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

LANE V. PANTON.

The declaration alleged that the plaintiff Johanna
Lane was seduced by the defendant, and was de-
livered of a male child. The defendant was the
father cif the child, and he agreed that in the event
of the plaintiff's not molesting him to pay the plain-
tiff the sum of 12s. per week for the maintenance of
the child until he attained seven years cf age. The
plaintiff alleged that she had kept her part of the
promise, and that there were 35 weeks due. There
were other counts for money paid, &c. The defen-
dant pleaded that the plaintiff had broken her p7o-
mise and absolved him, and that except as to £5 Bs.
never indebted ; ss. was paid before action, and
the remainder had since been paid into court.
Mr. Mills, Q.C., and Mr. thy were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.O , Mr. Ribton, and
Mr. Biron were counsel for the defendant.

From the state of the pleadings the defendant's
case commenced first.

Mr. Hawkins, in stating the defendant's case to
the jury, said the plaintiff was a domestic servant,
and the defendant a retired medical man, now
residing at Sittingbourne, Kent. In 1857 he
practised in Gloucester-terrace, New-road, and
in the course of that year he accidentally met
the plaintiff in Edgware-road, and spoke to her,
which resulted in an intimacy between them,
and in July, 1858, she was delivered of a
child (called Thomas), of which the defendant
was the father. The defendant afterwards went
to America, leaving, however, sufficient money for
the plaintiff and her child's maintenance. In Sep•
tember, 1858, he returned and saw her, and in Sep-
tember, 1859, he was married on the Continent to
his present wife. They came back to Hastings, but
some mistake being made in the transit of the lug-
gage he had to come to London, leaving his wife
at Hastings. He went to his residence at Bays-
water, and to his surprise the plaintiff made her
appearance there, and in consequence of her con-
duct he was induced to give her the written agree-
ment declared upon. In July, 1859, the plaintiff
called on the defendant's wife, and very much
annoyed her. Subsequently he found she had had
a second child, which child she tried to affiliate on
him, and she summoned him to the Hammersmith
police-court. She there swore, and produced wit-
nesses, that the defendant had visited her at certain
places, naming one day, the day on which his wife
' was confined. The defendant denied that he had
been intimate with her since his return from
America, but the magistrate made an order of
maintenance of 2s. 6d. per week. That was appealed
against and quashed. The defendant had no wish
to shield himself from the responsibility of main-
taining his own child, but he objected to its being
appropriated by the plaintiff as she thought proper,
and he claimed to ba protected from her annoyance.
The learned counsel then called the defendant.
Mr. Panton deposed—l reside at Sittingbourne,
i❑ Kent. I made the plaintiff's acquaintance first in
the autumn of 1857. I met her accidentally in the
Edgware-road, and I went home with her. A child
was born in July, 1858. I had left this country
previously, and was in America at the birth of the
child. I returned in September, and was residing
in Pembridge-place, Bayswater. I went on the
Continent in January, 1859, and whilst abroad in
March of that year I married my present wife. We
returned to St. Leonard's in May, and in conse-
quence of the luggage being mis-sent I had to come
to London on the 30th of May. She came that
day to my house at Bayswater, and, unknown to
me, obtained admittance. She was very violent
and excited, and used bad language. I asked her
what all that row was about, and, so far as I could
understand, she wanted a written promise of pay-
ment for the support of the child. She had been
regularly paid up to this time from 7s to Os. per
week for the maintenance of the child. I consulted
a friend near by, and I then wrote the agreement
referred to, and instructed my solicitor to pay the
money. The money was paid till July, 1861, when
I heard she had had a seeond child. I was sum-
moned on the sth of September, 1861, to the Ham-
mersmith Police-court., and charged with being the
father of the child born in September, 1860. She
stated that in December, 1859, I had had connec-
tion with her at my own house, and also at the
house of a Mrs. Reynolds. I never had intercourse
with her at those places, and did not see her after
the day I gave her the agreement. The magistrate,
however, made an order. I appealed, and attended
at the next Middlesex sessions. The case was
called on, but the plaintiff did not appear, and the
conviction was formally quashed by order of the
court. My wife was confined at Pembridge-place
in December, 1859.

