The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-20 00:00:00

JULY 20, 18582

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—CAMBRIDGE, July 19.
(Befure Lord Chief Justice Campbell.)
LAWS V. TUCK.

Mr. Power and Mr Couce were -c for' the
plaintiff ; Mr. O'Malley represented the .defendant.
This was an action in which the plaintiff, a pub-
lican at Ely, sought to- recover compensation from
the defendant, a butcher and a married nian, re-
sidingnear, for the seduction of his daughter Jane..
The defendant pleaded Not Guilty
The principal witness for the plaintiff was a
young and interesting girl, -now only 19 years of
age.' Two Sears ao she was called upon, iu conse-
quence of her mother's illness, to take upon herself
the management of her father's business and house-
hold, which consisted of one female servant and
one male, Matthew Bates, by name, but called
"John Ostler" for shortness, youth aced 19.
From the testimony of Miss Laws and t'that of
several women who from:lime to time lived in the
house it appeared, that the plaintiff was absent on
his little farm almost all day, and the defendant
waaeoustantly in the habit of going to the house.
About the time when Mrs. Laws was taken ill he
began to take liberties with Jane, which grew from
one thing to another till he accomplished her ruin
one evening in July, 1857, when he intercepted her.
on her way to see her- grandmother. The Con--
nexion thus estaidiehed was kept secret, and was
carried on from time to time tiil, on the morning
of the 26th of __April in this year, the poor girl
suddenly gave birth to a child and told her be-
wildere I father—her mother being then dead—
that his friend Mr. Tuck was the guilty father. On
the following day the defer:a:li t wrote a letter to
the plain-WI soliciting an int rview, in order that he
might clear up a report regarding him. The
plaintiff was too affected to inter into any dis-
cussion with the defendant_ at that time, but
further inquiry satisfying him that the state-
ment of his ruined daughter was correct he
brought this actiore Miss Laws, when cross-ex-
amined, emphatirally deniedthat any other man had
ever takes liberties with her. On the part of the
defendant he himself denied that he had ever had
connexion with the datLatter of the plaintiff, though
he admitted that he had often taken certain libartit a
with her in the hou e, the cuctoin of which was
somewhat loose accarding to his statement=' for be
alleged, through certain wan, s=e3, that Bates was
much mote familiar wi h his you-g mistress than
the defendant, and that others had taken liberties
with he.. Into all. the details of this part of the
c as we may be excused from
.entsiring, but in jus-
tice to M ss Laws and to Bates, we are hound to
add that at the conclusion of the defendant's case
Bates was ca'lel by the plaintiff, and denied on
his oath that he ha'l ever witnessed any impro-
priety on the part of his young mistress, or that
t=he had in, the rem 'test decree transgressed the
bounds of decorum with himself or any other
person.
Lord Campbell, in summing up the case, left it-
to the jury as one in which their verdict must de-
pend upon the questi'tn whether they would believe
the evicbmc) of the plaintiff's daughter or that of
the defendant, who had given h s evidence in the
111031.• U1,1b0:o ring way, ant, according to his own
account, hal conducted !liras if toiyards the plain-
tiff's daughter in a manner w. hie) reflected little
credit on the m n-ale of the city of Ely.
The jury found a verdict for thJ plaintiff, with
1501. damages.
'MD

