The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-08 00:00:00

BROWN V. YARDLEY%

Ia this case an action fled b brought against the
defendant for the seduction of the plaintiff's niece, one
Mary Ann Brown, which was tried before the Lord
Chief Baron at the Guildford Assizes of the last sum-
mer, upon which occasion the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, with damages for 2001. In the course of
last Michaelmas Term, Mr. Lush obtained a rule for a
new trial, on the ground of a misdirection on the part of
the Learned Judge, in telling the jury that they might
take into their consideration the future maintenance
of the child of which Mary Ann Brown had been deli-
vered, as well as the alleged breach of promise which
had been made by the defendant when they were
discussing the question of damages. After this rule
had been obtained, and whilst it was pending, a nego-
tiation was opened and carried on between the respec •
five attorneys, of which the object was to effect a settle-
ment of the matter by a private arrangement. A gen-
tleman of the name of May acted at the representative
of Mary Ann Brown. In the progress of the matter it
appeared that this gentleman had been consulted in the
fi st instance in reference to the adoption of proceedings
for a breach of promise of marriage which it had been
intended to institute against the defendant by Miss
Brown, when he advised that no such action should be
commenced, seeing that the gentleman was not of age
when he made the alleged promise, and consequently
that an action would not lie against him. In the course
of the negotiation it was proposed to s atle an annuity
upon the plaintiff's niece for the support of the child,
and it was to constitute a portion of the terms of ar-
rangement that Mary Ann Brown should waive her right
to affiliate the child to the delendunt. Prior to the ar-
rangemeets, however, being brought-to a termination,
the young lady took out a summons to bring the defend-
ant before the magistrates at Maidenhead, in Berks, with
a view to the obtainment of an order of affiliation, and
thereil altogether repudiating the acts of negotiation of
Mr. May, which acts, she asserted before the justices,
had been undertaken without her sanction. Upon this,
the proofs having been satisfactorily established, an
order of affiliation was made upon the defendant. The
defendant thereupon applied, under the altered state of
the facts, for a rule to have the rule for the new trial
made absolute. It further appeared that an action had
been brought by the defendant against Mr. May for the
recovery of 941., which be had paid to him upon the
faith of his representation that he was acting under the
authority of Mary Ann Brown. In his affidavit Mr.
May now excused himself upon the ground that he had
had an express authority from the plaintiff to enter into
these proposed arrangements, and that he had had no
reason to suppose but that her niece, Mary Ann Brown,
was a consenting party

Mr. Sergeantbee,Mr. Prentice, and Mr. C. Pollock
now showed cause::gaiest the rule.

Mr. Lush and Mr: H. A. Simon were heard in sup-
port of the rule, contending that the defendant had a
clear right to be placed in the same situation as that in
which he had stood prior to the attainment of the order
of affiliation.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON said that in his opinion the de-
fendant in this case had been ♦ery hardly dealt by. The
offer he had made was a very fair offer, and very rea-
sonable. He had no doubt but that Mr. May had been
deceived by the young woman, and be, therefore, could
not see that that gentleman was personally to blame. It
was quite clear that after ,A hat had taken place the de-
fendant was entitled to be relieved from the effect of
this verdict, and it was equally clear that the plaintiff
nut pay the costs of the present application,
The rule was, the•reforP, made ab•iolute.

BAIL COURT, May 7.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.