The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-19 00:00:00

LEE V. NICHOLL.

This was an action fur seduc ion.
Mr. Maule appeared fur the plaintiff; and Mr. Temple,
Q.C., for the defendant.
The plaintiff, it appeared, is a widDw, re,iding at Brook-
wood-house Farm, near Halifax, and the mother of six
children, of whom the subject of the pre.,eut action was the
eldest daughter. 'She was 25 years of age, and was very
useful to her, keeping her accounts and doing all she could
in the care of the family. The defendant is a young farmer
and cattle-dealer in the same neighbourhood, who became
acquainted with tine plaintiff's daughter two years ago, and
paid his addresses to per, N isiting her frequently. Towards
the close of lastyear it was discovered that she was in the
familyway. The defendant still continued his visits and
talked of marriage, but in February last he ceased to visit
her. This change in his demeanour affected the health and
spirits of plaintiff's daughter very much. In June last she
was confined. The child only lived 48 hours, and she her-
self died four days afterwards. This action was brought by
the plaintiff to compensate her for the loss of her daughter's
vplaintiff, who appeared in deep mourning,
sheardipereo Theedtl e
for the
sefilcts,when
Mr. Temple,s defendant, consented to a verdict fur
the plaintiff for LICO.
His Lordship said that was much the best end of the case,
which was a very painful one.
Iu the course of the day it was announced that the Lord
Chief Baron will take causes to-morrow, if any can be ar-
ranged to go over ; other Nise he will not remain.
The Criminal Court to-day was occupied with the trial of
a rape case.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—A respectably-dressed, careworn-
looking, middle-aged woman, named Soden, applied to the
Lord Mayor for his advice and assistance under most dis-
tressing and pitiable circumstances. She stated that she
had for many years been married to a man by whom sbe had
had eleven children, of whom seven, varying in age from
17 to three years, were yet living. Her husband had for
some years held a respectable situation as clerk in a mer-
chant's office, and once they were happy enough together,
but recently his behaviour had changed towards her, and
about a fortnight ago he quitted her and her children,
leaving them entirely destitute. She had not herself seen
him since, but a friend of hers met him one day at
the Crystal Palace, accompanied by a woman with
whom he had formed an illicit connection, and with
whom he was now, doubtless, living. After that applicant
received a letter from him in which be told her she must
get on as well as she could for a time, as he hoped to see
her again some day and be comfortable with her again.
Owing to his desertion, she was in the deepest distress, with-
out the means of getting a tingle meal for her children—
one of whom was very ill ; and far any assistance or advice
which the Lord Mayor might be able to give her she should
be truly grateful.
The Lord Mayer said her husband must indeed be a vil-
lain if her statement were true ; and the best thing •be
could do would be to apply to the parish authorities, who
would make search after him, and find him it possible.
With regard to her immediate necessities, inquiry should
be made, and she should be relieved from the poor-box it
the result substantiated her statement.
His lordship forthwith despatched Mr. Sewell, one of the
clerks of the court, to 15, Sugar-baker's-yard, Mitre-street,
Aldgate, where the poor woman lives, to make the requisite
investigation ; and that gentleman, upon his return, re-
ported that he had found the statement of Mrs. Soden to be
in all respects but too true. Her husband had forsaken
her and left her entirely destitute; and although it was
impossible for any place to be more neat and clean, or for
children to be kept more tidy, there was not an atom of
food iu the house when he went, and one poor child, about
14 years old, was seriously ill and reduced to a skeleton
apparently from starvation, while the other six children
were wan and attenuated from the want of food. Some
bread and cheese which was sent for they eagerly
devoured, and it was perfectly clear that, unless they had
been relieved, none of them could have lived 1111101
longer. To meet pressing emergencies, he (Mr. Sewell)
bad given Mrs. Soden a "sovereign, and had also communi-
cated with the gurkaiiians of the City of London Union, who
had mot the case in the kindest manner, and had promised
to take steeps to remove the child, who was so ill, into the
count:4, that she might have the benefit of pure air, quie-
t:ude, and attention, and also to.lose no time iu looking after
Mrs. Saden's husband.
The Lord Mayor said the case was indeed a pitiable one,
as the woman, Mrs. Soden, appeared to be a most respect-
able woman, and was suffering, with her seven children,
solely from the misconduct of a brutal husband. It was to
be hoped that her sad condition would shortly improve, and
that her husband would soon be hunted up by the parish
authorities.
Thos. Tracey, a tall, powerfully-built, brutal-lookiug
fellow, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.
Robinson, police-constable 036, deposed that on Tuesday
evening he saw the prisoner in Harrow-alley, drunk and
creating a disturbance ; upon which he went up to endea-
vour to quiet him, when the prisoner struck at him with a
knife which he was flourishing in his hand, and witness had
great difficulty in escaping the blow. He did, however,
succeed in doing so, and, with the assistance of some by-
standers, wrested away the knife from the prisoner, whom
he conveyed to the station-house. The prisoner was a inost
determined ruffian. He bad once been sentenced to seven
years' transportation for breaking a man's jawbone, and
since that time he had been convicted of assaulting a police-
man. He was a complete terror to the neighbourhood in
which he lived.
A witness who assisted the policeman deposed that before
the last witness came up he saw the prisoner flourishing a
knife in his hand, and heard him say he would stick the
first policeman that came in his way.
Lord Mayor—Well, prisoner, what have you got to say
to this ?
Prisoner—Well, I had had a little drink and kicked up a
little row ; but 1 didn't mean any harm, and I hope you
won't give me much this time.
Lord Mayor—l am sorry to say I cannot give you enough,
for you are an unmitigated ruffian, anal if you had not been
prevented I daresay you would have stabbed the policeman.
Prisoner—No ; God forbid. I am sure I didn't mean that.
Lord Mayor—Why, you have been transported for sevea
years for breaking a man's jaw.
Prisoner—Yes, but that was a long while ago.
Lord Mayor—Long enough, Pm afraid, for you to have
forgotten the punishment you received. You must go to
prison for 21 days, on bread and water, for being drunk
and disorderly.
Florence 3f`Carthy, labourer, was then charged with
being drunk and disorderly, and also with stabbing John
Chubb, a City policeman, in Rose-alley, Bishopsgate-street.
The officer went up to the prisoner, who was creating a
disturbance, for the purpose of quieting him, when the pri-
soner struck at him with something bright,
but he could not
tell what. The blew was aimed at his lace,
and as he drew
back to avoid it the instrument struck his finger and cut it.
The prisoner must have thrown the weapon away before he
was secured, as it was not found upon his being searched.
epwr i snoontehri,nwg haobaodumt i
ttitieed
at
sasaatullite,
wwasas ds
ernu
tnet,c
ebdu tt
as a2i
d
heTlhme
days' imprisonment with hard labour.

