The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-06 00:00:00

EVENING, AtiaTTST 6 141

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Aug. 5.
NEWTON V. ASKEW.

. .
This was a motion on the.part of the plaintiffs, Mrs.
_Newton (the' daughter of Sir. Thomas Ricketts) and het
husband, to set aside an order that had been m tde by
the Master of the Rolls on Tuesday last, refusing to
grant an injunc,ion to restra'n the defendant from draw-
ing a sum of money. the prop,rty of the dec. ased.
(The case was fully:reporitd when it was before the
Rails' Court.)
The LORD. CSANCE#OI( havin,* heard Mr. Newton
in support of the applicatiOn, said that the present was
a case in which there.was no imputation as to the oon-
duct or the responsibility Of the defendants, hut it rested
entirely on the prnceedings that had been instituted in
the E.!clesiastical Court. The question was whether the
tendency of that snit was such" a. to call for that Court
t 3 exercise its power: His Lordship having referred to
the several authorities' that had bet .n cued, decided that
unless a special case was Made out, which had not been
done in the present instance, he could not grant the or-
der. The motion was accordingly refused.
Iu the course of the day tho Duke of Hamilton took
the usual oaths before his Lordship as one of the Repre•
sentative l'eers of Scotland.
The t:ourt rose for the vacation.
The Vice-Chancellor's Court also rose for the vaca-
tion to-day.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME. CIRCUIT.—Groydon, August 5.
(Before Mr. Justice •COLTMAN.)
SEDUCTION—MILLER V SHEPHERD.

This was an action brought by Harriet Miller against
the defendant, to recover damages for the seduction by
him of her daughter.
The d.-0 endant pleaded Not Guilty, and also put upon the
record the extraordinary plea that the act was committed
with the leave and license, of the mother.
Mr. Edwin James and. Mr. Bramwell were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Russell Gurney and Mr. Lush for the
defendant. _

Mr. JAMES, in opening the case, said, that the plaintiff
was the widow of a lieutenant in the navy, and• she
subsisted upon a pension of fifty pounds a year granted
to her by the Government, in consideration of the ser-
vices her husband
.had rendered to his country. The
family consisted of several children, the eldest of whom
was the young lady.who was the-unhappy subject of
present inquiry. At the time of the transaction in ques
tion the defendant was the articled clerk to an attorney.
„ad he became acquainted with the young lady in 1845.
and he paid her attentions, and used to visit her at her
mother's house at ' %Valworth, and was received as
ner suiter by the family, and there was every
reason to believe that at that time his intentions
were perfectly honourable. In the month of April in
that year. however,. in consequence ef something that
came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, she was induced
to object to any further connexion continuing between
tier daughter and •the defeedant, and she forbade the.
• atter to come to her hous6 ; and for two months tle-
intiniacy ceased between them.- In' June, however, it
,vas renewed, at th 6 earnest entreaty of the deteniant.
who still professed. the Most hiMourable in.entions ; but.
t appeared that. he, very shortly afterwards, succeeded
ur seducing and destroying for ever the happiness of the
young woman who bad confided in him, and the result
of their intimacy was the birth of a child in March of
the present
,3ettr. The Learned Counsel said that the
tendat,t, having. succee .ed in his base design, shortly
,Iterwarels broke of all eonnexion with his vm!im, and
etused to listen •to any .arrangement for making coni-
wnsation for the injury•he had tuff cted. and the plain-
to therefore, nu other alternative but to bring the
resent action.

