The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-29 00:00:00

CENTRAL C.

U.RT.—Oct. 28.

OLD COURT.
John Ames, 30, an ill-looking man, wearing a
smock frock, was charged with misdemeanour, in
having unlawfully taken Lucy Parton Nieholl, an
unmarried girl, under 16 years of age, from the
custody of her father, without his consent.
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Thompson conducted the
prosecution, on behalf of the Association for the

Protection of Women. Mr. Cooper was counsel

for the defendant.

The learned counsel for the prosecution, on
opening the case to the jury, read to them the sec-
tion of the statute under which the indictment was

inferred, and the following evidence was then

adduced.

Lucy Parton Nicholl said—l live with my father
and mother at the Elgin Arms, Notting-hill. I
was 15 years old last January. lam unmarried.
I know the prisoner. He was formerly in my
father's service as potman, and left in February last.
In July last the prisoner talked to me in a familiar
manner for the first time. He wished me to leave

my home, and said if I would have him and marry
him he would leave his own wife and marry
me. There had been nothing improper between us
then. I told him I did not wish to leave home.
About this time an improper intimacy occurred
between us. It first took place in a plantation near
my father's house. Nothing more of this kind oc-
curred between the months of July and September,
but the prisoner frequently came to my father's
house. On the 9th of September the prisoner asked
me to go away with him, and I said I would not.
He replied, " Very well," and gave me some beer.
Shortly afterwards I went out for a walk, and as I
was going home the prisoner came up to me and
asked me to walk across the fields with him. I re-
fused, and he said that I must go. I became very
giddy, and when I recovered I found the prisoner
was taking me across Wormwood Scrubbs. I had not
drunk anything except the beer the prisoner gave me.
I asked the prisoner if he was not going to take me
home again, and he said he was not, and I must
go along withlim. He then took me to Mrs. Rose's,
at Fulham. I went into the house, and he asked
Mrs. Rose what she thought of me, and she made
no reply but laughed. Mrs. Rose and the pri-
soner appeared to be friends. He then had supper,
and I sat up until one o'clock in the morning, and
Mrs. Rose then said she would not let the pri-

soner take me away as she knew what a character
he was, and I slept in her house with two young
women. On the following morning I saw the pri-
soner, and he asked me to go out for a walk with
him, and I did so. We went down_ by a piece of
water called the Creek. (The witness here detailed
some facts which are unfit for publication.) I re-
turned with the prisoner to Mrs. Rose's and. stayed
there all day, and in the evening I and the pri-
soner and Mrs. Rose, and a young woman went out
together. We met Mrs. Rose's husband, and we all
had some gin; and I then went back to Mrs. Rose's,
when I became sick and unwell, and went into the
garden, and the prisoner followed me, and took
me into the field; and he said if I attempted to get
away he would stab me. I slept again with the
two girls on this night at Mrs. Rose's. On the
following morning the prisoner asked me to go out
with him, and I did so, and we returned to Mrs.
Rose's to breakfast. In the afternoon the prisoner
took me away with him to Brentford. I asked him
if he was not going to take me home, and he said,
" No." We had some tea at the house of a person
who he said was his nephew, and then he took me
into the fields. He gave me -some beer before we
started, and when we got into the fields I went to
sleep. We remained all night, and in the morning
the prisoner said he must go and get smile money,
and he told me to wait for him, and I said I would
not, and he replied that if I did not he would stab
Ine. He got some beer from a public house, and
I drank it and went to sleep, and the prisoner
left me and returned about two o'clock the

