The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 5.
;Sittings at Nisi Prins, at 'Westminster, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and Common Juries.)
GOODRICK V. SUMMON.

In this case Mr. Sergeant C. Jones and Mr. Charnock
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and
Mr. MilwErd for the defence. _ _

Mr. Sergeant JONES, in opening the case, said that
the action was brought to recover compensation for a
breach of promise of marriage, the circumstances of
which were more than usually distressing. It would
appear that the plaintiff is a young woman about twenty-
four years old, and who, about April or May, 1850,
lived with the defendant's brother, who is a draper in
Lambeth-road, in the capacity of housekeeper. At this
period the defendant was a shopman in his brother's
establishment, but had since left that situation, and was
now'in business himself. About July, 1850, sho left the
employ of the defendant's brother, and went to reside
with the defendant, who was then living at a private
house in St. George's-road. Previous to this, however,
while living in the service of the defendant's brother,
the defendant paid her much attention, and at length,
under a promise of marriage, succeeded in seducing her.
The result of their intercourse was a child, which was
born on th© 14th of July, 1851, and which died three
days after birth.
Several witnesses were called for the plaintiff, and
among them the person at whose house the plaintiff was
living at the time of the birth of the child. Although it
was proved that the defendant had at different times
paid sums of money to the plaintiff or on her account,
none of the witnesses appeared to bo able to furnish any
very satisfactory evidence as to the promise of marriage.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Mr. Sergeant
WiLines, for the defence, submitted to the Court that
there was no case to go to the jury.
His LORDHIP, however, said that ho did not feel jus-
tified in stopping the case, although he had seldom heard
a weaker one.
Mr. Sergeant WILLING then submitted to the jury that
this was merely a speculative action on the part of the
attorney of the plaintiff, who had made the experiment
in order to put costs into his pocket, in case his client
was successful. He should be able to prove that the
plaintiff was a person of such character es to prevent
any man who entertained the least feeling of self-respect
from making her his wife. He would show that she
had offended against chastity with other men besides the
defendant, and had proof of other glaring misconduct on
her part. Moreover, she had signed a document which
he would read. It bore date, " London, August 13,
1851," and was to the following effect:—
"In consideration of sundry sums of money I have
received, and also what I have this day received, I
hereby exonerate Mungo Slimmon from all further claim,
directly or indirectly. " ANNA GOODRICK."
This, he hoped, would be sufficient to satisfy the jury
that the plaintiff had no just claim, pecuniary or other-
wise, upon the plaintiff.
Samuel George Boyd was then called. He stated,
that at Christmas last he was at the defendant's house
for about a fortnight, assisting him in his business.
Plaintiff was there at the time. He was intimate with
her, and had had intercourse with her while living in
defendant's house. This was in the kitchen. Upon one
occasion about that period she came home in a cab with
some man; sho was then in a state of intoxication.
Oa cross-examination the witness admitted that he had
occasionally been in the company of some members of
the " swell mob," conversing and drinking with them,
but denied that he was himself a swell mobsman. He
was also closely cross-examined as to the intercourse he
had had with the plaintiff, to which, however, his replies
were uncertain and unsatisfactory,
It was also proved that the handwriting of the docu-
ment relied on by the defendant was in this witness's
handwriting.
Some other witnesses were also examined on behalf of
the defendant, among whom was his sister, who stated,
in the course of her evidence, that during the pregnancy
of the plaintiff she had several conversations with her
upon the subject of her approaching confinement, and
upon other matters connected with her acquaintance
with the defendant.
At the close of the defendant's case,
The CHIEF JUSTICE observed that the defendant's
case would have been a much better one if he had called
no witnesses, but relied on the efforts of his counsel
alone.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—I trust your Lordship does
not impute to me—
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Nothing, brother, but want of
moral courage. You should have followed your own
course without reference to the wishes of your client. It
would hare been better fur him if you had been per-
mitted to do so.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—If a counsel in these days relies
on his own judgment in opposition to that of his instruc-
tors, ho is most likely the next day to be held up to pub-
lic execration in the newspapers. As, however, the hint
comes from such high authority, I will fur the future in
all cases exercise my own discretion.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, took occasion
to observe that counsel were often found fault with and