The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-20 00:00:00

SURREY IRON RAILWAY DISSOLVING.

Mr. PAGET, for the promoters, stated the object of the Bill
to be to enable this Company (which was incorporated by the
Act the 41st Goo. III.) to sell the lands, houses, and other
property of the company together with the navigable com-
munication from the dock of the company to the: River
Thames at Wandsworth, in the county of Surrey, and to dis-
solve the company. The inadequacy of the returns was of
course the ground of application for this Bill.
Mr. COOK, for Messrs. Child, Lyon, Denison and other
Bersons interested in the maintenance of the line, opposed the
ill, on the ground that capital had been expended in mills,
wharfs and other establishments on the faith that the rail-
way should be maintained. The opposing parties claimed,
on the alternative a reasonable compensation from the pro-
ceeds of any sale which Parliament might authorise.

ISLE OF MAN RAILWAY.
(THIS DAY.)
meeting of the shareholders in this Company was held
this afternoon, at one o'clock; in the lan of Commerce, for
the purpose of taking steps to obtain a statement of the ac-
counts, and to resist the attempt of the directors to retain a
larger proportion of the deposits than was authorised by the
Act of Parliament. J. H. Murchison, Esq., in the chair.
Mr. Small read the report of the Committee of share-
holders, stating the proceedings which had been taken
to obtain explanations from the directors with regard to
their accounts, and requesting the shareholders not
to accept the retftrn of 155., which they offered to them,
until such explanation had been given. they
report, also,
suggested that the shareholders should enter into a sub•
scription, in order that the opinion of some competent counsel
should be taken as to the rights and remedies of the share-
holders against the directors.' This gentleman stated that
5,000 shares were allotted among 200 individuals, and the
depoiit upon that number, at 2/. per share, amounted to
10,000/., and out of this sum the directors only intended to
return 6,000/.

A Slut-I:guo -ore. maid, he did not think that the return of
adequate, when there had been no survey nor en-
gineering expen eee.
Mr. BR UC K mov/M that the ithareoldtrA should enter into a
subscription of b. per share.
The motion was seconded, and carried unanimously.
The meeting then separated.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY)
(Sittings in Banco.)
IsARROTT v. OLIVE/C.
This is a seduction case, which came before the Court in the
shape of an application for a new trial on the ground of mis-
direction, and that there was not sufficient evidence adduced
on trial to show that the plaintiff had lost the services of her
daughter.
The plaintiff is the mother of Elizabeth Barrott, aged
thirty-three, who resided with her, and kept a school at
aaltaah, in the county of Devon, and the action was brought
against the defendant, a Mr. Oliver, who also resided in
r?'aitash, for the seduction of the daughter, thereby
depriving plaintiff of the benefit of her services.
The •
case was tried at the Devonshire assizes
before Mr. ,Ttunice Coleridge, and a verdict was returned for
trial,ef
enclaat. According to the evidence adduced on the
'Elizabeth Barrett was residing with her mother in
Saltash, and °vaned
maintaining the fa, at -school in order to assist her mother in
the habit a viattining‘tYb..ent three At this time the defendant was in
ree or four times a week. This
ended in the oregn
.o,f.nplaintiff's daughter; and
inforinett the
to npuant ottf, her condition
when she
he gave her money
several occasion% ,herutgak to procure
abortion, aad on
muriate of iron (tincture of steel), and ~,ayt
botrpentine,
publicly known she ,1,11;
lUiled. She received 30s. in all bekre the birth of thheeol
and 4s. afterwards. When it was
with child, the defendant gave up hisaviceor the ;,•
'
sitsianr"l
when applied to, to do her pecuniary justice
action was ;,off
1..
done. Her pupils also left her; hence
toted by the mother to obtain compensation-
It
was endeavoured by cross-examination to show that
the daughter of plaintiff'', had had connexion with another
person of the name of Lander, and that she was not at
Wasthe
time in the service of the mother, but that the latter
only residing with the daughter for a short time, and that
the latter was perfectly independent of the former, having
entire control over her own earnings.
Mr. CROWDER applied for the rule on a former day, on the
ground of misdirection and that the evidence addued on the
trial did not warrant the conclusion that the daughter was
the servant of the mother at the time.
Mr. Mgracitm S.3trrtt was heard this morning against the
rule, showing that the mother was residing with the daugh-
ter before the seduction up to within a month of the
conthiement of her daughter, and then only going for a
short time to Plymouth, leaving her daughter ie charge of
her brother. The Learned Gentleman cited several parallel
cases, in which it was ruled that there was proof of service.
In the present case the daughter was in service when the
mother sent for her home that is hen there she opened a
school, being then under the jurisdictien and control of the
mother, and that therefore the latter was fairly entitled to
compensation fur the injury done hi the loss of service.
Mr. Ceownen replied at length, contending that there
wag rho ststi-factory proof of service--that the daughter, with
her brother, who kept a 'bey& wilco!, kept a house jointly,
and paid rent, with which the mother had nothing to do—
that the daughter had entire control over her own earn-
ings, the mother being more in the character of servant than
ettierwiee—that she lied sufficiently art ived at the period of
iii'wetion, at least if years were any test of that—and that
- aey incontinence Ott her part with the, old gentleman in
roestion, though its etret.t. might become fit subject of pro-
ceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, did not warrant the
!nether to compensation at common law. With regard to de-
bauching the plaintiff's daughter, there could not have been
many seductive wiles employed, as it appeared from her evi-
dence she consented to connexion when asked to do so, and that
the defendant was in the habit of entering her bed-room by
a ladder at night, and that she was in the habit of returning
thn compliment by the aid of a ladder. Whether she
itaail the ladder or not did not appear. He concluded by
askfiag the Court to make the rule absolute.
The Count said that the practice of the law had always
to admit proof of service in actions for seduction, even
rnes the evidence was not of the moat conclusive character.
Zo tj)lfteetit caas their Lordships were of opinion, looking
thaVeerrias had bleb made crat, and. by it