Cross-examined—This is the first action in which
I have been defendant. I never had an action for
seduction brought against me. I know the Dis-
pensary in the New-road, Paddington. I occa-
sionally went there and assisted for a friend. I
swear I did not first see the plaintiff there as a
patient, and so become acquainted with her. I did
see her there once as a patient. I was living in
Gloucester-terrace, Hyde Park, in 1856. I was
not married then. 1 had lost my wife. I be-
lieve the plaintiff was 22 or 23 years of age when I
first met her, and not 15 or 16 years of age.
I never invited her to my house in Gloucester-ter-
race. She called there on one or two occasions.
She did not regularly visit me at my house in 1856
and 1857 by appointment. I kept no note of it if
she did. I have no recollection of it. Up to July,
1858, I occasionally saw her and :had intercourse
with her. I did not correspond with her. I wrote
to her once. Out of the four envelopes produced
one only is in my handwriting, and the same with
regard to their contents. The others were not
written by my authority. I never saw them before.
The Lord Chief Justice—lt does not require a
second glance to see that they are not in the same
handwriting.
Witness admitted a second letter to be his.
The letters were then put in and read. They
had reference only to her obtaining a situation.
Witness continued—She was then in service at
4, Gloucester-terrace, Bishop's-road. I did not get
the situetion for her. I left funds for her confine
meat before going to America, but I cannot say it
I appointed the place where she was to be confined.
Mary Gott was in my service then, and she is now
my laundress at Sittingbourne. She was with me
as an occasional servant two months ago. Ido not
know if the plaintiff was confined at her house. I
saw the plaintiff twice in September, 1858, after
my return from Vmerica, but I do not remember
if any intercourse took place between us. I did not
visit her at 'Airs. Gott's after my return. I once
saw her there before going to America. I do not
think she met me in the street after my return from
America, and that I pretended that I did not know
her. During the pending of the appeal terms of
compromise were made. I made provision for the
plaintiff during my absence in America, but I do
not recollect the amount I left with Mr. Apple-
yard for that purpose.
Re-examined—I never heard any complaint of
her not being paid her regular stipend during my
absence. She admitted before the police magistrate
that she was regularly paid.
Mary Brandon, domestic servant, residing in
Charlotte-street, Portland-place, deposed that at the
end of 1859 the plaintiff was living with a Mrs.
Powell, in Sutherland-place, Westbourne-grove.
She remained there till March, 1860. She told me
that she was in the family-way, but not by whom.
Mr, Benjamin Froude, builder, deposed to her
living there at the end of 1859.
Mary Gott, a married woman, deposed that she
occasionally worked for the defendant. She assisted
in the kitchen, and attended to the door after a cer-
tain hour. She never saw the plaintiff inside the
defendant's house; the defendant was always let in
by one of the servants.
Cross-examined—The plaintiff was confined at
her house of her first child. She never had crimi-
nal intercourse with the defendant. She was liv-
ing with her husband in Kent.
(The witness appeared to feel acutely these impu-
tations on her character. The Lord Chief Justice
complained of the tone, temper, and manner of the
cross-examination, and the jury considered the
cross-examination objectionable.)
Witness—She went to live in Kent, and worked
for the defendant at Mrs. Penton's request.
Re-examined— She had known the plaintiff before
the birth of the child.
Elizabeth Walker deposed that she was in the
defendant's service in 1859. She had often seen the
plaintiff outside the house, but never inside. The
plaintiff walked with her child up and down in
front of the house three or four times a-week. She
used to hold the child up in front of the window,
talk loud, and swear about the defendant in such a
loud tone as to collect a crowd around the house.
Tnis was before Mrs. Panton came home.
She never heard the plaintiff .call out after Mrs.
Penton came home to the house. She never saw
the plaintiff at the defendant's house. The defen-
dant seldom went out after dinner.

Cross-examined—She was five years altogether
in that service. She never saw the plaintiff at
Gloucester-terrace.

