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

BURREE V. MAILER.

This was an action against the defendant to recover
damages for the seduction of the plaintiff's niece.
Mr. Platt, with whom was Mr. Houldstone, ap-
peared on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant was not
represented by Counsel.
Mr. PLATT 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
e of his own children, and the family lived in the en-
Nrment 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 ha.
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 ; was in the habit of visiting them ; had fre-
quently seen the defendant 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 ; he 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-
mised that he would do so.

By the Learned JUDGE.—The defendant was not in
business for himself, but officiated as salesman for his
father. Was not aware that he had any property of his
own. The defendant's father had extensive grounds,
and 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. Burree to see the defendant. He went to his fa-
ther's for that purpose, several times, but was always
informed that the defendant was not at home. On
one occasion, when he was told that he was not
at home, he (witness) went down the garden to
satisfy himself of the fact, and 'he there found him ;
the defendant told him that Mrs. Burree wanted to see
him, but he said he could not go, as he was very unwell ;
he however looked very well. Never saw the defend-
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
cc.se, the situation in life of the parties, and the particu-
lar circumstances under which the seduction took Place.
There could be no doubt of the plaintiff's right to recover,
and the only question was the amount of damages lie was
entitled to.

The Jury almost instantly returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 501.

OXFORD ClRCUlT—Gloucester, August 11.
John Wait, the younger, was indicted for an assault
upon Robert Harrison, on the 24th of February last.
The prosecutor conducted his own case, being unable,
as he observed, to " purchase" counsel. Mr. Alexander
appeared for the defendant.
The defendant, who moves in very good society, re-
sides at Blakeney, in this county, and is high constable
of the district ; and the prosecutor, who is an old sol-
dier, or, as he termed himself, "an old warrior," lives
near him. On the evening of the 24th of February, be-
tween six and seven o'clock, the prosecutor having
finished his day's work was proceeding homewards, with
a pipe in his mouth, accompanied by his sons, two little
boys, when he came up with the defendant, who was
sitting in his gig, close by the entrance to his own re-
sidence, and talking to a person in his employ, named
Hyatt. Hyatt was standing so near to the gig that if
he had put out his arm he could have touched Mr.
Wait, but the prosecutor, although there was plenty of
room for him to pass on the other side of the gig,
or even behind Hyatt, thought proper to go be-
tween the defendant and Hyatt, smoking as he
went. Irritated at what was doubtless an act of im-
pertinence, the defendant made some observation about
his being an insulting rascal, and declared he had a
good- mind to give him a good horse-whipping, and,
jumping out of the gig, he ran after the prosecutor for
twenty yards, and stopping before him shook his whip,
which was doubled in his right hand, over the prose-
cutor's shoulders several times, calling him at the same
time an insulting rascal, and declaring that for half a
farthing he would knock his head off. While using this
language he raised his left hand and knocked the pipe
out of the prosecutor's mouth, knocking out at the same
time, or, to employ what seemed to be a pet word with
the prosecutor, " extricating" one of the prosecutor's
teeth, which, to make the loss more cutting, happened to
be an "eye 'tooth." The defendant also pushed his fist
up to the prosecutor's nose, who told him that he had
done quite enough, and that he would " take the law on
him.' Upon this the defendant Rent back to his gig,
calling Hyatt to witness that he had not struck the pro-
secutor. The prosecutor's story was repeated almost
verbatim ;by his son, a little fellow twelve years old,
whose examination and cross-examination occasioned
much amusement, but all surprise about the coincidence
of the two statements vanished when it appeared from
the boy's own account that almost every eveninc, since
the 24th of February he had told the story to his father
on their return from work, and that his father had told
him that his tooth was "extricated," and had desired him
to stick to his story, and to mind what he did say, and
not to tell a lie. It appeared that there was some pre-
vious ill feeling between the parties, arising out of alleged
acts of trespass.
The Jury found the defendant guilty, and
His LORDSHIP said he quite agreed with the verdict,
and regretted that a gentleman in the defendant's position
should so far forget himself as to assault an old man in
the prosecutor's situation in life. The sentence of the
Court was that he should pay a fine of 101. to the Queen,
and be imprisoned till the fine was paid.
The money was immediately paid, and the defendant
was discharged.
With this case ended the business contained in the
county calendar.
His Lordship then proceeded to try the city prisoners,
among whom is one charged with the crime of murder.
Philip Inkin, Richard Goodman, Charles Harper,
Frederick Davis, Thomas Trickey, William Davis,
Charles Chesterton, and John Protheroe, were indicted
for the manslaughter of William Brown, on Whit Mon-
day, the 31st of May last.
Mr. Francillon (with whom was Mr. W. H. Cooke)
conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Godson appeared for
Chesterton and William Davis ; Mr. Greaves for Inkin.
Goodman, and Trickey ; Mr. Alexander for Harper ;
Mr. Keating for Protheroe ; and Mr. A. M. Skinner for
Frederick Davis.

