The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-16 00:00:00

ACTON V. WOODCATE.

In this case a question arose for the consideration of the
Court of some nicety and importance, as to the power of
a settler to make a voluntary deed in favour of creditors,
and afterwards to alter or revoke it. In 1831, a
gentleman of the name of Woodgate executed a deed for
the benefit of Messrs. Currie and Woodgate, to whom he
was largely indebted, by which he conveyed his real estate
to them in trust, to permit him to receive a certain allow-
ance, and then in favour of his other creditors, at the date
of the deed. It seemed, however, that besides the credi-
tors comprised in this indenture, Mr. Woodgate was in-
debted to a variety of other persons upon annuity, as
well as upon various post obit bonds, which he
had granted, and which were payable after his death.
As far as related to the arrears of the annuities at the time
of its execution, provision was made in the deed for their
payment; but in respect of all subsequently accruing pay-
ments there was no declaration of trust at all. In as
much, however, as they might be considered creditors,
though not then payable, it was considered prudent that,
in order to obviate the doubts which arose as to the rights
of the claimants by annuity and on post obit securities, to
avail themselves of the provisions of that indenture in the
creditors, the parties should enter into a new arrange-
ment. In August, 1833, accordingly, another deed was
executed, by which those two classes of creditors were
expressly excluded from all benefit under the trusts of the
original instrument. The point now in question as to the
power of the parties to the first det d, after its execution to
modify or revoke it, arose on an objection being urged, that
there were certain persons interested in the original deed,
who were not parties to the present suit brought by creditors
under the second deed, and the Court deeming it impor-
tant in principle to have the authorities looked into on the
subject, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Sidebottom, Mr. Tinney,
and Mr. Wigram, conducted the arguments this morning
at considerable length.
His HoNotut took it to be settled, that property being
conveyed to trustees for the benefit of creditors, gave
them authority to apply the proceeds according to the
pleasure of the granter; it only amounted in the consi-
deration of the Court to the debtor giving his steward
money to pay creditors and afterwards calling him back;
so that in the present instance the first deed was clearly
to be altered or revoked according to the will or pleasure
of the parties. The usual accounts in the suit were then
directed, and the second deed established under the autho-
rity of the Court.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Chief Justice TINDAL and a Common Jury.)

ORIGSON V. FRASER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in damages for the seduction of his daughter
per quod servitium anasit.
Mr. Sergeant SPANK:IE (with whom was Mr. PLATT)
stated the case of the plaintiff to the Jury. The plaintiff
was formerly a Commander of a packet ship running be-
tween Harwich and Helvoetsluyrn, his family consisting of
six children (of whom the subject of the present action
was the eldest), residing at the former place. The de-
fendant was a Captain in the 88th Regiment of Foot, and
was stationed with his Regiment in the month of March,
1832, in the town of Harwich, where he became ac-
quainted with the daughter of the plaintiff, then only 15
years of age. Her ruin was the consequence of the ac-
quaintance, and in the month of November, 1832, she
gave birth to a child, of which the defendant was the father.
Miss Sarah G rigson, a young lady of prepossessing ap-
pearance, examined by Mr. PLATT—I am the eldest of six
children, and became acquainted with the defendant in the
autumn of the year 1831. He paid ine attentions about
February, in 1832. In February I met the defendant in
the lair, when I was walking with ano her female, and
the defendant took me round the lair, and at last to the
batteries, where he forced me into his room. There was no-
body in the room, the door of which he locked, arid put the
key in his pocket. I screamed violently, the defendant
said nobody could hear me. I sat down and cried, saying,
" I should get a severe scolding when I got home !" an
at length he opened the door and let the go. I saw him
frequently after that, but I did not speak to him until
eight or nine weeks after this occurrence. The defendant
succeeded at length in getting possession of my person in
his room at the batteries. 1 had spoken to him several
times before that and he asked me to come with him to
his room, which I did. I remained there until after 12
o'clock at night. I went there about 8 o'clock in the
evening. After this we had frequent intercourse and 1
discovered that I was pregnant about two months after-
wards. 'I he defendant mentioned my pregnancy to me
first. He said, " Sarah, I amatraid you are with child."
I said I did not think I was, on which the defendant
said if I was so be would marry me. I was delivend
of a child in November, 1832, at my mother's house
in Harwich. The defendant had then left Harwich with

