The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-19 00:00:00

CASE OF AFFILIATION.

Mr. Lziton, an extensive flannel manufacturer at Welsh-
pool, in Montgomeryshire, appeared at Union-hall, at the
instance of the parish officers of Lambeth, for the purpose
of having an order of affiliation made upon him for the
maintenance of an illegitimate child. The investigation
lasted a considerable time, and possessed a great deal of in-
terest, owing to the parties moving in a respectable sphere
of life, the relatives of the female carrying on business in
the same town as the defendant.
Mr. CLAnicsoN attended on behalf of the defendant to
oppose the order. _ _ _

The complainant, a genteel-looking young woman, on
seeing the defendant in the office, immediately swooned
away, and when she was sufficiently recovered, on being
sworn, she stated that he was the father of her child, which
was born on the 22d of last March, in the parish of Lam-
beth. She also added that she had recently applied to the
officers of Lambeth for parochial relief for the child, the
defendant having refused to maintain it himself.
In her cross-examination by Mr. CLARKSON, she stated
that she became acquainted with the defendant about nine
yeers ago, at the Welshpool, where both their families were
at the time residing ; had not seen him from that period
until during the last summer, when he called at her father's
house, in the month of June, 1833. On the 21st of the
same month, the intercourse which led to the birth of the
child first took place between them ; it was in a room-called
the sitting-room, which was over the parlour ; her father
was at hqme at the time and in bed, but she could not say
in what part of the house her mother and sisters were when
it occurred ; while in the room with the defendant she was
called to go to bed, but she did not then go ; she was
treated with considerable violence by the defendant on the
occasion, who threw her down on the ground and effected
his object over her by his superior strength, she having re-
sisted the attack as long as she was able.
Mr. Cr.mocsoN--While the defendant was in the act of
committing such violence as you describe, did you call out
or give any alarm to the family ?—No, I begged and en-
treated of him to desist, but it was all in vain ; I did not
mention what had happened to any of my family, fearful of
the consequences ; he came again on the 25th of the same
month, and treated her with even greater violence than at
first, for in throwing her down her eye struck against the
corner of a chair, and the blow was so severe that it
_ _

blackened it all over ; it did not occur to her to cry out on
this occasion either, fearful of a discovery.
Mr. CLARKSON-If the defendant acted in the manner
you have described a second time, and without your con-
sent, why not have called for assistance to protect you from
such brutal treatment ?—She was afraid, she said, to give
the alarm, and in the course of the struggle which took
place between them she became senseless, and when she
recovered she told him that he had ruined her for ever, and
that he might as well have taken her life ; on the second
occasion she made a noise, which she believed must have
been heard'by.her sisters in the parlour. She knew a Mr.
Strad, an architect of Ludlow, and a Mr. Brown, who was
head gardener to Lord Deere, but neither of the two persons
mentioned had taken improper liberties with her ; had
not accompanied either of those • persons to Ludlow
Races, and remained away from home three days and three
nights. She was also acquainted with a Mr. Hay for and a Mr.
Till, the latter of whom was the brother of her sister-in-,
law, and the only intimacy between them was his kissing
her at parting ; she would not undertake to swear that she
had not been upwards of fifty times kissed by Mr. Strad ;
defendant had promised her marriage, and it was not until
he slighted her that she complained ; the promise of mar-
riage was made to her on her way to Shrewsbury races,
previously to her having been treated in the manner de-
scribed, and when the question was put to her first, she de-
clined it, saying that he must not think of it ; she commu-
nicated the defendant's offer of marriage to her sisters, sub-
sequently to the first interview between her and the defen-
dant ; she abhorred and detested the sight of him after
their first intercourse.

Mr. CLARKSON—And yet it appears that you invited
him up stairs a second time ?—I asked him up stairs
through fear, not thinking that he would attempt the like
again ; the door to the room in which they were had no
lock to it, so that any person could have walked in without
hindrance.

Mr. C LARIPON—You have stated that you abhorred the
sight of the defendant after the first timee he had treated
you so shamefully, and yet you admit now that you invited
him up stairs a second time to the same apartment, where
you describe he effected your ruin against your consent ?
She asked him up the second time, not thinking that he
would have behaved in such a manner. In reply to further
questions, she adhered to her former statement relative to
the defendant being the father of her child. A letter was
here produced, written by herself to the defendant subse-
quently to_tha nersex in which. sbe
as to any impropriety of conduct towards her on his part.
A Mr. Hill, of York-street, Lambeth, stated, that the
female just examined had communicated the circumstances
to hintin the month of September, and he waited on the
defendant the same month, for the purpose of asking him
what his intentions were towards her ; and he said he meant
nothing but what was honourable, adding, that if there was
any person he was fonder of than another it was her.
Witness afterwards heard the defendant say, that when a
person had once effected a criminal intercourse with a fe-
male, it was seldom that person entered ni:in a matrimonial
alliance with the same party.
The above being the whole of the evidence adduced,
Mr. CLARKsoN trusted that the magistrates would not
make an order on his client for the maintenance of a child,
for to whom it belonged was a matter of great doubt. Be-
sides, the female had made so many palpable contradictions
in her cross-examination, that it was almost impossible to
believe her—for instance, her statement, that she had been
ravished on two different occasions by the defendant was
without the slightest foundation ; and other portions of it

were equally destitute of truth.
On the part of the parish, the Vestry Clerk contended,
that the defendant was chargeable for the child's support.
The Magistrates, however, refused to make any order on
the defendant, who was then discharged.