The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-16 00:00:00

arms," that the words "and all communication of every
description whatever."

The amendment was agreed to, and the Bill was read
a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter past
Seven o'clock, till Thursday.

_.:

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE • ' I 'NJ
• -, tt.•
HOME ClRCUlT.—Guildford, Auyust 15.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON, and
a Common Jury.)
cox V. HOW.
This action was brought by Elizabeth Cox against
George How, to recover compensation in damages from
him, in consequence of the loss of the services of her
daughter, by reason of his having sedueod her.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Charnoek were for the
plaintiff; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Bagley for tho
defendant.

Sergeant SHEE said that the plaintiff in this action
was the widow of a draper who formerly carried on bu-
siness at Newport Pagnel, in Buckinghamshire, and who
died in 1837, leaving his widow and a daughtor, Mary
Anne, the subject of the present inquiry, iu straitened
circumstances. Her daughter carried on the business
of a dressmaker, and by her exertions she contributed
materially to the support of her mother, and by their
united efforts they were enabled to maintain a position
of respectability, and, as he was instructed, the family
were respected and esteemed by their neighbours and
all who were acquainted with them. It was while
they were in this position that the daughter of the
plaintiff, in the year 1846, became acquainted,
or rather renewed an acquaintance, with the
defendant. She had, it appeared, met him some few
years before at a country ball, when he paid her some
attention, and accompanied her to her mother's house,
but no further intimacy took place at that time, and the
parties lost sight of each other until August, 1846, when
the defendant, as he had stated, met accidentally with
the plaintiff's daughter in the town of Newport Pagnel.
He dismouuted, expressed his delight at seeing her, and
stated that he had frequently thought of her, and re-
quested that ho might be allowed to renew the acquaint-
ance, and to visit her at her mother's house. The
young woman did not consent to allow him to visit her
as he requested, and he believed that the mother had
never encouraged the connexion between the parties.
The defendant was about the same age as the plaintiff's
daughter; he was, at that time, engaged as a cattle-
dealer, and he also managed a large farm for his mo-
ther; but although the connexion might, perhaps, have
been considered an eligible one, it would seem that
the plaintiff did not approve of it, and he should show
that the defendant, in point of fact, never did visit at
the mother's house, and that she discouraged his at-
tentions. The defendant, however, did prevail on the
plaintiff's daughter, by the assurance of his honourable
intention., to meet him and to walk out with him, and
she continued to do so during a period of four months,
and, unfortunately, upon one occasion, an improper in-
timacy commenced between them, the result of which
was that in February, 1848, the young woman was
delivered of a child. He would not weary—indeed he
would not disgust them by detailing the conduct of the
defendant after this period. He would rather*they
should hear from the girl herself the history of her fall,
and the heartlessness and cruelty of the conduct of the
defendant, when he had obtained his object. The conse-
quences were most disastrous to the poor girl herself;
she was ill for a considerable period, and those who had
treated her before with kindness ceased to do so, in con-
sequence of her misfortune; and when he had proved
these facts, and the jury took into consideration the
heartless conduct of the defendant, he was convinced
they would feel that it was a case in which the plaintiff
was entitled to considerable damages.
Mary Anne Cox, a rather pretty young woman, was
then examined. She deposed as follows:—I am the
daughter of the plaintiff'. I know the defendant George
How. He lives at Milton, near Newport Pagnel, in
which town I reside with my mother. I first met the
defendant at a ball at the Saracen's Head, Newport Pag-
nel, and I danced with him. This was seven or eight
years ago, and I did not see him again until the begin-
ning of September, 1846. I was going upon an errand
in the evening, and met the defendant in the street. I
am now 27 years old, and the defendant is about 30.
When I saw him on this occasion he got off his horse,
and came to me, and said he was happy to see me as
he had not seen me so long, and he wished me to meet
him on the following evening, but I rather refused him,
and we parted. He came by my mother's hede in
the following evening, and I went out to speak to
him. I did not tell my mother. I made au appoint-
silent to meet the defendant at the house of a Mrs.
Paybody, in the town, on the following Wednesday
evening, and I and the defendant went out for a walk
together. The defendant professed love for me on
several occasions, and I met him once or twice a week
in the evening, and we used to walk out together, and
for some time he behaved " very gentlemanly." I did
not tell my mother of these meetings, but she knew of
them from other people. The defendant seduced me in
March, 1847. He said he would make mo his wife.
From this time an intimacy continued until about FiX
weeks before I was confined. I first discovered that I
was in the family way in the beginning of May, and
when I informed the defendant of it he said he would
have me for a wife and would make me comfortable. A
short time before I was confined I was talking to the de-
fendant about my condition, and he asked me if I could
not " take something," to which I replied, " George, you
surely don't wish me to kill your child?" The defendant
made no other reply than that his pony was waiting and
