The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-07 00:00:00

him guilty of an assault if they would, but he
implored them not to find him guilty of a felony,
which would ruin his prospects in life, and deprive
his children of their bread.

Mr. Iluddleston then proceeded to address the
jury on behalf of the female prisoner, whom be des-
cribed as the victim of the seducer(Leech), when but
a child of 16 or 17 years. After the marriage the
prosecutor had still pursued her, and would not
allow her to take a respectable position in life. Ile
found her out when she was staying with her friends
in Kent, and, though it pleased him to decline to
answer the question, the jury could not for a mo-
ment doubt that he had committed the crime of
adultery wits the young woman. At that very tine
he knew she was a married woman, for he admitted
that he had addresseda letter to her in her marrir d
name, and the fact that he promised her, if she
would live with him, he would marry her in seven
years showed the same. It was all very well for
the prosecutor to enjoy the immunity of the w t-
ness-box, while the prisoner's mouth was closed in
the silence of the dock ; but the posi ion of the
prisoners was preferable to the infamy of that man.
who did not dare to deny his guilt, because there
were people in th tt house at Whitstable who could
have contradicted him. The learned counsel pro-
ceeded to contend that the male prisoner never in-
tended to murder the prosecutor, for if he had done
co he could have done it without difficulty. At the
most, his offence only amounted to unla ft.lly
wounding, as there was nothene to show that he
intended to inflict grevious bodily harm, or to do
more than give the prosecutor a good thrashing.
With respect to the female prisoner, the learned
counsel observed that the law presumed that in a
case of tris sort the wife was ac ing u .der the coer-
clot' of her husband, though th tt fact might b 3 re-
butted if she was found acting alone. He then
commented on the facts of the case, to show that
in writing the letters and in everything she did she
was acting under the authority, and even in the
eyesight of her husb Ind, and upon that ground he
contended she was entitled to acquittal Tee
learned gent', man then said that he asked nothing
from mercy, but he believed the jury would yield
nothing to prejudice; and he called upon them ,o
do justice to titter feelings as men by saying that
she was not guilty.

Mr. Baron Channell having summoned up the
evidence, the jury found loth the prisoners guilty
of cut ing and wounding with intent to di.digure and
to do grievous baddy harm, hut they added that
the female prisoner hal committed no actual vio-
lence, and that she had acted throughout under the
coercion of her husband.

His L irdship deferred passing sentence till the
morning, and said he would adwit the woman to
bail, and rt serve the point in her favour.

HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, APRIL 6.
(More Mr. Justice Williams and a Common Jury.)
BAKER V. FANCITTT.

This was an action to recover damages for a ma-
licious prosecut on.
Mr. Pearce was counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. A. H. Siuton
for the defendant.
The case was of rather a peculiar character. The
plaintiff was a young woman in a humble position
of life, a domestic servant, and she sought to re-
cover damages from the defendant for hiving
falsely accused her of perjury, under these circum-
stances :—According to her evidence she met the
(I,,fendant, who is an elderly man, married, and
living with his wife at the time in the Regent's-
park, one eveeing in the mouth of June, 1854, and
he entered into conversation with her, and, find-
ing she was out of a situation, he promised to get
her a place. After they had talked to4ether some
time he proposed that they should have some re-
freshmcut, and he took her to a public-house,
where she had a glass of wine, and he eventually
induced her to assent So accompany him to a hou-e
of ill-f tine, and the plaintiff all,iged that this was
the first time she had b ien gui ty of similar mis-
conduct. It appeared th tt ater this the defend-
ant introduced the plaintiff to his daught,T, and
reconimen fed her as a servant, and she continued
in her service for some time, and in F. b. 1855,
she was &livered of a male child. The defendant,
who, it appeared, carries on the business of a
builder at Camden-town, for some time gave the
plaint ff money ; but upon his failing to do so, she
summoned him before the magi,tra,tes at Wands•
worth, and they made an order that he should pay
half-a-crown a week for the child. He complied
with this order for several won hs, but at length he
be3atne iu arrears, and upon his being pressed for
payinenr, lie &Amu° i a summons against the plain-
tiff; calling upon her to appear before the Wands-
worth Bench to answer a charge of having com-
mitte 1 wiliul and corrupt p-irjuy on the evidence
given by her to support the order of affiliation.
This summons was dismissed by tile magistrate, and
the present action was brimght to recover damages
from the defendant for having, as was alleged,
maliciouvly pref•rred this charge against the plain-
tiff.