It appeared that the deceased had challenged Inkin to
fight, and that the battle was to have come off at the
Ham, within the limits of the city.of Gloucester, but
being interrupted there by a city policeman, the parties
moved off to Sandhurst-green, about two miles and a half
from Gloucester, when they stripped and set to. Good-
man seconded the deceased, and Trickey was his bottle-
holder, and Harper and Frederick Davis acted in the
same capacity for Inkin. William Davis kept the ring,
and Chesterton was a timekeeper. They had not fought
inure than three or four rounds when two of the county
police made their appearance on the ground, and endea-
voured, but at first ineffectually, to stop the fight, which
proceeded for a good many rounds more, when the two
policemen made their way into the ring, and, producing
their staves, declared they would break the arm of
either of the combatants who struck another blow. The
ring was broken, the fight was stopped, and the seconds
were about to take their men away, when Chesterton,
who was on horseback, rode into the ring. and told the
policemen that he would report them for not doing their
duty before, and that as they had been watching the
fight for their own pleasure, the combatants should fight
on for his. Protheroe also came and. said the fight
should not be stopped, and Chesterton made a fresh ring
by riding round with his horse, and the fight was re-
newed. About 35 rounds were fought afterwards, and
in the 75th or 76th round Brown stood up, but his legs
faltered ; he fell, was never heard to speak more, and
died in about three hours afterwards. The cause of death
was the effusion of blood from one of the blood-vessels of
the brain, but there was no external bruise correspond-
ing with the internal seat of the injury. The medical
witnesses differed in opinion ; one of the surgeons said,
that the effusion of blood did not necessarily produce im-
mediate death, and thought that the deceased must have
died from the blows or falls which he had received in the
course of the fight, while the other thought that could
not be the case.

The Jury, after considerable time spent in deliberation,
acquitted all the prisoners.
The verdict, which was not delivered till past nine
o'clock at night, was received with manifestations of
applause, which were with difficulty suppressed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

William Harnett, an elderly man of respectable ap-
pearance, was brought up before Mr. Alderman Wilson,
charged by Mr. Herbert, of the firm of Herbert, Mor-
riss, and Co., the extensive carriers between London and
Coventry, and elsewhere, with being deficient in his ac-
counts upwards of 2,0001.
Mr. Herbert, who resides at Coventry, stated that the
prisoner at the bar was their town agent, living in Moor-
lane, Cheapside, and conducted the whole of their
establishment at that place. It was his duty to receive
and pay all monies on account of the concern, and to for-
ward every month his account to him at Coventry. On
receiving the account of June last, he was surprised at it,
when he wrote to the prisoner concerning the affair, and
having received an answer not to his satisfaction, he
cane up to Lo-idon and called on the prisoner for an ex-
planation of his accounts, which he subsequently made
up, when he found there was a deficiency of 2,087/. odd
shillings, whiei the prisoner said had been expended on
the general account. He further added that the prisoner
had been in their service for the last six, years, and it was
his duty to render his account monthly.
Mr. Alderman WILSON asked the prisoner what lie
had done with the money that he was deficient in?
The prisoner, in answer, said it had been e7,pended
on the general account of the firm.
The Alderman asked if there was any specific sum
received, which he had not accounted for.