next day, and he then told me that if I would
not tell anyone what had taken place, and say
that I had gone away of my own accord, he
would take me home. I refused to do so, and
he then said that if he took me home and they
took him to the police-station, I was to be sure
not to say anything against him, and he said if I
did not promise him this he would stab me, and
then lie would drown me. In consequence of this
threat I promised not to say anything against him
and he took me home. I had nothing to eat all
that day.
Cross-examined—At one time I was locked up in
my bedroom in order to prevent me from running i
after the prisoner, I was locked up for three days.
I did not say to a woman employed about the house
that it was dull to be locked up, and as soon as I
got out I would be off with the prisoner. I swear
that I never followed the prisoner in the brickfield
when he was at work. When I drank the beer in
the morning we went away together. I was thirsty.
(A laugh.) No one in the house knew I was going
away. I told them that I was going out for a walk.
I did not tell the prisoner to go a little distance and
I would follow him. I never asked him to take
me away. He was aware that I was locked up, be-
cause he saw me at the window. Every one in the
house knew that I was locked up. Xdo not know
exactly how I came to go away, because .I became
insensible, and when I. came to myself I found the
prisoner had hold of my hand. 1 could not get
away from Mrs. Rose's house because she locked
me up. I did say at the police-station that I went
away from my father's of my own free-will, and
the reason was that the prisoner told me to say so.
Upon my saying this the prisoner was set at
liberty. A week after this I told a different story,
and said that I had not gone away of my own free-
will.

Mr. Robert Nicholl, the father of the last wi
nese, deposed that his :daughter was fifteen years
old last January. In September she was living
with him, and the family missed her on the 9th of
that month. She left him on the following Sunday.
The prisoner . had been in his service, and was a
married man, and he had no idea that there was
any improper intimacy between him and his
daughter.
Mrs. M.* Nicholls, the wife of the last wit-
ness, gave similar evidence as to the age of her
daughter. On the Sunday she returned home the
prisoner came to her house about 11 o'clock in the
morning,' and she asked him if he had seen her
daughter, and he said he had not. She pressed him,
and begged him to tell her the truth, and he then
said he would fetch her if she promised not to do
anything to her or ill-use her. Witness was afraid
he would not come back, and she asked him to
allow some one to go with him, and he refused, and
said that if witness would not promise not to ill-use
her daughter or send any one to watch him he
would not allow her to come back, and witness
should never see her again. Witness then said,
" I promise you all that, only bring me back, my
child." He went away and came back with her
daughter about half-past 3 or 4 o'clock in the after-
noon. In July she locked her daughter in her bed-
room for three days, in consequence of hearing that
she had been seen talking to the prisoner, which
witness had stictly prohibited. This was the only
familiarity she had ever known to take place be-
tween them.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Cooper said that unless his lordship should
be of opinion that there was evidence that the girl
went away with her own consent, and that this
would affect the case in point of law, he did not see
that he had any materials for a defence.
Mr. Justice Erle said that it appeared to him
that the consent of the girl was totally immaterial
in such a charge as this. If she went out for a
walk intending to return, and the prisoner met
her, and induced her to go away with him, that
would, in his opinion, constitute the offence. He
added that the law evidently contemplated that a
girl of such a tender age could not, and, indeed,
was not competent, to give her consent in such a
transaction, and that it was intended to protect
parents from such proceedings.
The
.jury then returned a verdict of guilty.
His Lordship, in passing sentence, said that un-
fortunately for public justice, the offence of which
the prisoner had been convicted was only classed
as a misdemeanour, and he could only, therefore,
pass h
ima,w
sentencea was totally
that
inadequate
offence,
to which,
the crime.
a s i
appeared
to He
had taken advantage of his position to corrupt the
mind of this unfortunate girl, atid had entirely
destroyed her, and he could not help regarding his
crime as of the most atrocious kind. He could,
however, only pass the sentence fixed by the law,
which was, that he be kept to hard labour for two
years.

THIRD COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
James List, 36, 'labourer, and William Saville,
30, labourer, were indicted for feloniously
breaking and entering the church of St. George,
Stratford, any stealing therein a copper coffin, the
property of Jabez Legg and others.
The jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a
verdict of Guilty,
The prisoner Saville, who became very violent
upon hearing the verdict, said that List had been
bribed to tell the lies he had against him.
It was then shown that Saville had been before
convicted, -
Mr. Robinson said that List had all through the
matter told the truth withmit any promise being
made to him, and had he not pleaded guilty, he
should have abstained from offering evidence, in
order to use his evidence. There was another
indictment for stealing the leaden coffin placed in
the same vault in 1850 ; that was taken a week
after the copper one.
The Common Sergeant, in passing sentence, said