hie regiment. My mother was obliged to hire a servant
in consequence of my confinement. Before my acquaint'
ance with the defendant I used to assist my mother in the
domestic concerns of the house and family. My youligefi
sister is now only six years old. Before I was confine:A
the defendant said he should wish the child to be naen"
after him. I received many letters from the defendo,;
after be left Harwich. Mr. Bayley was the medics'
gentleman who attended me during my confinement, farj
which my mother paid him three guineas. She also V',
the nurse who attended me. After my first intercourse Wib'
the defendant my mother met me by accident with bins'
My mother spoke to Mr. Fraser, and told him Ilea
young I was. He desired her not to distress herself, 0
he was on honourable terms. That was before Mr'
Fraser left Harwich. The child was affiliated to bins
about four months after the birth. It was affiliated 14
con-equence of Lieutenant Adams calling and saying Mr'
Fres r was going abroad. The parish officers have neve
allowed anything for the child.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant TALrounn—Knetf
the overseers, and would swear they have not paid me 01.
my parents any money on account of the child. My fatbe
has had a small vessel. We keep a shop at Harwich'
in the general line now. My father was away front
his family some years ago, and the overseers weal
after him. First saw Captain Fraser on a fair dnit
but did not speak to him for eight or nine months after'
wards, and it was after that he had intercourse with we'
Had spoken to him in the streets twenty or thirty tuts
before that. He used to mess in the Three Cups 100'
Had seen him in different places in the town. Had bee
a good many times at the barracks before I went to bi°
room. I know an officer named Sir William Gain-1P
but never went to his room in the barracks nor Ohio
lodgings. Once met Sir Wm. Galway in the fields, 10
he never gave me any money. Only met him once. War
present when Sir Win. Galway was examined in the
Temple, prior to his going abroad.
Mr. Sergeant SPANXIE intimated that that mode 0i
giving evidence was a very objectionable one.
His LORDSHIP thought it was open to much objection
at times ; but the Learned Sergeant, who represented
large constituency, had an opportunity of obtaining a 0
alteration of the system.
Witness_l have spoken to Captain Bridge in the street'
and never anywhere else. Was never anywhere with bins
but in the street. Never received money from him, or
had intercourse with him. Spoke to him in the Wee
before and after this affair. Had never been with him
the fields. My father is now in England, but was often
in Holland. I have been twice in Holland. He shoot°
" wild fowl" in Holland.—(A laugh.) lie gets his live'
lihood by sending wild fowl to England. Had receifei
money from Captain Fraser. Never went to any club',
house in London with my mother to demand money 0
him. When I first went to the barracks, I was goia
with another young girl, named Palmer, who
going to another officer's room "to see something.
She was seventeen or eighteen years of age, and bee
father was a fisherman. I staid outside the barracks, bet
on the ramparts, while she went in. My father has n°
vessel now.

Re.examined—Never had any connexion with Sir W'
Galway. Captain Fraser gave her money to get babl
linen with. I went out of the town of Harwich, and se'
companied him to Chatham, and he gave me money to of
the expenses.
By the Jury—Captain Fraser first took me to the
racks I believe in May, 1830.
Mts. Sarah Bell stated that she lived at Harwich for.
merly, but now in London. Lived there in 1831 and
Hs32. Had known the plaintiff's family for silted'
years. The plaintiff was in the packet service. Never
saw Miss Grigson with any gentleman; understood that
she was always a virtuous girl until her intimacy with
the defendant. The mother always conducted her fatniii
with discretion and prudence.
Cross-examined—The plaintiff was the same as s
common sailor on board a packet, but he had now beer'
two or three years in Holland. Could not tell whetber
he came backwards and forwards to his family. WI
intimate with the family, but could not say that he bs"
visited Ms family at times. Understood he took out $
license in Holland to shoot game, and he sent them over
to his wife. Never heard the name of Sir NV. Galsrli
before. Knew Captain Briggs, because witness's hosbaxid
sailed with him. Her husband was a common sailor. Her
support was derived from his wages of 15e. a week ;
four children, all of whom were supported out of that
sum. Had missed Miss Grigson for a week together, $11"
knew that she had gone to Holland. Had missed her far
a week together several times. Knew of her going t°
Holland twice. That was about three years ago. Never
knew of the family receiving relief from the pariah while
the plaintiff was absent in Holland. During witnesel
intimacy with the family, she did not recollect that the
parish ufficeis had been alter the husband, for deserting
them.