The plaintiff, a young woman f•f* very ordinary
appearance, wa4 examin-d, and she proved a great
many of the above fac•s, and swore po=itlvely that
it w:ts in the month of June, 1854, that she first
met the d,fendAnt, and she also stwed that after
he hLd obtained he, the situlti.m as servant to his
dau4hier he visited her, and ihe illicit intercourse
be wean them was o)nt'nuA in the daug,hter's
house.

The defend int, a man over 50 years of age, and
of scantified appearance, was called as a wine=s,
and h admitted having belt) " irapru !ent" in his
mtsexion with the pl,intiff, but ho asserted that
the intercourse first commenced in the iinonth of
September, and therefore he could have had no
right to claim paternity to the infant.
The cross-examination of tha witness caused a
great deal of laughter. He denied having given
hiniself out t ) b:, a man who went about trying to
reclaim young girl, but he admitted that it was his
practice to endeavour to induce young women he
met in the streets to leave off their evil courses and
go to some penitentiary.
Mr. Justice Williams inquired whether was
to understand that the witness was in the habit of
asking every prostitute he met to do this ?

The witness said he did not refer particularly to
prostitutes, but his observation principally applied
to girls whom na..,t without any shoes on.
Mr. Pearce (to the witness)—Theo your practice
is, if you meet a girl without any shoes on, to ac-
cost her and advise her to go to a penitentiary.
The witness s lid it was.

In answer to further questions; defendant ad-
mitted that he had continued the illicit intercourse
with the plaintiff after she was in his daughter's
service, but denied that it took place in the house
of his daughter, and said it only occurred on two
occasions, and-then she went out with him.
Another witnesi swore that the first interview
between thio defendant and the plaintiff occurred in
September, and it also appeared that the defendant
had paid 351. to settle an action for seduction that
had been b. ought against him by the plaintiff's
father.

Mr. Chambers, in summing up the defendant's
case, admitted that he had acted immorally and
improperly in regard to his contiexion with the
plaintiff, but urged that he had already bet-n suffi-
ciently puni-hed, aid that the present action was
merely an endeavour to extort more money from
him. He then called the attention of the jury to
the evidence that had beeri adduced on behalf of the
defendant, and contmde 1 that it had pt en clearly
established that he c not have been the father
of the cLiild iu question, and that there were per
fecly leg,d ground.; for the charge he-bad preferred
against t:ie plaint ff.
_

The learned Judge having summed up, the jury
after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

THE RED SEA TRANSPORT SERVICE.

At the beginning of last month the course of
the transport service on the Red Sea was inter-
rupted by an incident which brought the military
authorities; into collision with the Peninsular and
.Oriental Company. Statements of the case on bith
sides have beer; pub!istied, and considerable official
corr« sp ndence has passed on rho subject. From
that eerresponclonee the facts as they appeared to
the military officers may be briefly stated.
A det-Ichment of the 92d fligohnders, under the
command of Lim enant-Colenel Mackenzie, bad
arrived at Suez, en route for Aden and Point do
Galle, and on the Ist of March had been embarked
on hoard the Peninsular and Oriental Company's
steamer Pottinger to proceed on the voyage. The
Pottinger is also a passenger steamer, and the extent
of accommodation required on that account appears
to have lessened tLe space allotted to the troops,
and otherwise to have rendered it unavailable. An
inspection of the provisions on hoard also proved
very unsatisfactory, as the inspecting officers
declared the biscuit and, in a less degree, the pork
to be of inferior ,quality to what the troops had a
right to expect. (Jul. Mackenzie tberefere resolved
to transfer the detachment to another steamer, the
Columbian, duly •reporiieg the step taken to the
Deputy-Quartermaster-G2n oral at Alexandria.
The report states that the waist of the Pottinger
was small, filthy, and encurnb,Ted with live stock
for the passengers; that the men could be placed
there for the voyage was impossible ; this deficiency
of space, added to the inferiority of the provisions,
determined Col. Mackenzie to transfer the troops
to another vessel. _

Previous to doing so, however, he took the
opinion of the senior naval officers and Admiralty
agent on the station, Captain F. H. Stevens, as to
the condition of the Potting Er. The officers of that
vessel and some of the uon-railital y pauengerpi