visited the plaintiff after she heard of his mar-
riage, or that his visits were within the period she
heard he was married and the time when .she heard
of it.

Mr. Turner, solicitor, Bedford-square, 'who had
been sent for by the direction of the Lord Chief
Justice, said—She told me she had had a second
child. I paid her from Nov., 1859, till April, 1861.
She always said Dr. Penton was the father of the
second child. I communicated it to him, and -he
denied it. I afterwards saw her at the defendant's
request, and informed her that if the annoyance was
continued the allowance would cease. She promised
it should not occur again.
Crose-examined-7She told she was in the family
way by Dr. Penton with the second child some
months previous to her confinement. I communi-
cated it to Dr. Panton because she wanted a further
allowance. Dr. Panton said it was not his child,
and I informed her so. She always persisted it
was his.
By the. Lord Chief Justice--Dr. Panton com-
plained that the plaintiff had been to his house and
annoyed him and Mrs. Panton. I told her of his
complaint. She knew of hie marriage. She always
represented that he visited her after his marriage.
This was the plaintiff's case,
the parties having. a
The jury retired to consider their verdict, but
were unable to agree. After being locked up nearly
three hours they were sent for, and informed that -
juror would be withdrawn,
cepted the Lord Chfet Justice's suggestion,"-
viz.,
be 9s. per week and the
and the plaintiff to make no
that the arrears at per week
should be paid.
The future payments to
ctamv''focerkt hceaPseictaolnisdedcLild.
Juror withdrawnaccordingly

COURT OF EXCH(Sittings at Nisi Prius,
at WestmEQUER inster,.
before the
Lord Chief Baron and Special Juries.)
BRERETON V. GODSON.
This action Was brought on behalf of a boy,about
12 years old, by his father, as next friend, to recover
compensation in damages for bodily injuries alleged
to have been sustained. by improper medical treat.
meat.

Mr. W. D igbY
unsel fo
9. o, , . :
r the plaintiff;
Seymour and Mr. Boyle' were
and Mr. Hawkins and
1 he plaintiff carried on the business of a tailor, at
31r* Garth conducted the case for the defence.
Barnet, Hertq and‘4 the defendant was a surgeon,
practising in the same town. The plaintiff's son
was bending down tying his shoe, when another
lad jumped over his back and km o';ed him down.
He fell upon his arm, and having sustained a free
ture in that part of it called the "humerus"—the
bone above the elbow—he was placed by his parents
under the care of the defendant. A "sloughing"
of the arm took place in consequence, as alleged, of
the defendant having bound it with splints too
tightly, and the boy had to be taken to St. Geozge's
Hospital. He remained there come time, and
although the bones united and the wound healed,
the lower part of the arm was so shrunk and