Harriet Hawkins Miller, the daughter of the plaintiff.
vas then examined. She was rather a good-leoltner:
oung woman, and gave . her evide:ice with great pro
iriety of demeanour. She stated that her mother's
amity consisted of herself, three sisters, and two bro-
eag ed as a
.hers. She (mile home from Sotehattipton, where she
lad been en governess, to live with het
n ether Walworth," in 1843, and in January, 1844,
.he went into the service of a Mr. Connell, a per
umer and dealer in stationery at Camberwell. The
lefendant became acquainted with her while she
tiled this situation„ and he asked to be introduced to her
uother, and was.soon afterwards received in the family
Ls her suitor, and he frequently promised her marriage.
['he intimacy continued until April, when her mother
woke it off, and ordered the defendant not to come to
:ter house again. In June she received a letter from the
lefendant, in which he'requested to see her, as he
wanted her evidence in an action for debt that he was
:Tinging for Mr., Connell ; but when she went he told
tier it was only an:excuse, and his real uti,et was to see
her, and get her to. remem. their.intimacy. The defendant
still professed honourable intentions, and they again be-
came on friendly terms.-The result id the connection
was the birth of a• child • in March, 1847, and she de-
posed that the defendant • was —the father of that child.
When she discovered that she'wes in the family way see
informed the defendant of the fact, and he said he would
speak to his father anoitf marrying, her, and would call
on the following .Sunday, and let her know the result,
out he did not come asheyeemised. _
Cross•exaniined—Witnet,s is twenty-nine 'years old.
Believed the defendant ie not Inuoh more than twenty -
one. Believed that no cemmunieation was ever made- to
:he defendant's family of any -intimacy between them.
Tee first, intercourse took p*e in Angust, 1846, -when
-.thEty weFo wi4kih,g hotne troinlllo:l)artinotitti 4irait 'at

He-examined-The defendant never contributed any-
thing towards the child's support.
William Baker, the son-in-law of the plaintiff. proved
chat when it was discovered-that Nliss Miller was in the
;ainily way he went to the detendint's office, he haviih:
been reee:aly_ exhumed to- practise as am attQrney, and
.isked nom wnethor heintended to tuflif his promise ot
marrying the young boy, and he made an appointment
meet the familj• and .come.tU-some arrangement. lie
did not do so, and witness went to_hitn. a second time,
.vhen he said, in. answer to a question that was put to
Ott being pressed to .say if -.be- had any
him, that he had never intended to marry the.
rjedaubgohntef,r;r chsngirigand his. mind, he repli..d,:-43h, there is
no money, and -my family would set'thvir r faces against
me if I was to merry her."_ Witness then told hirn that
if be did not:mike her some compensation for
.the injury
he had inflicted-upon the faintly, Mrs. Miller would be
lu t:eedings again-4 him, and he
er°eplredl.itdhaT tht Ptngive his compliments to Mrs.
Allier, and tell her that, if the went to law, what would
cost her 1/. would not.cost hits 63.
This was the-case fur the plaint.ff.
Mr. G addressing the jury for the defendant,
,aid he thought it would hare been much better if the
plea ot leave and license by the mother ha 4 not been
i)laced on the record, and he-admitted that he would not
P. enoert6tia° a Plea. -He, however, did think
want due caution. exercise Iby
thati,ht!ee mother
otet
htroe
ribuun
i nid:
allowing her daughter to walk about with
young man who, it WaS perfectly clear, she suspected
'rats not very regular or steady in hls conduct, and that,
faking into consider tvion the ages ot the young woman
end ot the defendant, a very ta:Klerate amount of damages
eculd be a sufficient coinpetiaation fUr the injury that had
been inflicted. _

v The jury found
a verdict, for the plaintiff—damages,
1001.

BOCKETT V. 13,)MEIN.

This was an action to recuve:: asum of 9791., the
•Imouot of an attorn->'sbill.

