The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY. EVENING, APRIL 21, 1859.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Turner.)
APPEAL-THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST
RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-
WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
The farther hearing of this part-heard appeal motion
was resumed this morning.
_ _

Mr. Wilcox, followed Mr. Rolt, Q.C. for the ap-
pellants.

This is an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Sir William Page Wood, refusing an injunction to re-
strain the respondents from using the appellants' line and
station as a joint line and station contrary to the com-
panies' joint traffic contract and relative railway acts of
Parliament, 1847-1858, and for compensation.
Mr. Taylor followed on the same side.
It is probable the arguments will occupy several days.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Torin Kindersley.)

JUDGMENT. -HODGSON V. BOWER.

His Honour, the Vice-Chancellor, said-2-The point that
I reserved for judgment in this case is the pure question
whether the memorandum or agreement of 21st April, 1858,
is one, under all the other circumstances, which this
Court can decree specific performance of. I have some
doubts whether the allegation in it are sufficiently expressed
in reference to the duration of the terms. This is an agree.
ment for a lease for 21 years, to be terminated by the lessee
not only at the end of the first 21 years, but any other.
Now, not only at the end of the first 21 years, being the
first appointed term in the agreement, but any other, the
lessor could grant a further term at the expiration of 21
years. Therefore I decree specific performance of the
agreement, with costs up to the hearing of the present
decree.
Decreed accordingly.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly).
JUDGMENT-HODGKINSON V. THE NATIONAL LIVE STOCK

INSURANCE COMPANY..---SAME V. SAME.-SAME V. SAME.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—The only
argument offered affects the bill in genial, and I think the
demurrer must be overruled. There is a great deal in the
case upon which I do not like to express my opinion until
the hearing. It is a point which must be decided upon
principle, and one which must be argued on the bill, and
could only be determined by the bill. I refer to the 19th
and 22d proposed alterations by the company in the year
1855, by which the defendant was taken bound to pay, by
way of deposit, 560 shares. It was agreed that the defend-
ant, Edward Hodgkinson, should be exonerated from all
liability with respect to the £4,000 shares for which he sub-
scribed the deed of agreement, upon condition that he be-
came a member and holder of 560 shares, upon which he
paid a deposit and transferred them to the company. His
Honour was of opinion that it was ultra vires of the
directors to enter into this agreement without being autho-
rised to do so by a general meeting of the company. His
Honour thought there were sufficient allegations made in
the bill to support it. His Honour overruled the demurrer,
and reserved the costs to be disposed of at the hearing of
the cause.—Demurrer overruled.

BAIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman and a Common Jury.)
WEBB V. WILLES--SEDUCTION.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a widow
lady, named Webb, against the defendant for the seduction
of her daughter. Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins,
Q.C., and Mr. Henry James appeared for Webb, and Mr.
Montague Chambers, Q.C., and another learned gentleman
appeared for Willes.

Mr. Edwin James, in opening the case, said the present
action was brought by the plaintiff, a widow lady named
Webb, residing at Lockridge, against the defendant
Willes, a person residing at Marlborough, carrying
on an extensive business as a maltster and baker,
for the seduction of her daughter. The unfortunate young
lady, the person most deeply interested in the present pro-
ceedings, was about 24 years of age, and the defendant was
about 14 years older than Miss Webb. Tho acquaintance
between the parties first commenced in the year 1851, when
the daughter of the plaintiff first went to visit Mr. Henry
Willes, a farmer, at 'Whitfield, and a cousin of Mt. Sidney
Wiles, the defendant. The acquaintance 'vas continued,
and in • the year 1856 it was supposed that the
defendant was paying his addresses to Miss Webb
for the purpose of marriage. In the year 1858
the marriage had not taken place, and in Septem-
ber of that year the plaintiff's daughter was delivered of a
child. The learned gentleman then read a letter addressed
by Miss Webb to the defendant, a short time previous to
the birth of the child, in which she implored him to save
her from disgrace and misery by performing his promise of
marriage. No answer had been returned to that letter,
and he (Mr. James) was utterly at a loss to imagine
what defence could be set up by the defendant. Moralists
had of late talked much about the "social evil," but such
cases as the present tended to increase that calamity, and it
was the duty of jurors to stop, by their verdicts, the evil, as
far as it was possible.
The first witness called was

Mrs. Jane Webb, who said—l am the plaintiff in this
action, and I reside at Lockridge. I have lived there about
two years. In 1851 I was living at Ogbourne, in Wilt-
bhire. I have a daughter Mary. She is now between
twenty-four and twenty-five. I knew a Mr. lienry
Willes, a farmer, residing there. He was the
cousin of Mr. Sidney Willes, the defendant. In 1851 my
daughter went on a visit to Mr. Henry Willes, and conse-
quently made the acquaintance of Mr. Sidney Willes. In
about 1853 or 1854 I removed to Lockridge, about three
miles from Marlborough ; and while living there my
daughter frequently visited Mr. Henry 'Wines, and saw
Mr. Sidney Willes. I saw Sidney Willes at my residence
about three times after that. He was paying his ad-
dresses to my daughter. It was about 12 months after I
went to Lockridge. I first saw him there when he came to
tell me of a situation for my son. After that he paid
another visit to Ogbourne. I dealt with him for bread,
and my daughter used to go to Marlborough for it. My
daughter was delivered of a child in September, 1858. I
first became aware that she was enciente in April. Shortly
after finding that my daughter was in that condition she
quitted Lockridge and went to Mr. Henry Willes, at Whit-
field, and afterwards removed to Wroughton, near Swin-
don. She afterwards went to Wadsworth, where she
was confined in September last. The child is still
living. I paid the expenses of the accouchment, and ever
since then I have had to paintain my daughter and her
infant. She has never liven at home since that time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Montague Chambers—My
daughter was 24 last January. lam not sure, however,
that she was not 25.
Mr. Justice Wightman—Don't you know the age of your
daughter ?
Witness—Not exactly.
Cross-examination continued—My daughter first went
to visit Mr. Willes, the cousin of the defendant, in 1851. She
went frequently. She used to act as my housekeeper.
After my daughter had ordered the bread one of the defen-
dant's men brought it home. The first time I saw Sidney
Willes was when he came to tell me about the situation for

my son. He supped on one occasion at my house about
two years ago. I have known my daughter to return home
from Marlborough as late as eleven o'clock at night, but
on occasions when she came from Whitefield she was later.
I generally sent her to order the bread of an afternoon and
she used to return between 10 and 11 in the evening. I used
to sit up for her. She generally returned home alone.
Re-examined by Mr. Hawkins—l always asked her
when she returned, what kept her so late, and I always got
a satisfactory answer. I have a small property of my own,
enough to support me.

Mary Webb—l am the daughter of the plaintiff in this
action. I was 24 last January. In 1851 I became ac-
quainted with Mr. and Mrs. Henry Willes. On the New-
Year's Day of the year following I met the defendant,
Sidney Willes. Between that time and March, 1852, I
met bim there frequently.
At this point of the case an arrangement was proposed,
and it having been assented to, a verdict for the plaintiff,
with £250 damages, was taken by consent of all parties.