The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-13 00:00:00

UURREE V. SHAILgR.

This was an action against the defendant to recover
damages for the seduction of the plaintiff's niece.
]Sir. Platt, with whom was Mr. Houldstone, ap-
peared on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant was not
represented by Counsel.
Mr. PLarr said the plaintiff was a market gardener,
residing at Barnes-green, and the defendant was the
son of another market gardener, residing in the' same
neighbourhood. The action was brought to recover com-
pensation for one of the greatest injuries that could be
inflicted on a female. Mary Gowan, the young woman
who is the subject of the present inquiry, was
the niece of the plaintiff, and was adopted in the
family in order to take care of his children, and super-
intend his domestic establishment. She was treated as
one of his own children, and the family lived in the en- '
joyment of the greatest happiness, till the defendant
was introduced to the house. In June last year the de-
fendant's father went to reside in the neighbourhood of
the plaintiff, when the defendant at once commenced a
system of attacks upon the affections of, the niece, which
eventually ended in her ruin. Previous to that period
her character was unblemished, and she enjoyed the re-
spect of her friends and neighbours. Soon after the de-
fendant became acquainted with the family, his visits to
the house were sanctioned, and it was anticipated he would
in due time become her husband. Unfortunately,however,
the young woman gave birth to a child in June last. As
soon at this took place, the defendant was spoken to on
the subject by a mutual friend, who expressed a hope
that he would treat her with kindness and support the
child, which he then promised to do. He had not kept
his promise, and it had therefore become necessary for
his victim to undergo the exposure in a court of justice
in order to compel him to make some compensation.
Mary Gowan stated that she was the niece of the
plaintiff, with whom she had resided about four years,
She had the charge of the children, and had also to at-
tend to the domestic affairs. Knew the defendant, with
whom she became acquainted when he first went to re-
side in the neighbourhood. He continued to visit her
for eleven months, and was always treated by the family
as her intended husband. She frequently walked out
with the defendant with the sanction of her uncle and
aunt. In the' early part of September she went to Barnes
to visit her cousin ; the defendant accompanied her, and
returned with her in the evening. Previous to that day
the defendant had on one occasion attempted to take im-
proper liberties with her, which she refused to permit.--
Witness then related some other particulars, which the
'preceding evidence would lead the reader to anticipate,
and which it is needless to give.
By the Learned JUDGE—The defendant did not offer
her marriage, but he paid such attentions to her in the
presence of her family, as to induce a belief that he in-
tended to make her his wife.
Mrs. M. A. Powall was acquainted with the plaintiff's
family in the habit of visiting them ; had fre-
quently seen the-AL.fendant there ; he always appeared
to pay the attentions of a suitor to Miss Gowan ; had
seen the defendant since the birth of the child ; she
asked him whether he had been to see the baby ; h re-
plied that he had not.
By the JUDGE—The defendant's father was in an ex-
tensive way of business.
Mrs. Wire, a fruiterer in Covent-garden, stated that
she was acquainted with the plaintiff and the defendant.
Heard of Miss Gowan's having a child, and spoke to the
defendant upon the subject. She told him she hoped he
, would behave kind to the girl and her child, and he pro-

raised that he-would do be. •
By the Learned JUDGE.—The defendant was not in
business fOr • hiniself, but officiated as salesman for his
father: 'Was not aware that he had any property of his
own. The defilnila.nt's father had extensive grounds,
end kept a number Of carts and horses.
Mr. Phillips, a surgeon, reSiding at Barnes, proved
that Miss Gowan was delivered of a child on the 6th of
June ; her family were very much distressed at the
circumstance.
James Williams, a lad in the employ of the plaintiff,
stated that, after the birth of the child, he was sent by
Mrs. Burge to see the defendant. He went to his fa-
ther's for that pi,—..Tose, several times, but was always
informed that the deteii.."l!int was . not at home. On
one occasion, when he was • :_old that he was not
at home, he. (witness) went dow-r. the garden to
satisfy' himself of the fact, and he then; found him ;
the defendant told him that Mrs. Burree wanted
to see
him, but he said he could not go, as he was very'.
inw. ell
he however looked very well. Never saw the dete:d"
ant at the plaintiff's after that time.
The 'Learned JUDGE said the action was brought by
the plaintiff to recover compensation for the loss of the
services of his niece, and in assessing the damages the
law did not allow, under the circumstances, a larger
amount of damages than the actual injury committed.
The jury must look at the general circumstances of the
case, the situation in life of the parties, and the particu-
lar circumstances under which the seduction took place.
There could no doubt of the plaintiff's right to recover,
and the only questqon was the amount of damages he.was
entitled to.
The Jury almost instantly returned a verdict for the
daintiff—Damages 501.

OXFORD ClRCUlT—Gloucester, August 10.
CONVICTION FOR MURDER.

William Weyman was charged with the wilful murder
of William Fisher, on the 17th of April last, at Yock-
ington, in this county.
The deceased it appeared was a small farmer, residing
upon his own land, at Auckley, and the prisoner lived
near him. He had served 28 years in the Horse Guards,
and'vvas in the receipt of a pension for his services of
ls. 4d. a day. On the Tuursday before the fatal occur-
rence took place which formed the subject of the present
trial, Weyman went in company with two other persons to
Bristol, to receive his arrears of pension, with which he re-
turned to his lodging the same night. His landlady observed
him won aft?.r with a pistol, upon which her son (a little
boy) naked him what he was going to do with it, to