WESTMINSTER.—THE RIGHT OF COLLECTING
TOLLS ONCHET sEA-BRIDGE.—George Roy, a toll-col-
lector at the Chelsea Suspension-bridge, appeared before
Mr. Poynter to an adjourned summons, charged with un-
lawfully exacting toll there.
Mr. Gilliam attended for complainant, Mr. Poole, 87,
Westbourne-street, Pimlico, and Mr. Davies, from the
Board of Works, appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Gilliam said that his client had a post-chaise by the
direction of the railway authorities of the West-end or
Pimlico terminus for the convenience of a superior class of
travellers. The Bridge Act specified " That all post-chaises
should on their return empty be free from toll," notwith-
standing which the defendant had in his capacity of collector,
exacted the sum of 2d. from Mr. Poole's driver. It would
be said, he had no doubt, that the carriage in question was
not a " post-chaise," for, according to defendant's defini-
tion of what was a " post-chaise," it could not be "unless
the man in charge of it wore breeches and top bouts, and
rode the horse." Although Mr. Poole's man did not do
this, there was no doubt but that the vehicle for which a
toll was charged was a " post-chaise." It was so considered
by the Excise, who took post-chaise duty for it.
Joseph Hayden, the driver, having proved that the de-
fendant exacted the toll,
Mr. Poole said he had stables close to the Pimlico station,
and paid post-horse duty. He did not take fares as will
done by cabs. He was told by the Excise that his was a
" post-chaise."
Cross-examined—Had no number on his carriage. None
was required. He was privileged to run from the railway.
He paid duty on the 15:11 July to enable hint to keep a
" post-chaise." There was no difference in appearance
between his and a private carriage. Did not ply as a cabman
without paying for a cabman's license. Did not stand on
the rank for hire like a cab.
By Mr. Paynter—Pays 17s. Gd. per quarter duty to
the Excise. Cabs pay ls. duty per day.
Mr. S. T. Talbot, superintendent of the West-end Rail-
way, said that being most anxious to get a superior class of
carriage for West-end travellers, the complainant was pri-
vileged to come to the station. Such advantages were
afforded the public at the Crystal Palace, East Croydon,
Brighton, and other parts on the line. Complainant's car-
riage did not go to the platform. If wanted, it was
and
hand. Witness had made inquiries at the Excise, d
found complainant required another ticket or plate to
produced under the post-horse regulations.
a demand made upon complainant's man for toll
but
ebuywt thete
tollde-
fendant. lie (the driver) produced his license,
lie was
was still demanded, on the ground that the carriage
was riding on ills
driving was not a post-chaise,
horse's back. A Middlesex magistrate
the
toll being taken for his post-chaise,
gave the mcney back.
toll-col-
lector found lie was a magistrateh iee
asbesod «'
°elide complained of
said that every gentle-
go utgo
distinguish
ug mightuish
Defendant, in reply to theee
bridge
plied at the station
complainant's carriage.
Isnaayni'ts wasser aanptogs to-icnhga iosvee, nn o tal ibnr
complained very much of his
over
otrh t
Complainantwga s
arked that complainant must mind he
conduct.asacabman, and the cabmen
Mr. Paynter rem
did not
Gil ham observed that he did take care, as he would
Mr. Gi
of X,20.
e liable to a penalty
take up a job on his retur.n.
b Mr. Gilliam contended that his client was exempt, as he
started with jobs from his stables to the station, and re-
turned empty. The hiring was made with compininant as
job-master, and there was no probability of the toll-collector
being imposed upon, as, when the driver claimed exinnPlionv
he always produced his post-eliaise license.
Mr. Punter observed that the question was whether tbid
was a post-chaise; for, if so, and entitled to certain privi-
leges, the complainant was justified in claiming Client- Ile
then referred to several Acts of Parliament, and, after seani
lengthened remarks upon them, gave it as his opinion Out
it was a post-chaise.
Defendant was fined Is. and costs.
Notice of appeal wag given by Mr. Davis,