The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-AUG.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gonlburn.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF THOMAS BULL.
The bankrupt was a grocer and draper at Hambledon,
near Southampton. The balance-sheet commenced Sept.,
1857, with a surplus of £317. The claims of unsecured cre-
ditors are £2,189; good debts, £455; property, £1,685.
The assets, but for the inevitable depreciation by realisation
under bankruptcy, would be adequate to payment in full of all
the creditors. By far the greater portion of the expendi-
ture, both trade and personal, was vouched. This was the
certificate meeting. There was no opposition.
The official assignee said the property hal realised £1,659.
The Commissioner asked what was the cause of failure,
and was informed that the bankrupt left his home one
day, and was not heard of until a considerable time after the
adjudication had taken place. He then "turned up" at
Barb, tinder rather retnarkable circumstances, but had since
then conductel himself with great propriety, and much to
the satweel ion of his creditors.
The Commis:ioler observed, that as the bankrupt seemed
to be labouring under some mental excitement ke would not
examine him; the manner in which he had quitted his
home indicated a little aberration of intellect. He was
clearly entitled to a certificate of the second-class.
Second-class certificate grantr d accordingly.
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF CHARLES AYTON.
The bankrupt was a builder, and carried on business at
Attleborough. This was the last examination meeting.
Claims of unsecured creditors, £1,443; do. holding security,
£3lB ; good debts, J;2112 ; property held by creditors, £405.
Messrs. Lucas and Bagley appeared pro and con.
It was stated on behalf of the assignees that the bankrupt
had in May last made an assignment of his property to his
creditors, and that a short time previously he had received
for building a rectory £2,000, of which sum no account was
rendered in the balance sheet. The rectory seemed to have
been a bad job, for Ayton stated that though he only re-
ceived £2,000 it cost him £4,000.
An adjournment eine die, with protection, was ordered.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, AUG:'IO.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes and a Special Jury.)
BROWN V. BARNERD.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover
damages for the loss of the services of his daughter, by rea-
son of her seduction by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Ballintine and Mr. Russell were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. F. H. Lewis
were fur the defendant.
Sergeant Ballantine, in opening the case to the jury, said
hat the plaintiff was a person in a very respectable position
of life, who formerly kept the King's Head, in Lower-street,
Islington, and at present clzried on the same business in
Suftlilk-street, Southwark. His daughter Susan, who was
the subject of the inquiry, was about 20 years of age, and the
defendant was about 24. It appeared that Miss Brown
had acted as barmaid to her father at Islington, but at the
latter end of last year she, by his consent, was engaged in
the same capacity at the George public-house in Lambeth-
walk. The defendant carried on the business of a general
dealer opposite the George, and he used to go there fre-
quently, and paid attention to Miss Brown, and an intimacy
took place between them. This continued until the month
of December when, in consequence of some disagreement
with her mistress, the plaintiff's daughter left the George,
and went to visit her aunt, and it was just before her depar-
ture that the first improper intercourse took place with the de-
fendant, and it appeared that it was at his own house
that it happened. It appeared that the intercourse
took place only upon one occasion, and in the month
of May following the young woman was disco-
vered to be in the family-way, and upon her being
questioned about the matter she stated what had taken plied
between her and the defendant, and the latter was applied
to with a view to ascertain what he intended to do in the
matter. He, however, appeared to treat the affair very
lightly, and the plaintiff, on the result, was compelled to
bring the present action.
Susan Brown, the daughter, a good-looking young
woman, was called as a witness. She gave tier evidence in
a very modest and proper manner, and according to her
statement the defendant committed the act imputed to him
at the beginning of December last year.
The witness was subjected to a rather severe cross-exa-
mination by Sergeant Parry, who, upon the instructions
given to him, put several questions with a view to show that
she had been on terms of improper intimacy with other
young men, and also that she was d'scharged from the
George by her mistress in consequence of her talking to
much to the young men at the bar. She, however, indig-
nantly repelled the accusations that were brought against
her, and denied most positively that she had ever been inti-
mate with any other man than the defendant, or that there
was any truth in the suggestion that she had been discharged
by her mistress for improper conduct.