-7--ir:li.dUrney and Mr. 'fittideley were for the plain..
tiff, and Mr, Marsh for the defendant.
. The defendant in this scuba is Mr. John James Bod-
kin, the lat, inefob,,r"for Galway, and it appeared chat in
(845 he made an application to die Law Life Assurance
Society for a loan of 36,0001., on the inJrtgage of his
estat, ft in Galway and Mayo, undertaking at the same
rime to pay all the necessary expensf-s for the survey of
the property. The t•oeioty agreed to advance the money,
and all the necessary deeds were prepared; but it ap
p2ared that when they were to-be executed, Mrs.-Bodkin,
who had an interest in the 'property, refused to assign
and the transac.
ihoant nwtaesr,e s it, h
eb
rtetrouref..l"tee.r.thc7abece qepeiel3teid. The present
recover the costs that had been
re i°ncturn wredaisnPri?eupgahrit t 9
ng the deeds, surveying the property,
fees WI counsel, &c.; and it appeared that 4004 of the
amouitt was money actually expended by the plaintiff.
The jury returned a verdict for the full amount.
claimed.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Warwick, August 5.
-This morning the' judies attended divine service in
St. Mary's Church, Where, a sermon was preached by
the Sheriff's chaplain. -At tenVolock both courts were
opened.
pßjus.—(Before Lord DENIHAN
HA.WARD V. BROOKS ANOTHER, EXECUTORS.
This Was an action to recover compensation for a gig
damaged, and for the hiring of the same vehicle from
September, 1844, to January, 1846, at the rate of 71.
per week.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Adams were counsel for the
The plaintiff is a coach builder, living at Birmingham.
and also lets out gigs for hire. A Mr. Brooks, who car-
ries on the farming business at Lapworth, borrowed n
gig, then In a good state of repair, from the plaintiff,
who received it back in such a,datnaged state that it was
not put in proper repair and order in less than a month.
For these repairs the plaintiff also claimed from Mr.
Brookes's executors 121.
Mr. HUMFREY (with whom was Mr. Hayes) addressed
the jury for the defence, which was, that at the time
the plaintiff (Mr. Hayward) was paying his addresses
to Mr. Brookes's daughter, and on her medical adviser
recommending that she should take exercise, he brought
a gig to her father's house for her convenience and
advantage ' • that subsequently, on the horse running
away with the vehicle, the plaintiff was informed of
the accident, and on the amount of the damage done,
m. romornergs.fhat
which he himself estimated at thirty shiilingi, beine
offered to him by Mrs. Brookes, he refused it. Subse-
qdurresnstelsy
toto t
hthe d
afaugt father's death
adueda tthh
then
having,
discontinued
ehisa Learned
(Mr. Humfrey) said, " brutally deserted her,"
utluoirske
favoured
,cr,tiivotanhi.e, ihmeiso
dat
irrirno,c.,k es was put into the box
in support of the defence. and on being asked in cross
examination whether Mr. Hayward had not retired
.from pay ing his addresses, because onesciwtweihtoehceepacirsueiceoesndtsi:n,hnge.
had reason to b. lieve be was successfully opposed by a
statement. do
confirmed r am"

Mr. MILLER replied, and the jury found their verdict
for the defendant.
There were 2& causes entered for trial, 16 of which
were disposed of when the Court rose this evening.
The apPeiel juries are fixed for tomorrow morning.
One is nri 'nportint railway eve).

v. ,
U ''. ,_14711), CI:?1,ill l'.—ilionmouth, Aug. 4,
The assizes were iltougt Ap. n
.eloe about tvvo o'clol.:k
to-day. None ohe cases, however, presented any
feature of importauee. Last evetAii3g, after Poet hour,

•he following case was taken, an I engaged the C ,urt up
• • ten • 'clock at night.

CROWN COURT.—(B.fore Mr. Justice CoLERTDGE.)
John TVilliaml and Clui,topher Greenmay, decent-
!oiling labourers, were indicted for having, on the night
of May 31 last, at the parish of Aberystwith, feloniously
and burglari nsly broken and entered the dwelling-
ape of John Thomas, with intent to kill and murder
am. The intent was varied in other counts, being laid
to be to cut and wound him, to stab him, to (Ilk him
zrievousrbodily harm, &e.g and in another count in was
laid to be to du his wife, Maria Thomas, grievous bodily
harm.