Mr. Ennis, sen., defendant's solicitor, proved pay-
ing the plaintiff 12s. per week from May, 1861, to
the 2d of July following. She then brought two
children with her. He asked her whose they were ?
She said, " they were Dr. Panton's." That was the
first time he had heard about the second child. He
discontinued payment on his own account.
Mr. Ennis, jun., gave evidence with reference to
the appeal. Mr. Martin, who acted as her adviser,
and Mr. Metcalfe, barrister, were at the sessions on

her behalf. Mr. Martin ( :tune to witness and said
it was a pity the case shoo Id go further. Witness
told him that nothing cou! I be done until his client
admitted that the preceed• ittgs with reference to the
second child were erronel )11s and fraudulent. He
said he would advise his client to admit it. She
the condition of t he abandonment of fur-
ther'area called over, and the Int 'gotiations were talked
dings was, that the first child should be
iabout it, an d the arrangements were
gv e over,
pi ruf lopac
to
the defendant after a certain time. She
o do with the case, and handed
Mr. Met calfe after th 'at said he
few remarks from the learned
put an violet Mr. t .
spoonkethtoe
ottohia,n7
other barrister. The case was
the t.iwsasissatadnjotujurndegde.,
calledhwi ul
d brief
ohn overvae n nd
no' t appear, nor any one to
amined by the assistant
counsel, Mr. Blofdtekrilia, •
and th.`, Cabe
the plaintiff,
ex
Kensington he first owecoarskiohnosuhsee
re secondpre
represent
no et c
her.as io n ee (.2771.;(3,
judge as to any collusion.'
He called on her
said she would go into the
and make the parish proseca rin of the appeal,
the day before the second he, sg of her not at-
and told her the consequence,
tending.
l's
Mrs. Taylor's evidence— an elders,
to lady, :•400 illai
to attend—was put in and read, relativb p
conduct during the 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--I am in service at 41,
Sutherland -street, Pimlico. I have known the de-
fendant upwards 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, Gioucesrer-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 Justfe,:'—What is the meaning of that?
Defendant—The chi.:
d. was to be called that. He
wished it. (Laughter.) Ti' child born in 1858 was
the second child. I miscarries the first time. I first
received money for my child throt:',.q h 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 Z.ing,
which she was to pledge if she wanted more monej
whilst he was in America. On his return I accidert
tally met him in the street. He ran against me and
said, " Well, Ann." I looked at him and said, " I
know )ou ; you are Thomas's father." He said,
" 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,
wlfere 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 I was 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 ()lagged 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—Yon say you
were 15 or 16 years of age when you met the de-
fendant. What year were you born in ?
Defendant—l was born'd in Ireland. (Laughter.)

Well, but that is no reason why you should not
know ?—I was brought up without any parents, by
my aunt. (Laughter.)
Then you do not recollect the year yon were born
in (laughter) ?—No, sir, I do not. If I had been
born in England my birth would have been regis-
tered. lam alone in the world—without parents,
or brother, or sister. The last time I was intimate
with Dr. Panton was in his little consuiting-room
in his own house. I took a gentleman home with
me to Mrs. lteynolds's to show how the defendant
was keeping me. It was months before. I was paid
the £2 by the defendant. One night a drunken brick-
layer came to the house to see his sweetheart. I had
a female friend staying with me, and to keep him
quiet I allowed him to come into the room and
sleep in his clothes. We got up and dressed before
he awoke. After the birth of my second 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 drinking in a
public-house with a gentleman Mrs. Reynolds called
" the mt. catcher." (Laughter.)
By the Lord Chief Justice—l informed Mr. Tur-
ner before the second child was born that Dr. Pan-
ton was the father. Giles Newman was the foot-
man who taught Dr. Panton to write different
hands. The four letters produced are in the de-
fendant's handwriting.
The Lord Chief Justice handed the letters to the
jury. Two of them were evidentally written by an
educated man, and he spelt her name " Annie." The
other two spelt it " Ann," were ungrammatical, and
ill-spelt, such as " hatt," " welcomb,"" bist friend,"
" wourld," " promis," letters being used to express
dates.

