The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENU.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CROYDON, AUG. 12.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn and a common Jury).
REDHEAD V. RICH.
This was an action to recover the amount of a
promissory note for £5O, given by the defendant to
the plaintiff.
The defendant had put several pleas upon the
record, but the material one relied upon was, that
the note in question was given fpr an illegal and
immoral consideration.
Sergeant Parry and Mr. Paterson were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawki is, Q.C., and Mr. Doyle
appeared for the defendant.
Sergeant Parry, in opening the case to the jury,
said that, under ordinary circumstances, all that
was necessary to do in an action upon a bill of ex-
change or a promissory note was to prove that it
was made by the defendant ; hut in consequence of
the extraordinary plea that was put upon the re-
cord by the defendant, it would be necessary for
him to give a short detail of the circumstances under
which this note was given. He then proceeded to
give a narrative of the facts detailed in the evidence,
and said he could not deny that there had been an
intimate connection between the plaintiff and the
defendant; but he believed that when the jury had
heard all the facts, they would be of opinion that
the plaintiff was entitled to recover in the present
action.
Elizabeth Redhead, the plaintiff, a woman about
30 years of age, was then examined. She deposed
that in the year 1854 she was employed as a dress-
maker, in John-street, Oxford-street, and she was
then in the habit of going to a public-house close by
to have her dinner. Upon one occasion the defend-
ant followed her, and, while engaged in reading
the newspaper, he touched her on the shoulder with
his stick, and they entered into conversation toge-
ther, and she told him where she lived, with her
mother, in Vauxhall-road. They became very inti-
mate after this, and the defendant agreed to allow
her V. a week, and he invited her to nis house in
Lodge-road, St. John's-wood, and introduced her to
some members of his family, and told her he would
give the £1 a-week as long as she lived. In
September, 1855, the defendant gave her a promis-
sory note for £2O, payable on demand, but said she
was not to make any use of it while she received the
£1 a-week, and witness kept that note until 1856,
when she gave it back to the defendant upon his
giving her the note for £5O that was the subject of
the present action. The defendant discontinued
paying her the £1 a-week in April last.
Cross-examined byMr.Hawkins--Witn ess h ad been
a dressmaker all her life. She was earning about 9s.
a week at the time she became acquainted with the
defendant.
Mr. Hawkins (pointing to the white-headed, de-
crepid old man, stated to be 78 years old, who was
sitting near the counsel's table)—ls that the old
fellow ? (A laugh.)
The witness said it was.
Cross-examination continued—The first thing
that occurred in the publie-house was the defend-
ant touching her on the shoulder with his stick
while she was reading the newspaper. (A laugh.)
She told him she thought he was very rude, but
she did not speak very cross to him. On the first
interview she told him where her mother lived, and
made an appointment for him to come and see her.
The fact was she was very much attracted by his
looks. (Laughter.) She did not introduce the old
gentleman to her mother when he called the first
time. •

Mr. Hawkins—Why did you not introduce him
to your mother ?

Witness—l don't suppose you tell your mother
everything you do when you are out. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins--I certainly should not tell her if
I took a fancy to an old woman like that (pointing
to the defendant). (Renewed laughter.)
Cross-examination resumed—The first improper
intimacy that took place between her and the de-
fendant occurred about three weeks after their first
interview. She did not tell her mother anything
about that. (A laugh.) The defendant afterwards
took a lodging for her, and he introduced her as
his wife, and paid all her expenses. Witness did not
know the age of the defendant. He used to say he
was 50. (Laughter.) She did n t knowthat he was
considerably over 70. He had certainly begun to
look very old latterly. Would swear that she had
not had so much as £7OO or £BOO from him. He
used to pay the £1 a week regularly down to the
present year, and sometimes fie gave her a few
shillings besides during the week. When she gave
up the £2O bill the defendant said to her, " If you
give me thatbilll will give a larger one, ‘Duckey.'"
(Laughter.)
Re - examined—Defendant always called her
" Duckev." (Renewed laughter.) He used fre-
quer.tly to come and take his meals with her, and
he generally brought about half a pint of wine and
his pipe in his pocket. (A laugh.)
Mrs. Jane Smith, the sister of the plaintiff,
proved that she saw the defendant give her the £5O
bill. She also said she was aware that he was to
allow her £1 a-week.
By Mr. Hawkins—She declined to state what
the £1 a-week was to be given for. She might
imagine in her own mind something upon the mat-
ter, but she did not attend there to say anything
upon that subject. (A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins, at the close of the case for the
plaintiff, submitted that the defendant's plea had
been made out, and that there was nothing to go to
the jury.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that the plea involved
a question of fact, which he should leave to the
jury. He should, however, certainly rule, as a
matter of law, that if they believed the considera-
tion for the note in question was that the plaintiff
should live as a prostitute with the old fool, the
defendant, she could not recover in the present
action.
Mr. Hawkins then made a met humorous speech
to the jury on behalf of the defendant. He said
that his learned friend was quite right in stating,
in his opening address, that iiirwas one of
a very_ peculiar `and delicate character,il. and he
thought the jury would have no difficulty in coming
to a, conclusion as to what were the real facts of
the case. This old fool, who was nearly in his
dotage, had been pick.ed. u. p by "Ducky,' and she
had made a very good thing indeed out of him. It
was perfectly absurd to suppose that there had ;er
been anything like affection existing
_between the
parties, but the plaintiff evidently thought she had
got hold of a foolish old man, who would lavish
money upon her, and " Duck-ey" seemed to have
been pretty wide awake. all through the proceed-
ings. She had got more than a hundred a-year out
of the old man ever since she had been acquainted
with him, and he said he thought she ought to have
•