an interpreter, with instructions to acquaint the
prisoner twith the nature of the charge in his own
latignige. Afterwards I took the prisoner to• the
station-house, and found in his pocket the card I
now produce.
Mr. Mullens—lt is a pass cArd granted in the
year 1859 to thd merchant Otto Frederick Homeyer
to, travel in Prussia.
joseph Rantor---'-I act as interpreter at the St.
Katharine's-wharf for the NaVigation Company.
On Saturday last I saw Jarvis ald the prisoner to-
gether there, and, in consequence of what Jarvis
said to me, I told the prisoner that he was charged
with forging and making two false bills of lading.
He said yes, he did make the bids, but he hoped
the officer would not do him any harm. He said he
had a wife and six children, and that he paid his
debts with -the money.: He said at first that his
namo was Nieumann, and that he hail come from
OStend, but at the station he gave his right name.
Cross-examinel by Mr. Beard—l told the pri-
soner that Jarvia was a police-officer before I asked
him any questions.
Mr. Mullens—This.is all the evidence I intend to
produce now, but it is necessary there should be a
remand, as the particular b'll of lading upon which
I intend to found the charge of forgery is at present
in the possession of Mr. Tiedemann's clerk, who is
in Prussia, and who will very shortly•returnio
England. I must therefore ask your lordship to
remand the prisoner for a week.
Mr. Beard—l submit to your lordship that there
is no case made out upon which the-prisoner ought
-to be detained, since the forgery, if there be one,
was committed in Prussia, and actually upon the
Berlin Discount Company.
Mr. Mullens—l chargettherprisoner with being
guilty of forging a bill of lading iu Prussia, it is
true, but with uttering that forged bill of lading in
this country, through the postman in Newcastle;
who acted as his agent.
Mr. Beard—Does your lordship hold that to be
sufficient to give you jurisdiction ?
The Lord Mayor—Most undoubtedly. The ut-
tering, at all events, is complete as regards this
country.
The prisoner was then remandel

WORSHIP-STREET. —Johann Friedrich
Herold, a German, 30, was charged with an abo-
minable assault upon a young woman named
Henrietta Morphevr.
The sabltance of the evidence of the complainant,
a modest and delicate-looking girl of 17 or 18, who
fainted the moment she caught sight of the pri-
soner, and was obliged, upon recovering, to be
seated throughout the examination, was, that the
prisoner, who had only just come to this .country,
and was almost entirely ignorant of the language,
took furnished apartments in her father's house
about a fo, tnight ago, and returned home on
Sunday evening while she was preparing tea in
the kitchen for a young fr.end who was to call
upon her and keep her company while her father
and mother were out.. While so, engaged the pri
saner, -who had no business wh ttever there,
denly entred the room, and, without saying a word
biller, placed bis arm round her waist, kissed ber,
iii opposition to her wishe?, and forcibly Thing her
down. She straggled wi!h him as vi lently as
she could, and releasei herself from his 'grasp,
but lie again caught her, hell her head and face
Ic4,neath his arm to prevent her cries being heard,
and so compressed her heal that the b c .me per-
fectly senseless, and so remained for a long time,
and being. re toned to consciousness found .herself
alone, and in such a deplorable state that it is im-
possible to describe it.
An interpre'er, on b -half of the prisoner, cloady
cross-examined the prosecutrix with a view to &icit
somelhin!,l.ke ps:3ent or encouragement upon her
part, but totally failed in so doing, the young wo-
man nct on'y denying it, but denying it with au ex-
pre=sion of repugnance and terror. . .

The mother, after de,cribing the prosecutrix. as
a thoroughly mcde4t, virtuous, and wall-conduct -d
girl, stated that on returning 11,,me from a friend's
hous., in the company of her huAaind, she found
the street door open, and, not teeing 117 r daughter,
called her twice. Thu second time the girl
aus mered faintly, and on teaciiina the head of the
stars, with her clothes in a very disordered state,
she burst into tears and fell helplessly into her
arms. Thitresulted in an inquiry, which revealed
facts of such an atroci in nature that witness and
her husband immediately sent for the police and
gave the prisoner into custody.
Mr. Miller, a surgeon in the neighbourhood, and
Mr. John Mather, the divisional surgeon, both de-
posed to an examination of the prosecutrix, which
incontestibly proved to t!'em that not only had
what until litely was termed a capital offence been
committed, but under circumstances of much vio-
lence and barbarity.
The uriiiouer offered no defence, either by him-
self or the interpreter, and was remanded by Mr.
D'Eyncourt.