Joseph Reynolds, lately residing in Portobello-
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. She 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 calldd after his marriage. I heard 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.
Cross-examined—She told she was in the family
way by Dr. Panton 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 his marriage. She always
represented that he visited her after his marriage.
This was the plaintiff's case.
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 a
juror would be withdrawn, the parties having ac-
cepted the Lord Chief Justice's suggestion, viz.,
that the arrears at 12e. per week should be paid.
The future payments to be Os. per week, and the
3s. a week capitalised, and the plaintiff to make no
claim
jurofr hdorwtihtesercaownnd
col

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, 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-
ment.
• Mr. W. Digby Seymour
and and
r. HawkinsM By
and
le were
counsel for the plaintiff; M
Mr. Garth conducted the case for the defence.
The plaintiff carried on the business of a tailor, at
Barnet, Herte, and the defendant was a surgeon,
practising in the same town.
shThoee
when plaintiff's son
was bending down tying his , another
lad jumped over his back and knccked him down.
He tell upon his arm, and having sustained a frac-
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 ;II consequence, as alleged, of
the defendant having bound it with splints too
tightly, d the
Hospital.
nHeremained
had
my
an ed t o
there h e
some
S time,t Goe
andae 's
although tho bones united and the wound healed,
the lower part of the arm was eo shrunk and

withered as to deprive him permanently of the use
of the limb. The lad, at the suggestion of the
learned judge, exhibited his arm to the jury, and
they seemed greatly astonished at the decayed ap-
pearance which it pr esented.
Mr. Tatum, surgeon, of St. George's Hospital,
said a perfect cure had been effected so far as healing
the wound was concern ed ; but the arm was chroni-
cally disabled. Tight bandaging might produce
" sloughing," but the opinion he formed of the case
when he saw it was that there had been no exces-
swe pressure on the arm.
Mr. Chapman, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Borlase Childs,
and other medical men were also called on behalf
of the plaintiff, but their evidence went rather to
disprove the charge of negligence and want 0f
proper skill on the part of the defendant.
The Lord Chief Barcn said that in his judgment'
in point of law, a person charged in a public court
with being the cause of a certain mischief ought to
be distinctly proved to have been the cause of it,
and that the accus.tion should not be treated as a
mere matter of speculation or opinion.
Mr. Garth submitted that no case had been made
out.

The Lord Chief Baron said it was a question for
the jury,
The jury consulted together, and the foreman
said they had great compassion f-wr the boy, but
they did not think there had been any negligence
proved against the defendant.
Mr. Seymour said after that intimation he would
not se, sk to continue the trial.
The Lord Chief Baron—l must say, Mr. Ser
mour, S•ou always do your duty.
Mr. Seymour said he certainly felt it his duty
not to press the case when he could not honestly
ask for a verdict for his client.
Mr. .Htt wkins said the defendant held a great
number of public appointments, and he was anxious
to have the matter fully investigated, in order to
clear his pr 3,.fecsshiioenfalßcahraorna—ctel do not know what
r.
more T
youh The
'H oa; vw\nt.
Mr.
:ins said there were a considerable
number of medical men of eminence whom defen-
dant desired to call.
Mr. Seymour said he would relieve the Court
from any flirt} 'ter trouble by consenting to a nonsuit.
A nonsuit w, Is entered accordingly.
The Court wt is occupied during the remainder of •
the day with the case of Homes v. Champneys, which
was an action fo. r breach of contract with regard to
the sale of a medic and surgical business at Slough.
The details were wholly devoid of public interest.

CO U, VII? MA BEL :i. 05.

b,

BIM* lINGHAM—JuNE 26.
There was a fair supply of English wheat, which held
firmly at the currenci es of this day week, but to effect salo°
a decline of is per qr had to be acceded to. Foreign at no
advance. Oats and beans dull. Barley quite as dear.

MAN,CHESTER—JuNE 26.
Trade closed quietly at an advance of is in English
2d per 1001bs on Am erican, and 6d per sack on the finest
English and foreig 11, flour. Oats and oatmeal were steady
Indian corn was 6d' higher.

PLY 'MOUTH—JUNE 24.
Sales for wheat agai.n more buoyant to-day. at is and in
some instances 2s per qr advance in price. Flour active.
White, 62s to 66s ; red, 63s to 65s per qr ; French do., 600
to 62s ; American, 58s .to 63s ; Spanish, 74s to 76s ; Rue'
sian, 60s to 625. Barley at previous rates-34s to Ms per
qr for malting ; grinding, 28s to 30s ; oats, 22s to2Bs; and
beans, —s to —s; flour, 4k's to 42s Gcl.