The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-04 00:00:00

PRATT V. HARDISTY.

Mr. Crowder, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Karslake were
counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Kinglake and
Mr. Smith for the defendant. _ _

seduction of the plaintiff's daughter,
This was an action to recover CO
Pratt that she
appeared from the evidence of Martha
Imipatiaertnhsaopnrafottr. the
seduction of the pinntiff's daughter, Martha Frau. It
winags
P2a2riyseharrseloieff.ageT.
he ro
tmb
eort.hetrh
owuagsh apoowird,o wh
a,
drecdeoinve-
the best she could for her family. Her eldest daughter
was servant to the defendant's mother, and the girl in
question had been apprenticed to a dressmaker when she
was 14 years old. She had for the last tour or five years
employed herself in making dresses for different persons,
and, amcng others, for the defendant's mother; but she
lived with her own mother, who was 60 years of age,
and made the beds and did the household work. The
tonedMant was
th his a silk-manufacturer, residing at Shoptt wi mother. When the girl was there
at work he used to take every opportunity of speak-
ing to her. On the 12th of August she had been to
take her sister a frock, and as she waa coming out

of the house, between nine and ten o'clock at
night, she saw the defendant standing at the gate.
As she was about to pass him, he, without saying a
word, seized her, took her in his arms, and carried her
into the counting-house. He then put her down, and
closed the first door and fastened it. He then took her
into the inside counting-house, and fastened that door.
She reasoned with him, but the injury took place. She
then reasoned with him on the case, and dared him ever
to interrupt her again, and told him she was not the
girl he supposed her to be. He said he knew that, and
he liked her the better. She said he had ruined her,
and she did not know how to get out of the house. He
said he would go and see if there were any one about,
and he left the counting-house. She then found he had
put some silver in her pocket. She took it out and
placed it o❑ the desk in the counting-house, and went
away. In about a month, as she was coming oat of the
house of the defendant's brother, the defendant seized
her again and repeated the conduct he had before prac-
tised. He would not let her have any peace ; he was
always terrifying her, and tried to repeat his conduct
several times, but she would not let him. In January
she found herself in the family-way, and she told her
mother, and such was the effect upon the old woman
that she was insensible for a night and day, and in a most
sad state of distress, and it was necessary to have a
doctor to attend her. The girl swore she was virtuous
up to that time. She was confined in May.
The girl gave her evidence with great propriety and
modesty.
For the defence it was contended that this was an
attempt to turn a case, which was only one for an order
of affiliation, into an action of seduction, that all the
elements of seduction were wanting, and that it was
the most worthless action ever brought into a court of
justice.
Mr. Justice WILLIams, in summing up, observed that
there was sufficient proof of service, and if the jury be-
lieved the girl there was proof of the seduction. The
girl's character had not been impugned. The plaintiff
had produced witnesses to prove the good character of
the girl, but the defendant's Counsel had objected to
their being examined. The task they would have to
perform would be to award the damages.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 1501.