Mr. T. Phillips conducted the prosecution; Mr. Min-
ryr defended Williams; and Mr. Cooke defended Green-
way. •
For a long time past it has been th'. custom for work-
men in this c aunty, when any man offers to work for less
wages than they deem the-proper standard, to go about
at night in mobs blowing horns, and miking all manner
of hideous notes, and proCeeding to the dwelling of the
obnoxious individual, to break his furniture before his
face, and occasionally to heat him, but not to do him
any serious personal injury. This proceeding was known
amongst the simple Arcadians of this part of the world
as " scotching," and was heretofore regarded only as a
species of riot for which the offenders were liable only
to imprisonment. The present iodic ment was preferred
by way of experiment to try whrther the heavier punish •
went which would be the consequence of the riot, could
it be metamorphosed into a burglary, would deter par•
ties from a repetition of
.those scenes. The evidence
was to this effect:— The prosecutor w.is a fellow work-
man of the prisoners in a colliery. They were, about
the time in question, standing out fur higher wages
than he was suspected of receiving; and on the night
in question they, with five other m.n, w nt according
to ancient custom in that behalf, and with all the usn4l
pomp and circumstance of a " scotching," to his house,
which was one in a row of fourteen, broke all the win-
dows and all the furniture in the kitchen, flinging into
the latter ispartrnen,t 184 lb. weight of stones. The pri-
soner Williams went with.two other men into the prose-
cutor's bed-room, and searched the bed and room for
him, threatening to " cut out his guts" if they
should find him, and threatening to kill his wife if she
di 1 not tell where he was • They did not, however, kill
her, though she knew that he was at the moment under
the bed. They did not search under the bed, or do her
any harm beyond giving her a little slap with a tin horn
on the hand. They were not: finned with anything
whatever beyond the tin horn, and, though they were
for a considerable time en,aged at the place making the
noise and uproar usual on such occasions, none of the
neighbours came out or •interfered. The chief defen
was, that the prisoners had no intunion whatever of
killing the man, or doing•him any grievous bodily harm ;
that they intended only to frighten him, and to break his
furniture in his presencr. •; 'and it was argued that it they
really meant to injure him personally, they would not
have neglected to look fur him under the bed, the most
obvious place to find him, Att alibi was also sworn to on
behalf of each of them.

His LORDSHIP having summed np,
The jury, after a short consultation, found that the
prisoners were at the prosecu:ot's house on the night in
(-region, but not with the intent to do hire any grit vous
bodily barn.
Th,s was a verdict of Not. Guilty.
In the course ofthis case an illugr3tion arose of the
principle which was carried to such an extretn • point in
Lod Cardigan's case, that a man need not answ-r any
question tending .to crimin te hims,lf. Mr. okinner,
with a view to Show that the prosecutor's wife was mar-
ri,d prior to her trhirriage with him to another man nam-d
Reece, whit was still alive, and that consequently her
name was not Maria Thomas, as laid in the ind,ctment,
was proceeding to ask her whether she had not been
warded to Rt-ece,'when.

His Lonnsilw interposed, :and said that as in Lord
Cat,ligau's cane Dr, A,.c.lersou was toid, in the. House of
Lords, that he need not answer a question as to whether
he ever knew C.,ptain tuck.tt, he could nut allow the
woman to lie at•ked whether .he was ever married to
Reece, or even whether li,,eee was alive, as the tnsweri
to ,uvh qurstionsoligh,ytend to crimina•e her, without
fir-it ted,n4 hi r that she need 'not answer th-m; and
kiis Lordship thereupon aceoiding•ly warned her, and
this line of cross:e.xaminittion. was consequently aban-
doned.

The conami;sion.f...r Gloucester is to be opened to-day
by Mr. Justice Er .

NORTHERN GlRCUlT.—Carlisle Aug. 4.
(B,fore the LORD • HIEF BARON.)
The G:utt was engaged ad tno day with the trill of
John Thomson tor the• murder of his wife by poison.
rtie evidence was very voluminous and hail not con-
cludec when vie Court rose. The case is one which has
caused a grew. deal of excit,ment in this city, and the
approaches to the court, as well as the space before it
have Le n dAisely crowded a!l day.

NORTH- it ALES. Neu r.—Chester. Aug 4.
CRO N ('OUR 1.-0306 re. Mr. Justice CRESWELL.)
James Sherlock, 18,. wa,. indicted for a chagracetul
felony at Irby, and being convicted sentence of death
was ordered to be 'recorded against him.
Jonathan Lowe; 38. was indicted for assaulting Ellen
Rufr-11, in this clts., with a felonious intent.
Yardhlr and Mr: Edwards appeared for the prose-
cution, and Mr. Temore'for the defence.