The Solicitor said—Yes; that if the
Magistrate would
remand him, he could prove two or three, but one in
particular, 3651., received last o.,ctober.
After some further conversation with the Alderman,
it was arranged that the FAsoner should stand remanded
till Thursday next, to give time for further investigation.

BOW-STREET.
Alfred Cole was charged before Mr. Jardine with be-
ing fouud in possession of the cabriolet, No. 1,917, the
property of Mr. Isaacs, a cab proprietor, of Little War-
ner-street, Clerkenwell, not being the driver of the
same. The priioner was one of a class of persons called
" bucks," who are depaty cab-men, to whom the regular
drivers are in the habit of entrusting their vehicles, to
the injury of the proprietors themselves, as well as to
the public, who frequently get imposed upon by men
who, from the fact of their not being the licensed dri-
vers, are not to in found when proceeded against.
dr. Isaacs, the proprietor, stated that the practice of
" bucking" was one from which he, in common with other
cab proprietors, had extensively suffered, and he was de-
termined to put a stop to it as far as it was in his power.
Having yesterday found his cab, 1,917, in the possession
of the prisoner, he went up and questioned him as to his
right of driving it. He replied that the driver had en-
trusted it to him for a short time, while he attended to
his own affairs, and that he would find him (the driver)
in Farringdon-street. He went as directed, and found the
man, who at first said that he had left the cab in the care
of the prisoner only for a few minutes, and that he had
driven away with it. He, however, afterwards acknow-
ledged that he had entrusted it to him for several hours.
The Magistrates said the public would never have any
security against the misdeeds of these men, as long as
the system complained of was allowed to exist, and asked
the prisoner what he had to say to the charge?
The prisoner said that he was not what was called a
"buck," but that the prisoner having said to him, "I don't
feel altogether so well, Hal; and I wish you would take
my cab for a few hours"—he took it to oblige him.
The MAGISTRATE said the practice must be put a stop
to, and he should therefore call upon the prisoner to find
bail, himself in 101:, and two securities of 'lO/. each, to
answer the charge at the Sessions.
Bail not being at once forthcoming, the prisoner was
locked up.

UNION-HALL.
On Wednesday Ellen Barlow, a girl of 17 years of
age, in the service of Mrs. Hannah Hubert, of No. 14,
Clarendon-place, Vassal-road, Brixton, was brought be-
fore Mr. Traill, charged with robbing her mistress, and,
afterwards attempting to poison the family. .•
The complainant stated that the prisoner had been in
her service about 14 months, and that, during that pe-
riod, she had exhibited great vioilence of temper of
many occasions, and for which she ~ad term
discharging her. The prisoner had warning, and she•
was to have left her situation , on the preceding day,
•
when the complainantmissed a silver-spoon, and clues.
tioned the girl on the subjezt, who at first denied that
she knew anything about it, but aftrwards confessed'
that she had hidden it behind the sink in the wash'
house, to carry it away tm quitting. Her boxes then
underwent a search, and a great quantity of her mis-
tress's property, consist7.ng principally of wearing appa
rel, was discovered. At first the complainant's inten-
tion was to have retaken possesSion of her property, and
not have proceeded against her. Soon after her depar-
ture, tea was. prepared by Airs. Hubert for herself and
family. Wh!le, however, two of the children were in
the act of eating some bread and butter, they were ob-
served to loathe the food, and co plain via, nasty hot taste

it had ; and, when the butter came to be examined, it
was ascertained that a quainity or vitriol had been
mixed with it ; and, as the prisoner had every facility of
committing such an act, it was strongly suspected that
she. and no other ner.inn, was the offender.
Mr. TRAILL said that the charge of finding stoic*
property in the prisoner's boxes was clear enough, bt t
with regard to the more serious accusation, that of mix-
ing vitriol in the butter, there must be stronger evidence
produced before it could boentertained.
Mr. TRAILL asked the prisoner if she wished to say
anything relative to the vitriol found mixed up with the
butter in the kitchen cupboard ? The prisoner said she
knew nothing about that, but remembered having re-
cently used Vitriol'in cleaning some copper saucepans.
The MAGISTRATE said that he ihould remand the pri
soner for further examination ; and in the meantime di-
rections were given to collect the whole of the evidence
relating to so seriong a ehormp. .