The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-13 00:00:00

The declaration in this case alleged that the
plaintiff, Miss Fergusson, had been entrusted by a
Mr. Waterman with the care of a female child, he
representing that the child was his own, and that
he himself was the son of the defendant, and he
requested her to bring the child from Australia to
London; that she not being able to find the father
of the child, made application to the defendant, who
thereupon used certain slanderous words for which
damages were now claimed. The defendant pleaded
not guilty in reference to the slander, and also tra-
versed the various allegations in the declaration.
Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Prideaux, and Mr. Beasley
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Shee
and Mr. Needham for the defendant.
Mr. Hawkins said that the circumstances involved
in this case were of an extremely painful character.
The plaintiff, Miss Ann Fergusson, was a single
woman, a native of Scotland, and some years ago
she emigrated to Australia, and lived a few miles
from Melbourne. The defendant, Mr. Thos. Water-
man, was a hop merchant in the Borough, and he
also had a place called Coventry Hall at Sydenham.
In 1851 Mr. Sam. Waterman, the son, who was
then aged 18, left England as a midshipman on
board the Enterprise, and in Jan., 1852, be arrived
at Port Phillip. He was, with his captain, there
introduced to the family of Mr. Bruce, who was an
officer holding a responsible position in the Cus-
toms—and Mr. Samuel Waterman soon became on
intimate and affectionate terms with Miss Annie
Bruce, who was 19 or 20 years old. In the month
of March, however, he had to go with the Enter-
prise to Melbourne, from which place he went to
the gold diggings, but failing there, he had to work
his way back to Port Adelaide as a common seaman,
and he there renewed his acquaintance with Miss
Bruce. In March, 1853, he went to Victoria dig-
gings, and in February, 1854, he returned to Port
Adelaide, where, having learned that Miss Bruce
was staying with her sister, Mrs. Hayward, 40 miles
away, he went over to see her, and the result was
that they were married on the 16th nirch, 1854.
Three months afterwards Mr. Samuel Waterman
proposed to return to England to make arrange-
ments in reference to his wife, and some time
afterwards the plaintiff undertook to bring to Eng-
land his child. It was sought to be imputed to her
that the child was in fact her own ; but it would be
shown, by letters and in other ways, that there was
not the slightest foundation for any such imputa-
tion.

At this stage of the proceedings, the repeated
efforts which had been made to come to some ar-
rangement which would prevent a public discussion
of the matters involved resulted in terms being
agreed upon after the leading counsel had a length-
ened interview with his lordship in his private
room.

Mr. Sergeant Shee on his return said that his
client was not present, but he had taken upon him-
self to do what he considered best for his interest.

The Lord Chief Justice was quite sure that the
defendant had reason to be deeply grateful for the
settlement which his legal advisers had obtained
for him. He also wished to add that the plaintiff
had the satisfaction of receiving the acknowledg-
ment of all parties concerned that she was well
entitled to sincere respect ; and, in addition, her
pecuniary interests had been taken into considera-
tion.

Mr. Sergeant Shee observed that even if the trial
had gone on not one word would have been said
against the plaintiff.
The terms upon which the parties had agreed
were not mentioned in court.