The prisoner was the landlerd of a public house called
thei 'throe Legs of.Man,.and the pros-outria the servant
of IMr. ißarlow..contectit.ner.. or- Noithgate-street row.
Ttib latter a+li.ged•that.a.t. 8 u'olock on Sunday morning,
the 18tliof 4prtivhavinf, gone to her master's house ti
fetch the key of his shop. the house being in the
same entry as the prisoner's, Lowe had follewed her up
the passage, thrOwt: heron the flo )r, and made the No
Mims assault cninplaii'ied of: It was further allegod
that a secand ,attetept had been male by the ptisoner in
Mr. Barlow's.sh.op, within a few minute., after the first
attempt-had failed.
Verdict—Guilty of a common assault.
Joseph Clayton and Ralph Webster were then arraigned
for, arson at Birkenhead, and pl,aded Nit
They Were'comtnitted only a few days ago for setting
fire to a hotel, the property of Claytim:
-Mr. Tow:the:4.4 (for the prosecution) inadeapplication
for the postponement of the trial. The charge was that
the intent was to defraud an insurance company. They
were oely committed on Friday last. It was necessary
ir the prosecution to produce a certain policy of insur-
anee for 1,0001,-made-in May. 1845. with the Sun Fire
Office. It was thought to be in the possession of Clay-
toe. Notice to produce hal been given' and it had been
searched for; Clayton's wife had stated that it was with
her brother at Wanta ain Berkshire. It was now too
jaw to produce. either policy- or secondary evidence at
these assiz..s.
Mr. TEMPLE (for the' prisoners) resisted the. applica-
tion at saineleagth, and contended that the declarations
of Clayton's wife-could not be received.
' The JUDGE—Why not? It is net evidence for the
jury, but an.appllcation to the Court on affidavit, and it
is the constant. practice to insert hearsay evidence in
affidavits
Mr TEMPLE urged that the prisoners had been in
custody since the Tuesday previ,,us to the commit: el, and
the necessity uf. producing this policy ha i known
xll along. The magistrates no doubt committed becau,e
they felt there was a case on is hich to go to trial. They
might otherwise have remanded.
The JUDGE Yes ; 'nod it they had there would have
b. 'n no nrcessity for th.s application.
Mr. TEMPLE . again urged the great hardship on the
prisoners, who had been t tit to great expense in pre•
paring for the defence at this tosizes. If his Lordship
would consent, perhaps this policy might be admitted.
The JUDGE--I cannot admit it. All the Queen's evi-
uerwe must be heard, not a emitted.
Mr. TEMPLE then enforced his objections to the post-
ponement at some length.
The JUDGE then said, that it was his duty to postpone
this trial. It' it was onite plear the policy was in the •
possession of the prisliner, still there might he a goes-
Tion about secondary evidence ; and however that might
he it was clear th.-re was not time to produce it. It
would be unseemly to-the course of public justice that
this and all other trials should not ne fully disposed of.
Mr. TEMPLE' then, on the part of the prisoner, ap-
plied that he be admitted to bail.
The JUDGE-=That must be the subket of another ap-
plication. It may be. made to me, or to a judge at
chambers. It must be supported by affidavits, and pro-
bably those affidavits may be answered.
The Court rose about seven o'clock.
• NISI PRIUS COURT.
Mr: JustiCe Maule hawing left town, being indittposed,
7vlr. Welshy tried several criminal cases in this court.
Joseph Cope aid 'John Kirkham were charged with
having on the 13th of July set fire to a Stack of hay at
Macclesfield, the property of Thomas Cook.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence each to be transported for
fifteen'years. • •

'POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSIO.V-HOUSE.
John Wriolit was brought before the Lord Mayor upon
seveial charges of fraud.
Mrs. Patterson, of 20,;Throgmorton-street, stated that
the prisoner called at. her house, the chambers of th,.
ground floor of .which•were occupied by a gentleman of
the name of Scott, and presented a parcel for that gen.
tleman, demanding at the same time 31. 6d. The parcel
was sealed up, and the prisoner said he brought it from
Mr. Bennet's, at 321, in the Strand, and that the money
was required instanter; as *Mr. Scott was not known at
the shop at which the goods had been purchased. Wit-
ness paid the money, and it was soon found that Mr.
Scott had ordered nothing of the kind, and that the
parcel contained an old portfolio case of no value.
In a.second ease it appeared that the prisoner took to
the lodging of• a gentleman named Alexander a map
which he said 'had been purchased at the ship of Mr.
Wyld, the present M.P. for Bodmin, and received upon
demand the sum of 3s. from the landlady. The map,
appeared, was one of those that had been sent round
gratis to the subscribers to a re.wspaper, and was net at
any timit worth more than 3J. A receipt, purporting
to be signed by-Mr. Wyld, and given by the prisoner
to the person who paid him the money, was produced,
and proved by a traveller of the house to be a forgery.
Other cases of a similar description were also brought
forward against" the prisoner, who said that he had berg
long in the trAe, that he had purchased the articles
produced for nearly as much as he had got for ahem,
and that he had, heen driven by distress to the trick
which, after all his trouble and danzer, produced little
or nothing for the support of his wife and family.
The LORD MAYOR ordered the prisoner to be bent for
trial to the Central Criminal Court.
The Lop MAYOR said he had, on the day Sir P.
Laurie called at. the Mansion-house to complain of the
conduce: of Joseph My, rev& wed several cenninun,cations
:,t tr,,Liblesona, inlivid,"4l. One of
dic,t, ;41;•,, ~f the writer had been
diatarbed by an aesurawe froa.i Mr. My that if .he did
not transmit to him-titenty.shillingS she and her husband
and children might have to encounter all the horrors of
a prison and starvation and &gm% Asp boweyer, her

tinshand had etijny= d the advantage f a corre =Touch n. e
with Mr. Ady on former ,ccasions relative to on, laimt d
dividends, and happ,,ned to he a frequent reader of that
most inqructive part of the London press, headed
" Polico Int-lligence," the mehace did not carry much
terror about it. .

His LORDSHIP said, he considered it was the duty of
those upon whom Mr. Ady owuded his correspondence
to make as much noli-e about it as possible, and he hoped
that there would be a sp-edy experiment of the efficacy
of the new Post-office Act as applicable to the coune
pursued by that pers )11. He hoped, too, that the fiist
place in which the Act should be brought into operation
would be the justitv-, now of the Mansion-house.
MARYLEBONE.

ROBBERY TO THE liIOUST OF UPWARDS or Load—
YeAer,ay, Joseph Myers, an elderly man, of the Jewish
persuasion. earn ing on an extensive business in the boot
and shoe line in Petticoat-lane, and who underw, ut an
examinaiion hetore Mr. Long on the 221 ult., on the
charge of having been concerned in a rob.e.ry of wa'ches,
jewellery, and plate, to the amount of nearly 1.100/.. at
the house of Mr. Harris Myers, Edgware-road. attended
at the Court. agreeably, to a premise male by him when
liberated on the day in question, to meet any other
parties who might have evidun,e to give in the case.
Some particulars connected with the affair have
already been inserted; and it will be remembered that
th plunder took place on the 12th of April lest, whet:
the premises were litirglariously entered, and that subse-
quemly a reward of 1001. was offer, d for the appreln n-
sion of the thieves. The accused person, Joseph Myers,
had, with another man, named Luz rus, been taken
before the authorities at Amsterdam, owing to some in-
formation which had ben received relative to some of
the stolen watches having been disp-sed of by Myers at
Rotterdam, and the result of the inquiry was that the
accused were b.ith discharged. The statement made b)
Myers was, that he was commissioned by Lsz truss to dis
pose of the said articles, and that he (I,,zarus) had
promised to give him one half of the proceeds of the sal,.
111. vis was tibiinatdy captured in Loudon, on a war, ant
which had been granted against h:m.
A solicitor, whose name did not transpire, now attended
for Myers.
In reply to the MAGISTRATE, Inspector Tedman, of
the I) division who has for some time had the c :se in
hand, stated that he had no further evidence to adduce.
as Mr. Harris Myers, who had alread, sustained to
heavy a loss, had declined to incur any tehhoonal ex
pence in bringing a-host of a iiIIf•SSOS from abroad
Air. LONG oat:inked that under t. t w,e ctrcumstances
there was, et course, an end to ihe affair. and .\lyers Has
therefore en irtilv lihera ea.

