The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-09 00:00:00

SEDUCTION.--TIMIUILY V. BRYANT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover compensation in damages for the loss of the ser-
vices of his daughter•in-law, Caroline Floyd, occa-
sioned by the seduction of the defendant.
➢ir. Crowder, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Atherton),
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Humfrey, Q.C. (with
whom was Mr. Lush), conducted the case for the
defendant.

Mr. CROWDER stated the case, from which it ap-
peared that the defendant, who holds a situation in
the Treasury-office of the Temple, formed an inti-
macy with the young woman, Caroline Floyd, which
resulted in her giving birth to a child. It would be
insinuated (the Learned Gentleman said) that the
defendant was not the father of the child ; but he
would satisfy the Court and the jury that the defence
could not be supported. The Learned Gentleman
then called

Caroline Floyd, who deposed that she was the
daughter of the plaintiff's wife by a former husband,
and that she is now 22 years of age, and ever since
the. plaintiff's marriage with her mother-in-law, 19
years ago, she lived with them. Plaintiff was for-
merly a horsekeeper at the George Inn, Fulham, but
lives at present near Parson's-green. Witness's
mother is a laundress, and she (witness) attended to
the house for her. The defendant is a clerk in the
Treasury of the Temple, and first became known to
witness in February, 1846. She since kept up an
acquaintance with him, and was employed by him in
March of that year, to make him a set of shirts. She
made the shirts at home, Bryant came to see her
nearly every night during the time she was making
them. Her mother was sometimes at home on the
occasions of his visits. Witness became intimate with
him, and in November of the same year discovered she
was in the family way, and in December she communi-
' cated heritnpressions to him. He asked her if she knew
a Mr. Howard and a Mr. Ford. She answered, she
iciiew the former, but not the latter, but had not
known Mr. Howard since she knew him (the de-
fendant). Witness went to defendant on many
occasions after this, until the month of March last.
He said, in December, he would allow her half a
crown a week when the child was born, but she said
tet
she would not take it unless he would give it to her
from the time she was in the family way. His an-
swer was, that he would allow her as much as the
parish would, and that she might have it weekly,
monthly, or quarterly. He further said that he could
givewould cost him three guineas ; and that after her
confinement
out to service, and put the
child
defendant told
her in the month of December that " she had better give
the little devil prussic acid." This was when she was
asking Um to keep her while she was in her confine-
he
outr a
to letter
sheue nurse.
could
n
t h e
go
Upon L
one
occasion defendant
and that
confine-
ment. Defendant, in presence of witness's mother,
said he could not afford to keep her, but that he would
do whatever the law "'lowed. Witness, in April of
the last year, was delivered of a male child, of which
the defendant was the father. She had been unable
to do any work. since the September previous to the
birth of the child, being too ill in consequence of her
pregnancy. The baby-linen
was bought for her by
her father and mother. She had medical attendance
for some time prior to her confinement; and her
mother, in consequence of her (witness's)) state, was
obliged to obtain and pay for assistance in her place
for five weeks, at the rate of 7s. Gd. a week ; and to
another young woman she was obliged to pay as. per
week, for twelve weeks, to assist her. Her father paid
the expenses of her confinement.
Cross-examined—She
-as neither brother nor
sister. The defendant was not the first man who
had illicit intercourse with her. Mr. Howard, as-
sistant to Mr. Rouse, the surgeon, by whom she was
attended, was for three years in habits of improper
intercourse with her in that way
; but their intimacy,
had ceased for six months before she became ac-
quainted with the defendant. She went before a
magistrate in June, last to swear the child against
the defendant. Die magistrate heard all the de-
fendant's counsel and attorney chose to advance
against her, but not the whole of what she had to
state. When she was before the magistrate she said
she had not known Mr. Howard since she had been
acquainted with the defendant ; but she did not say
that she never had illicit intercourse with him.
She did not see Mr. Howard to-day in the court,
but met him at Hammersmith, when on her way
to court. Her mother did not know that she
was improperly intimate with Mr. Howard until
now. Her application at the blammerstnith Police-
court was dismissed. What she had said at that
court was, that she had not had any illicit intercourse
with Mr. 'Toward since she knew the defendant. The
attorney whom her father employed to conduct her
case, asked her if she had d any familiar intercourse
with Mr. Howard, and she informed him she had not.
She had seen that gentleman about the court this
morning, but had not seen him since he left Mr.
Rouse's until the present occasion. He attended her
baby when he was ill, as the assistant of Mr. Rouse.
The latter gentleman attended her in her confinement,
and when she was laid up Mr. Howard attended her
when Mr. Rouse could not come. She had been
told Mr. Howard was brought to the court by the
defendant as a witness against her. She had seen
Mr. Howard from time to time, for two months, after
her confinement, but he had not been to see her since
his professional attendance ceased. Mr. Howard was
her "first love." She had not y
made en__
inquiries
as to where he had gone to live, notwithstanding he
was her " first love." They did not quarrel when
they parted.
Re-examined--Mr. lloward did not come there to
be a witness in her behalf. She had never told any
one that she had had improper intimacy with him
until now, when the statement was for the first time
publicly elicited from her. Defendant had counsel
and attorney at the police court, at Hammersmith ;
but witness had neither, and her case was dismissed.
She swore that she had not had any improper inter-
.ourse with'Ho ward for six months preceding her
intimacy with the defendant, nor with any other
man. Some weeks before her child was born, Mr.
Rouse had said that he woulc not attend her in her
confinement unless some other professional man was
with him at the time, because it had been rumoured
that the child had been poisoned while she was bear-
ing it, and when the confinement took place, Mr.
Howard was (*Hod is.