The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-15 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.--(THIS DAY.)

EAGER V. GRIMWOOD.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a market
gardener at Blackheath, to recover compensation in
damages for the seduction of hie daughter by the
defendant.
Mr.. Prentice appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Hum-
phrey for the defendant.
Mr. PRENTICE stated the following as the facts of the
case :—The defendant carried on business as a potato
salesman at Greenwich, and paid his addresses to the
daughter of the plaintiff, Mary Ann Eager. His ad-
dresses were accepted ; he was treated at the house of
the plaintiff as the future husband of his daughter,
and numerous visits were paid between the parties.
Upon one of these occasions the defendant effected
the ruin of the plaintiff's daughter; from that
time the visits of the defendant became less
frequent than formerly, and in the course of
a few months the plaintiff's daughter was delivered of a
child in her father's house; the child died, and the young
woman was indicted for the murder of her infant, and
tried at the Old Bailey and acquitted. Repeated appli-
cations had been made to the defendant for some assist-
ance, but be bad refused to render any, even upon the
trial at the Old Bailey, and had it not been for the kindness
of some of her friends, the young woman would not have
had the assistance of counsel at the trial. The Learned
Counsel concluded an impassioned appeal to the jury,
by calling the following. witnesses:—
Mr. Claxton, who said that the sister-in-law of the
plaintiff had often seen the defendant at the house of the
plaintiff, and upon these occasions he always treated her
niece with kindness.

Cross-examined by Mr. HumrintEy—Her niece was
confined on the 26th of June, 1845, she was tried on
the 18th of August upon the indictment for the murder.
Mary Ann Eager, examined by Mr. PRENTICE—I
became first acquainted with the defendant about Ja-
nuary, 1844, by walking upon the hill. I never went
to the shop of the defendant for my father. The de-
fendant made a promise of marriage to me soon after
I became acquainted with him. Defendant often came
to my father's house. I frequently went to his house.
Upon these occasions his aunt was present. Ho paid
his addresses to me for nearly a twelvemonth. It was
in the autumn of 1844 that the defendant had connexion
with me. It was in the summer-house of my father's
garden, a day or two after Christmas-day, and upon that
occasion he renewed his former promises of marriage
to me. It took place between eight and nine o'clock
in the evening. Defendant came to see me after it took
place, but not as frequently as before. lie ceased to
visit me about three months after the time of our con-
nexion. He has not given me any money to pay my
expenses. I was ill for some time after my confinement.
I was in Newgate for about a month.
Cross examined by Mr. HUMPHREY—I am twenty
years of age next birth-day. I never kept company
with anybody else. I knew a young man of the name
of James. Ido not know his other name. I knew him
for three months. We walked out together twice. I
was then sixteen years of age. I knew him by his
bringing meal to my father's house. I had connexion
three or four times with the defendant after the first
time in the summer-house.

By a juror—l never told the defendant that I was in
the family-way.
Mrs. Winter tated that she had attended at the house
of the defendant, had done washing, and had also lodged
the children during the time of the illness of his
daughter.
Mr. Hatch, surgeon, was called, who said that he
attended Mary Ann Eng( r after her confinement. He
saw the child ; it was dead when he saw it. In his
opinion it was a fully-grown child.
By the LORD CHIEF BARON—I am not aware of any
indication by which I can judge whether the child was a
six or seven months' one.

By Mr. PRENTICE—It certainly was not a six months'
child.

Cross-examined by Mr. lIIINPHREY-It was a full-
grown child.

The LORD CHIEF BARON—Then there is an end to the
case.

Mr. PRENTICE—I apprehend, my Lord, that it is not.
The action is not only against the defendant as father of
the child, but for having seduced the daughter of the
plaintiff.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—I think an action cannot

lie except it can be proved that the plaintiff has suf-
fered damage by the loss of the services of the seduced
party.
Mr. HUMPHREY then addressed the jury on the part
of the defendant, and contended that there was no evi-
dence against the defendant. The medical adviser had
stated positively that the child was not a six months'
one. The witness herself stated that the connexion took
place about Christmas-day. She was confined upon the
26th of June. The defendant could not, therefore, be
the father of the child.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—There is no evidence at all
to go to the jury; the question which the jury would
have to decide was, whether the defendant was the father
of the child.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

RICHARDSON V. CARMICHAEL.
In this case Mr. Wordsworth appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Martin and Mr. rhipson for the defendant.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 23L
16s. 6d., being the amount due for maps, books, and
stationery, supplied for the use of the Boulogne-sur-Mer
and St. Omer Railway.
The plaintiff was a bookseller and stationer, carrying
on business in Cornhill ; the defendant, Sir James Car-
michael, Bart., was one of the promoters, and also a
director of the company.
Witnesses were called top rove the attendance of the
and
e d defendanteli
v e rayt the various
o ods rne etitui
en
sgtsi
000 f. tlhte
acpopme
apraendy,
'upon
crhoss-exami nation g of some of the witnesses, that some of
the goods were supplied prior to the time of the de-
fendant's connexion with the company, and his being
registered as such.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that there was no
doubt but that the defendant knew of the delivery of
the goods in question, they being used at the meetings
of the company. Those, however, which were delivered
previous to the registration of the defendant as a direc-
tor or promoter, he could not be held liable for.
The jury therefore returned a verdict for plaintiff—
Damages 15/.
g
Leave
was iven to the defendant to move to
nonsuit, if the Co enter a
urt should be of opinion that there
was no evidence tc'
the defendant. go to the jury to fix the liability of

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
Henry Eteen pleaded guilty to a burglary in the house
of John Sari, and was sentenced to ten years' transpor-
tation.

John Slayter pleaded guilty to forging an order for
the payment of 31., with intent to defraud James Corss,
and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.
Timothy Heeley, who had been ont on bail, surrendered
to take his trial for a violent assault on his wife, on the
22d of October.
Ann Heeley stated that since 1833 she had kept the
Red Lion, in Fleet-lane, and that in March last she
married the defendant, being then a widow, and possessed
of 1,3004 or 1,1001., but had ever since been treated with
great brutality, and was in fear of her life. On the day
in question her husband had been out with a person
named Kendall, then in his employment, and on his re-
turn dashed her to the ground with great force, turned
her out of the bar, and installed the woman who came
back with him in her place.
The witness was subjected to a long cross-examina.
tion by Mr. CLARKSON.
Thomas Fuller, a brother of the prosecutrix, stated,
that as he was getting into bed on the night of the 21st
of October, he heard his sister's voice crying out for
assistance. On going dawn stairs, he found her lying