he must be going, and he rode away. I was confined
with a girl on the 16th of February, 1848, and the child
is still alive. The defendant has never contributed one
farthing to the support of the child. At the time in
question I was living with my mother, and used to per-
form the domestic work in the house.
Cross-examined—l am a dress-maker. I swore the
child to How before the magistrates, but they refused
to make an order upon him. When I was examined
upon that occasion I swore that Mrs. Paybody had
heard the defendant make an offer of marriage, but when
she was examined she contradicted my statement. I
frequently went with the defendant so late as nine
o'clock at night, between August and February, and
sometimes it was very dark when we were out. We ge-
nerally used to walk a little way uptthe London-road.
My mother knew of these walks, and the used to talk
to me about the impropriety of doing so. I swear that
I never had a lover before. I know a Mr. Deacon. Ile
used to lodge with us many years ago, but since the
time of the ball. I never let him in at night in my night-
dress. He used to be brought home late at night occa-
sionally from the public-house by the landlord, and
sometimes the landlord's wife used to bring him home.
—(A laugh.) I will swear that I never let him in at
night in my night-dress. I know John Odell—he ;is a
farmer's son. I went with him once to Northampton
fair, and I was out one night ; but I stayed at the
house of an uncle, and tiny mother was aware of it. I
know William Nicholl--be is a farmer and dealer; he
never promised me marriage, nor did I ever pull a piece
of paper out of my pocket and ask him to sign it. I
never met him, or walked with him, or permitted him to
take liberties with me. I know Edward Alright; he is
a pig-dealer, and lives near us. I never said that " Ned
must be a fool to kiss and tell;" or that he had been
bragging about me. I know Joseph Haynes, but I
never walked with him either by day or night. I never
walked out with a man named Wykes. My mother
came one night to Mrs. Paybody's house to fetch me
home, and she went away first and I remained behind.
I know Poole's-lane, but I will swear I was never there
at three o'clock in the morning, and that William Field-
ing did not pass me in the lane at that time. I was never
out from home so late us three in the morning, and I
never went to Mrs. Paybody's and said that my mother
had locked me out. One evening I did stop at Mrs.
Pay-body's rather late, and when I got home it was be-
tween eleven and twelve o'clock, and my mother, not
expecting me,
her, and I was had gone to bed and I could not awake
obliged to go and sleep at a friend's house,
and the next morning I told Mrs. Pay body what had
occurred. This was the same night that my mother had
been to fetch me from Mrt. Paybody's.
The CHIEF BARON—Who is this Mrs. Pay body? Wit-
ness—She is the wife of a blacksmith in the town.
Cress-examination continued—l asked the defendant
to put it in writing, that he intended to marry me; but
he said he had not got any paper in his pocket, and his
word would do just as well. I asked him three or four
times to put it in writing, but he refused. I am quite
sure that I am not more than twenty-seven year, old,
and I never walked with any young man before. The
first time I met the defendant, in 1846, we walked about
the town. We did not go into a corn-field. Almost
every market day I used to go to Mrs. Payhody's to
meet the defendant. He was obliged to pass the door
in his way home from market, and he used to put up his
horse end come to see me.
Mr. CHAMBERS—HOW long, pray, did this sort of in-
timacy continue? Witness—Five or six mouths.
Mr. Joyce, a silversmith in Newport Peg uel, deposed
that he had known the plaintiff and her daughter for
twenty years, tied they always bore a respectable cha-
racter, and he never heard any imputations agaivat the
daughter.
One or two other witnesses were then examined, who
also deposed to the respectability of the plaintiff, and
this closed the case on her behalf.
Mr. CHAMBERS then addressed the jury, and ho ob-
served that he should be exceedingly sorry to say one
word to add to the distress of the plaintiff ; but he was
afraid that in the result it would be clearly made out
that she had very much to regret in the conduct of her
child. He then alluded to the form of the action, and
knewsaidi t
hwoaws otnoe
deal
l suchw it
ha character
; anait was, that a
in hiscounse
01
ph:anridol
much to be regretted that as time had gone on, and the
inconvenience of the present state of the law had be-
come so manifest, the Legislature had not put the matter
huyponwia proper
lichth e footing,party
whoand
wasestablished
reallya aggrievedtorm of actionmig ht
make a claim for damages. At present the law was
almost unintelligible. In the first place, no action of
this kind could be sustained at all, unless it was made
out that the parties stood in the relative position of
master and servant, and when this was done, feelings
and affections were allowed to enter into the matter.
The jury, however, were now called upon to say what
damage the plaintiff had sustained ; and, when all the
circumstances were considered, he apprehended they
would have very little difficulty in coming to a conclusion
that it was of the most trifling description. The young
woman, Who had been called, had positively stated that
she had never had any other lover than the defendanr.
In the first place he should submit that this was very
unlikely, but ho should positively show them that this
unhappy girl—
The CHIEF BARON here interposed, and inquired whe-
ther the Learned Counsel intended to show that ties
young woman did not stand in the position of servant?
• Mr. CHAMBERS said he could not do that.
The CHIEF BARON—Then any evidence with regard
to her conduct will be immaterial in the present activ n.
I do not see how you can escape from a verdict for 'the
present plaintiff.
Mr. CIIANBERS said he must admit that this dim, culty