The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-28 00:00:00

Oakley were sleeping in the house. I ma 3 have
had fi. servant sleep in my room, but not Emma

This being the evidence for the defence,
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Tindal Atkinson
addressed the jury on behalf of their respective

clients. •
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, said this
was an action for the seduction of the plaintiff's
daughter, and the damages claimed were confined
not merely to the loss of her services by the plain-
tiff, but extended to the loss he had sustained by
being deprived of her society, and the dishonour he
suffered. It has been said by the late Lord Eldon
in a case of this kind that the jury might take into
consideration the feelings of the father in losing the
comfort and services of his daughter, in whose
virtue he wotild have no further consolation, and
example his other children's morals might be cor-
rupted. The seduction of a daughter was a legiti-
mate cause of action, and the jury were entitled to
assess the damages in that manner. The present
case was one in which there must be most wicked
and wilful perjury oa one side or the other, and
they would have to decide, looking at all the cir-
cumstances, on which side the truth lay. Two per-
sons swore directly contrary to each other in a
matter as to which there could be no room what-
ever for doubt, and it was exclusively the province
of the jury to say which told the truth. He was
bound to say that the case had been grossly
exaggerated on both sides; for assuming the girl's
story to be true she had done a very improper
and imprudent thing in going to the de-
fendant to inquire about a situation. If a young
woman of considerable personal attractions like
Emma Leigh went to the lodgings of a young man
for such a purpose, she could scarcely be said to
take proper care her virtue, and one could not be
much surprised if under the circumstances the result
took place which she swore. Stress had been placed
upon the fact that in the first instance she accused
the defendant of giving her some drug which made
her insensible, and then violating her person; but
he did not think that was a material matter, as in
these cases a young woman told to her parents the
story most favourable to her. What told against
her was that she made no communication whatever
to the defendant during the time she was in the
familyway with a view to seeking some money, or
assistance or comfort in the state in which she was ;
and what most told against the defendant was that
he had not answered the letters sent to him after
the confinement ; and the jury would consider
whether the explanations of counsel were satisfac-
tory upon those points. It was said that the young
woman often called for the groom Hubble, was on
friendly terms with him, and had gone with him
into publichouses to drink, and the object of that
evidence seemed to be to prove that she had sexual
connexion with him, but they ought to dismiss that
entirely from their minds, because Hubble made no
statement to such an effect, and the learned counsel
emphatically said that Hubble had nothing to do
with the girl, and he would be prepared to swear it.
The supposition that Hubble was father of the child
should, therefore, be thrown entirely aside. His
lordship then went over the evidence, and, as to
damages, said even it the jury thought that the de-
fendant had sworn falsely they ought not to give
vindictive damages, because he might perhaps in
taking advantage of the young woman's presence in
his lodging, have thought that her coming to him
was a sort of challenge, but they would form their
own opinion as to that, and looking to all the evi-
dence as to the conduct of both parties, say to what
sum the plaintiff was entitled.
The jury then retired.
Mr. Sergeant Parry afterwards came into court,
and said that the learned judge was wrong in his
version of what fell from him as to Hubble being
the father of the child. He did not say that Hubble
was not the fattier, nor that it was to be inferred
that he was not, but that, if asked, he would pro-
bably deny that he was the father. It was not for
the defence to prove who was the father.
At the request of the learned counsel the jury
were recalled, and the correction made by Mr.
Baron Martin, but his lordship said he was cer-
tainly under the impression that the learned coun-
sel made the statement he imputed to him. After
about an hour's absence the jury sent in a note
stating that thy were unable to agree, and on being
brought into court his lordship told them, as they
were not likely to agree, he did not feel justified in
detaining them any longer. It was just one of those
cases in which a conscientious difference of opinion
might prevail, and he should therefore discharge
them. The jury were then discharged.