A great number of letters were then put in and read,
all of them written by the defendant, but none of them
bearing any signature.
The first was dated July 23, 1832, and addressed to
Miss Webb, at Mrs. Palmer',, New Swan, High-street,
Harwich. It excused himself from being able to visit
her, but wished to know what she wished, and he would
do all he could to comply with it.
The next was dated Chatham, Aug. 22, and addressed
as before. It excused his absence, but requested bet to
come to London, and on her arrival to take a coach, and
meet him at the Colonnade Hotel, Charles-street, Hay'
market.

The letter of the 16th October, from Rochester, 1419
addressed to Miss Gregson. [The preceding ones were
addressed to Miss Webb.] It expressed his happinegi
at her safe arrival at home, and his anxiety
for her health and comforts. He expressed by
fears that she had not purchased so many things far her''
self and child as were necessary, stating that the 101. he
had given her was solely intended for that object. He
requested her to desire her mother, from him, to pay her,
every attention and kindness, and he promised to do all
he could to the same end. He said he would pay the
doctor's bill, but wished her mother to pay it first as if on
her own account. He declared that his own room air
peared so dull in her absence that he scarcely went to le
except at bed time, and he promised to take a run down to
Harwich to visit her.

The next letter was dated the 25th of October, at
Chatham, and addressed as the previous one. He made
an excuse for not being able to get leave of absence to
visit her, expressed his regret that she had been disap-
pointed in a nurse, and stated that he felt his bed cold,
and that he was tired of sleeping alone.
The letter of the 2d November, from Chatham, ex-
pressed the defendant's hope to bear shortly of her confine
ment, and implored her to take every care of herself and
of her child.

There were several other subsequent letters, all ex-
pressing great anxiety for Miss Grigson's health, and
that of the child, (which was born in November);
stating be was glad it was a boy, particularly as
she wished it ; hoped she would Lot allow it to be
g zed at by every one who came to ber mother's
house; that in reply to her question as to what the
child's name should be, he left it to her to give him what
name she pleased, and that, as to the cow-pox, she was
to consult her mother. Most of the letters he desired
her to destroy after she had read them. In one of tho
letters he enclosed M. The last letter was dated the .tith
of March, 1832, which concluded by requesting her nOt
t) write to him until she heard again from him.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, in his address to the Jury,
said that undoubtedly his client had afforded an illustration
of the painful consequences of a deviation from the strict
ine of virtue. his client had certainly done so. but
he contended that the whole of the circumstances of the
case showed that the plaintiff was not entitled to the
damages which was claimed on his behalf. He (Mr.
Sergeant Talfourd) would not be deterred from giving
the case its proper colouring, and then he would lay a
claim to the most extensive reduction of damages.
Mr. James Golden Dore stated that he was one
of the overseers of Harwich in 1828. He knew
the plaintiff and his family. Had seen Miss Sarah
Grigson ; he had had occasion to search after the plain-
tiff, because he had granted relief to his wife on her appli-
cation, and he had deserted his family. Had relieved the
wife three or four times. Saw the plaintiff a few months
since in Harwich. He had given the wife :is. at 4 time
out of the parish funds. Knew nothing of the habits cf
the
Mr. Henry Coates was overseer of Harwich at present.
Sarah Grigson swore her child to the defendant. Wit-
ness had on that account received 401. from the defendant.
nWoittnkensosw's on
tffih ee epwl
aai
ns
tinffearers
itdhee
wT
ihtrhe e
his Cup
family
Inn, He had
in darwich
fur the last five years. Had seen Sarah Grigson, but not
f equently. H 4.4 seen her running about the towns but
DOC like a well conducted young woman,

Mr. Charles Bridge, commander of the Tourist steam-
packet, was subpsiaosed here by the defindant. Knew
Sarah Grigson. Had known her from her childhood,
but never spoke to her father. Witness was on the Got,
tenborgh station. Sarah Grigson sailed with her mi,ther
in witness's father's vessel to Hamburg. Witness had
hen very intimate with her, and had bad intercourse
with her. That intercourse had begun some time ago.
Had now been two years from Harwich, and that
intercourse was !Wore that period, First had