The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-11 00:00:00

L 4 W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
HARVEY V. WATSON.

The declaration in this case alleged that the defend-
ant assaulted and carnally knew the plaintiff's wife, and
thus deprived him of her society and fellowship. The
defendant pleaded not guilty, and he also pleaded that
there was a deed of separation between the plaintiff and
his wife ; but to this last plea there was a replication
that the defendant seduced the plaintiff's wife before the
execution of the deed.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Massy Dawson appeared
for the plaintiff, but nobody appeared to defend the
action.

Mr. Massey Dawson (in the absence of Mr. Sergeant
Byles) opened the case, and stated that the plaintiff mar-
ried in 1830, and lived happily with his wife until 1842,
and had four children by her. In the year 1838 the de-
fendant became in-door apprentice to the plaintiff, who
was then a tailor in Lisle street, Leicester-square, and
it would be proved that in 1842 the defendant was found
in the commission of the very act upon which the pre-
sent proceeding was founded. The action was com-
menced in 1844, but in consequence of the defendant
absconding from London, and going, unknown to the
plaintiff, to reside at Liverpool, proceedings had been
stayed until a short time ago, when the plaintiff pre-
pared to go to trial. The defendant thereupon went to
Australia, but it had been ascertained that he had kept
a public-house at Liverpool for many years, and had
been living with the plaintiff's wife. In this business he
had amassed a considerable sum of money, and as he did
not appear to-day, the only question which the jury
would have to determine was, the amount of damages
to which the plaintiff was entitled.
John Harvey, the plaintiff's brother, proved the mar-
riage on the Bth July, 1830, at which time the plaintiff's
wife was about twenty-two years old. He visited them
frequently for the next twelve years, aud found that they
lived happily together. The plaintiff had four children,
and he had also an excellent business.
To the Chief Justice : The defendant was 15 or 16
when he was apprenticed, and 19 or 20 when he ran
away. Mrs. Harvey was getting on for 40.
The Chief Justice : He induced her to run away, did
he ?—Witness : I suppose so, my lord.
The Chief Justice : I should rather think the boot was
on the other leg. (A laugh.)
Mrs. Findlay, a monthly nurse, proved that the plain-
tiff and his wife always seemed happy and comfortable.
The plaintiff was always very good and very fatherly,
and witness knew Mrs. Harvey had four children, for
she attended her in all her confinements.
The Chief Justice—You saw the boy Watson ; what
sort of a lad was he ?
Witness—Oh, a good-looking lad enough. (A laugh.)
Samuel Chivers—Was foreman and cutter to the plain-
tiff in 1842. Used to observe familiarities which ought
not to' have existed between Mrs. Harvey and the de-
fendant. One evening he went back to the shop, after
business was over, to speak to Mr. Harvey, but he found
the front door fast. The lodger's servant, however, let
him in, and he looked for Mr. Harvey. He could not
find him in the house, so he went to the back shop, and
was surprised to see a light there. He thought it might
be a fire, so he forced open the door, and saw Watson
and Mrs. Harvey in the act of adultery. He had no
opportunity of telling the plaintiff for a day or two ; but
one morning, about a week afterwards, he found the
place all in confusion. The plaintiff said something in
accusation of his wife, and then witness said he had seen
the same thing a day or two before.
The Chief Justice—lt was very wrong of you not to
tell him before.

Witness had known both Mr. and Mrs. Harvey, and
did not like to say anything. The plaintiff challenged
Watson with being in his bedroom with his wife, and
Watson did not deny it, but shook like a leaf. The
plaintiff turned him out, but Mrs. Harvey was obstinate,
and would not go without an allowance. She had an
allowance, but it did not last long.
The Chief Justice summed up, and said that this ac-
tion had been pending for a number of years, and he did
not understand why the plaintiff went on now unless he
had found out that the defendant had some property
which he could take in execution. It might be that
whilst the defendant was " digging" in Australia, the
plaintiff was trying to have a "dig" at his property here.
Mr. Massey Dawson had enlarged upon the duty of appre-
tices to their masters, but there was also a duty on the
other side, and he dared say that the father of young
Watson bitterly complained that the plaintiff had
allowed his wife to seduce the boy. The jury knew
enough of human nature to know that a lad of 16 or 20
could not practise any violent arts of love and seduc-
tion upon a woman of 40 ; and as to the damages, the
plaintiff had lost his wife, who, by going away had
become unable to seduce any more of his apprentices.
The jury, after a few minutes deliberation, found a
verdict for the plaintiff ; damages, 501.
Mr. Sergeant Byles subsequently applied for speedy
execution. They had frequently searched for the de-
fendant, but could not find him until a short time ago,
when the plaintiff went to have a glass of ale at a house
in Liverpool, and was served by his own wife—the
house belonging to the defendant. It had been ascer-
tained that the defendant was about to go to Australia.
The Chief Justice—Mr. Massey Dawson said that he
had gone, and that statement no doubt weight with the
jury ; for they could not bave given such damages un-
less they thought that gold with the defendant was
plentiful as dirt.

- Mx. Sergeant Ryles said the defendant had actually
gone to Australia, but he had left some property here.
The Chief Justice could not grant the application.
The plaintiff ought to have been more careful, and not
allowed his apprentices to be ruined by his wife. He
thought that the parents of this young man had quite
as much reason to complain as the plaintiff had.