Mrs. Brown, the mother, deposed that it was with her and
her husband's consent that her daughter Susan went to
be barmaid at the George, and when she left they
knew that she went on a visit to her aunt. This
was in December, and witness went to fetch her home,
and when she saw her daughter, she observed that she was
very much flurried, and she kept her bed ou the following
day. They had several other daughters besides Susan, and
they were all living at home. Upon discovering that her
daughter was in the family-way, she and her husband went
est o k
et
dh e
wdheafte nhdi
sa ntntaene dt i 0 tnosl d
were. him w
He
aet had
at
fihrae pt pened,and
denied e
all
knowledge of such a person as her daughter ; but at length
he said, in a jeering tone, " Oh, Brown, Brown ; I think I
recollect seeing her at the George." He afterwards said
that he believed she had been in his room on one or two 1
occasions, but that nothing wrong took place between them.
The daughter we recalled, and she slated that the affair
with the defendant took place on the same day she went
to her aunt's.
Mr. T. Brown, the plaintiff, said that he formerly kept
the King's Head, Lower-street, Islington, and his daughter
acted as barmaid at that house until she went to the George
in Lambeth-walk. When she had been there three months
it appeared that she did not suit, and she consequently le..
and went to visit her aunt. Witness first found that she
was in the family-way in May of the present year, and he
immediately went to the defendant's house. He at first said
that he dig not know him, and had cever heard of his name
before, and knew nothing of his daughter. He subs- ruently
said, in an insulting manner, that lie recolected the name,
but that witness was quite mistaken in the matter so far as
he was concerned, and that lie had better go to Islington
and make inquiries, and he would find it all right.
James Brown, a little boy, a brother of the plaintiff's
daughter, proved that upon one occasion he was out welking
with his sister, and they passed the defendant's house, and
the defendant called them in and gave him a cake, and took

his sister upon his knee and kissed her.
Sergeant Parry having stated that he did not intend to
call any witnesses,
Sergeant Ballantine summed up the case for the plaintiff,
and he urged in indignant terms that the instructions which
had been given by the defendant to his counsel, who was, of
course, bound to act upon them, to endeavour to vilify the
character of the young woman, upon whom he had already
inflicted so deep an injury, without calling a single witness
to prove what was suggested, had materially aggravated his
case, and showed that he must be a most unmanly and un-
feeling person. He then submitted to the jury that the case
for the plaintiff had been clearly made out, and that it was
one in which they ought to give exemplary damages.
Sergeant Parry then made a very temperate and able
speech on behalf of the defendant. He said he did not
deny that under this peculiar form of action the defen-
dant was liable to pay damages to the plaintiff in conse-
quence of what had taken place between him and his
daughter, and the only question for the jury was what
amount of damages they ought to award under the circum-
stances. His learned friend had need a good many strong
epithets towards the defendant, and bad. said anything that
he considered likely to influence the minds of the jury and
induce them to give heavy damages. All he could say in
reply was that if they did give extravagant damages, it
would not only be the ruin of the defendant, but the effect
would be that the plaintiff would not get a farthing. He
bad never attempted to di pute the liability of the defendant,
but although, where matters of this sort occurred between
a man and woman, the former was held to be legally respon-
sible, he said he was sure tbat the jury would agree with
him that in the case cif a connection between a young
woman sf 20 and a young man of 24, the seduction, as it
was called, was not always on one side only, but both
parties were frequently equally to blame in the transaction.
In conclusion he said that the July ought to look at all the
circumstances us men of the world and common sense, and
having sots and daughters of their own, and lie said he felt
satisfied that if they did so they would see that the justice of
the case would be amply satisfied by a moderate amount of
damages.
The learned Judge having summed up, the jury after a
short deliberation returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages, £l5O.