The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-06 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, DEC. 5.

SEDUCTION.
PALMER V. LEGGETT.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages for
the seduction of the plaintiff's niece by the defendant, whereby
he Iciq her services.

The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. GURNEY and
Mr. HOLT ; and the defendant's by Mr. SCARLETT.
- Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Jury. He said the
plaintiff was a person employed in the family of the Duke of
Cambridge, and his wife carried on the business of a straw hat-
maker in South-street, South Audley-street. His niece was an
orphan, who, from motives of charity, had been taken into his
wife's house, and occasionally assisted in attending on the loslgers
who rented apartments of her. The defendant was a person of
considerable property, occupying the first floor in that house,
and by that means had frequent opportunities of using any in-
ducements he might think proper to effect his seduction of the
unfortunate girl. The plaintiffand his wife had not the slightest
suspicion that any thing improper had ever passed between the
defendant and their niece, un on one occasion the latter had
given her a piece of bride cake he had received from one of his
friends. A present like this from a person in a situation so far
above the girl, caused just alarm. An explanation ensued, from
which the plaintiff learned the whole of the fatal truth ;—that she
was some months advanced in pregnancy by the defendant.—
Illness and incapacity to perform her, usual work were of course
the consequences. 11Ir. Palmer had been at a considerable ex_
pence in obtaining medical assistance for his niece, and had
also been under the necessity of employing another servant to
fill her situation. It was for these expences that the action was
brought, as well as for the injury the plaintiff had received in
the seduction of his niece. The Learned Counsel, therefore,
hoped that when the Jury came to consider all the circum-
stances of the case_ , they would think that they ought not to
give damages with a sparing hand.
Ann Alen, the niece of the plaintiff', proved the criminal in-
tercourse between herself and the defendant.

The particulars of her evidence were too indelicate for detail ;
but it did not appear that the defendant had resorted to much
art to effect her submission.

The Surgeon and the Midwife who had attended her at her
accouchement, were also called, and proved the amount of their
respective hills, which they had been paid by the plaintiff:
Other witnesses were called, who proved, that before the
transaction in 'question, the girl had always been modest, and
maintained a good character.
Mr. SCARLET T, for the defendant, said, that in a case of this
description his client laboured under peculiar difficulties, as the
principal witness would of course lay the scene in such a man-
ner that no other person could be called to contradict her testi-
mony. This action was not brought by the girl herself, for she
had her own remedy if she had thought proper to avail herself
of it. But the plaintiff was her uncle, in 'whose house she was
employed as a servant; the loss of her services, therefore, could
be no more to him than if he had been deprived of the *Mist..
ance of any other female servant. It hpd not even been proved
what was the sum the plaintiff had paid to the servant he had
employed in his niece's place. Besides, it was not probable that
the uncle or the aunt shotiM have had no sti§pieiim a any itri_
proper intercourse between the defendant and their niece. lie