The solicitor begged to be allowed to ad tress a few
words to the Msgistrate, as the proc,edings, which In
ihe first instance had taken place at this Court, had
gained such extensive publicity ; he then stand that as
soon as it wh s heard tat seine suseicion s!ei upon
r. Joseph Myers, he (the soficitoi) forAtirded a coos.
munication to the prosecutor. ;is far back as the 17tti of
May Ist, informing him that Myers was most ready and
willn,g to come l,rwanl, to m:',l at once any eha.gt•
which might be pre'erred, and as that cours,• had be-n
pursue he could not help cemplaming of his client
having been taken int) custody by toe police in th-
manner which he had been. His ohsVct in making this
briet notice of the matter was, to obtain insertir.n thereof
in the newsp 3pers. that had given pu' lien). to all that.
upon the first inqury, on the 22d ultimo, transpired
b?for4 theC.

- - .
Mr. L',NG obierved that with that he had nothing to
do; thi• geotlewan wao att,nded for the prt,,.s to report
proceedings would, of course, exercise his own &sere
tion in the matter.

Mr. Joseph Myers thin left, accompanied by his soli-
citor and numerous friends.
LAMBETH..

AN UNGRATEFUL ScoUNDßEL.—Y,'Sferday, George
Snit'', a > with, wh.):e frientle are highly re,pectabl,.,
was placcd at the bar, before Or. Norton, for final cx,-.
urination. on a charge of stealing a gold watch of the
value of 151, the property Elwin, a lady.
residing in the Cannt:erwell..r..ad.
From the evidence of ns, Elwia it appeared that
the father of the prisoner lodged at the house of hi,r
uo and he (the father) tieing out of town, !he pri-
soner, who ha, b en but recently discharged trorn prison,
+•a% kindly off;,red a horn- until the rerorn of brs fati4er.
The c•-rut nhe made for this kindness was to steal a i•-old
watch of the v.due b4.,re mentioned,and then übsconde
I,ltormatiou of the robb,ry was given to the police, and
the prisoner was appr. headed.
From hi, own confelisiou it app.ared that the prisoner
had given the watch to a had, who had disposed of it fur
V. He Wad taliy committed for trial.

CHIEF JUSTICE WILDE AND THE
LAM OF SEDUCTION.
The direction of the Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, in the action for seductiOn Dingle c. Baker,
has caused universal surprise, not unmixed with in-
dignaion. Either tne law or the Judge must be
shamefully Er fault.
It is to be borne in mind that the gist of the action
is the loss of the daughter's services, which is in
some cases a fiction, but which was not so in this
instance, the father renting several turnpike-gates
about Dartmouth, and the daughter keeping one of
them. The seduction of the girl (aged only seven-
teen) was, according to her n-vittence, effected by the
fOulest means, morally tantamount to rape, advan-
tage having been taken of insensibility produced by a
drug. Pregnancy ensued, awl the defendant induced
his victim to leave her father's hou=e, hut soon
neglected her and left her ("!estitute, so that she was
compelled to apprise her mother of her shame and
distresses, and the consequence was that she re►urned
to Datmouth, but not to her father's house. in
answer to appeals to the defendant, he endeavoured
to prevail upon her to swear the child to soma one
else ; and upon her redly that she had never known
any one else and refusal to forswear herself, he set her
at defiance, and declared he would employ a clever
lawyer to enable him to defeat the claims of justice.
A. more villanous case has not appeared since that of
the Rev. Francis Thomas, of which it is a close pa-
rallel in every particular, the hypocrisy excepted.
We now come to _the Judge s direction to the

jury : •
" Mr. Crowder was addressing the jury On behalf of
the defendant, stating that he should contradict the
girl in many of her statements, when he was inter-
rupted by
.. chief Justice Wilde, who said that the girl by going
away had put en end to the relationship of inateer and
s.•rvant When she was brought back she was net re
tained in her father's house, but plied in thet of a
neighbour. She was not then able to have rendered her
lather the same s rvices as she had done before. Bv
mutual consent, therefore, the relationship of master and
servant had been dissolved, and he was of opinion that
the plaintiff must be nonsuited.
" Plaintiff noneuited."
It is to be remarked that the girl was pregnant be-
fore she quitted her father's house to hitie the shame
brought upon her by the 'defendant. The pregnancy
was the consequence of the seduction, and the fPght
the consequence of the pregnancy. Had ~he re.
mained in tier father's house, her condition would
have malt' her a burden arid a charge to lion, as well
as a disgrace. But, by a logic we cannot follow, the
very reality of the complete loss ref the girl's services
is regarded by Chief Justice Wide as fatal to the
averment of loss of service. According to the judge's
reasoning, if the girl had remained in her father's,
house, or, in other words, if she had continued to
render-service to her father, he would have bees ena-
bled to maintain the allegation that he had lost her
services; hut because he really had lost her
vices, she having fled from him pregnant by the de-
fendant at his persuasion, the plaintiff is put out
of Court on the ground that he had not lost her ser-:,
vices.
Chief Justice Wilde says that the girl by goirgil
.awayhadputan end to the relationship of master!
and servant. Let us ask, then, when the service is
lost in the eye at the law, whether the relationship of
master and servant survives the offices ? Is not the;
completest loss of service in the loss of the servant??
Bring the question to a practical test. Suppose the
father had been blind, and depending on his daugh-
ter for guidance, and for ministration to all his wants,
which would have been the real loss of service ?—hev
continuing in his. house attending on him as she:
might in her pregnant state, or her fl. iog and leav-
ing I.lm utterly netpteee Tee
would tell the blind father, " You cannot complain
of the loss of your daughter's services througn the
seducer, for you have only lost the servant, and are'
therefore undeprived of the services, and un wronged'
in the intelligent eye of the lavv:i •
To common sense it would, however, seem that the;
misconduct which takes from a father his servant,;
also, a fortiori, takes from bitn the services of the'
servant. But, according to the Chief Justice, the:
seducer may always take the advantage of his own,
wrong by pushing it to the greatest extreme; he has
only to inveigle the ch.ld from the parent's roof and:
protection, and he secures his impunity, having made:
the daughter the unconscious instrument of depriving;
her father of redress, after which she can be safely
left to perish.
And what a disgrace to the law is this language of
master and servant, and services, in cases of seduc-
tion! the true injury to the feelings and honour of
the parent not being recognised as a ground of action
by our Vandal law, which would seem to have been
shaped
people amongst whom the affections w:th
s theirmany
sto protection were unknown. We hear pedid6liel a
scoffs at utilitarian objects, but whet can
be more narrowly, meanly, and degradingly utilit '.-
rian than this law of seduction, looking at a inan's
child only as it would look at his horse or his ox, and
taking cognizance of the cruellest wrong that can be
done to the heart of man with reference, not to the
tender relations really co ,cerned, but to those of the
same coarse nature as subsist between the maser and
his scullion ?
At hest the law relating to seduction is disgrace-
fully bad, but we do not believe it so atrociously- bad
as Chief Justice Wilde would give us to suppose.
His doctrine is condemned in all quarters, and we
have not a doubt that it will be set aside on a motion
for a new trial ; but the whole subject of the law re-
lating to ;eduction requires revi,ion ; and those per-
sons who have .been making au easy display of their
zeal for :emale moral'; in oropesing ineesures imprac-
ticable for their professed objects, and pervertible to
the worst purposes, would do: well -to transfer. their
activity to the root of the evil, suns to apply them-