The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-12 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—WaRwieK, AUG. 10.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Erle.)
ADAMS V. SMITH.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and. Mr. Wills were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Elers for the defendant. The
solicitor for the former was Mr. J. H. Baker, and
Mr. Britton for the latter. The action was brought
by Miss Adams, who sued in the name of her father,
against Mr. James Nemo Smith for the recovery of
£lOO. The declaration stated that defendant had
assaulted the plaintiff, and endeavoured to kiss her.
To this the defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Macaulay, in opening the case, said thepresent
action was brought by a young woman only 20 years
old, against the defendant, who was a married man,
a member of the legal profession—(laughter)—in
fact an attorney in Birmingham. The action was,
brought against him in the name of the young
woman, and was for a very gross and unmanly
assault, rendered more particularly so by the cir-
cumstances and the relation in which the defendant
stood to her at the time. The young lady was the
daughter of Mr. Adams, an upholsterer, in Birming-
ham. She was engaged to be married to a Mr.
Showell, a brother-in•law of the defendant. During
the intimacy of Mr. Showell, which was discon-
tinued by the plaintiff's parents, he succeeded in
seducing her. When her state was discovered,
about this time last year, she was in great distress
of mind, both on account of that and also on her
father's persistence, in his refusal to sanction the
marriage. Mr. Showell, it seemed, at that time still
wished to marry her, but he was afterwards induced
to change his mind. Whether this was under the
influence of Mr. Smith or not he (Mr. Macaulay)
could not say, but judging from what they would
see of Mr. Smith's conduct it was not at all impro-
bable. On the 3d of August last year, being in
this distressed condition, and being also distressed
as to the intentions of Mr. Showell, she was at
Aston-park with two or three friends. Mr. Smith
met them, shook hands with them, and appeared
to lay himself out for a conversation. He told the
plaintiff that he had some information to give her
concerning Mr. Showell, and thus induced her to
leave her friends. He then conducted himself in a
very disgraceful manner. It was suspected that he,
knowing her fallen state, went for the purpose of
causing her to commit some impropriety with him
that might give ground for the non-fulfilment of
Showell's contract, because he (Mr. Macaulay) found
in the text of of a very disgraceful affidavit the de-
fendant had made, for the purpose of bringing this
case to trial, that she was a light woman—a cha-
racter which there was no doubt he (the defendant)
was desirous of bringing about for her. The young
lady rushed away from him, came back to her
friends, told them, and afterwards told her mother.
Her mother gave her the bad or good advice to
go and make the matter known to the defendant's
wife—(laughter)—and, by way of making things
more comfortable at Mr. Smith's house, she went.
(Loud laughter.) Mrs. Smith was not at home, and
she saw Mrs. Showell, Mrs. Smith's mother, and to
her, in the presence of the defendant, she told all
the circumstances of the event of the previous even-
ing. Mr. Smith's revenge was to go down to the
shop of Mr. Adams, who very shortly kicked him
out. (Laughter.) On this Mr. Smith brought an
action for assault, He came to Mr. Adams's shop
to state that the plaintiff had aspersed his charac-
ter to his mother-in-law, and he then demanded an
apology and £5, or said he should bring an action
for slander. Mr. Adams, however, not considering
him worth fivepence—(laughter)—turned him out.
Mr. Smith then brought an action for slander.
After this ridiculous conduct on the part of Mr.
Smith, Mr. Adams thought it his duty to bring the
present action. The venue was first laid in Mid-
dlesex, in order to have the case heard as soon as
possible. Nemo Smith made application to have
the venue changed to Warwick. Mr. Adams made
an affidavit that the man Smith had been sold up,
and had nothing with which to pay damages, and
therefore he (Mr. Adams) wished to withdraw the
action. In return Mr. Smith made an affidavit. In
the first place, with regard to his circumstances, he
said—" I am in receipt of an income derived from
my profession, and am not without reasonable pros-
pects of being ale to pay the costs in this action."
He further said, " The plaintiff bears a bad charac-
ter, and has no means of her own wherewith to pro-
secute this action." This passage very considerably
aggravated the offence. He hoped the jury would
give such damages as would stimulate Mr. Smith's
business efforts, and that his " reasonable prospects"
of paying the cost would be realised. (Laughter.)
TheSollowing witnesses were then called
Miss Mira Adams, the plaintiff, said—l am 20
years of age. The defendant, Mr. Smith, is an
attorney, practising at Birmingham. On the 3d of
August last, by permission of my father, I went to
Aston Park with my sister and a friend. I got
there between six and seven o'clock. Saw the de-
fendant between eight and nine. The defendant is
the brother-in-law of Mr. Showell, who was en-
gaged to me. I shook hands with him, and
asked him how his wife was. He said, " Oh,
grumbling, as most women do." (Laughter.) He
said he had somthing to communicate to me, and
asked me to walk with him. I did so, and he pro-
ceeded to converse about Mr. Showell. In a short
time I said, " I must return, or my sister will miss
me." He said, " Mira, I must have a kiss before
you go," and then he seized hold of me. I said,
" You ought to be ashamed of yourself; you are a
married man." He said, " Who sees ? What the
eye dares not see, the heart does not grieve for."
He held me tight around the waist. I tried to re-
sist, and he behaved indecently to me. He did not
succeed in kissing me. I got away, and went to
my sister. I went back with my sister and Miss
Charlton. I complained of Smith's conduct to
them, and also to my mother when I got home at
10 o'clock. By my parents' desire, I went to see
Mrs. Smith, the defendant's wife, at Mrs. Showell's.
I did not see Mrs. Smith, but I told Mrs. Showell
what had happened on the previous evening. Mrs.
Showell requested me to stay till she sent for Mr.
Smith, "for," said she, "he is such a liar, nobody
will believe him." (Laughter.) He came, and sit-
ting on the chair-back for a short time, said it was
a lie. I said if it was, it was on his part. Mrs.
Showell said she wished his neck had been broken
rather than she had seen him again. I said I
thought it was a planned job between him and
Mr. Showell. He said it was a lie, and added,
"Go along; you wretch," to me. Mr.
Smith afterwards came to my father's shop. He
said if I did " not write a letter and. acknowledge
my fault, and gave him £5 by to-morrow, he
would" Without allowing him to finish the
sentence, my father ordered him off the premises.
He did not go, and then my father got hold of his
shoulders and pushed him down the show-room,
saying, " Go along, you vagabond ; you tried to
ruin my daughter." He resisted, and father then
turned him out.
Cress-examined—l and my friends were walking
about the park from six till nine. I do not re-
member that we spoke to any one but Mr. Smith.
lam not a frequenter of the park. It is two years
since 1 was at the Soho Pool. Was 30 yards from
the dancing platform when I met Smith. Did not
walk with a 111 r . Farker, and nes er had done.
In re-examination the plaintiff was overcome by
by emotion, and the judge requested an usher to
support her as she left the witness-box.
Phcebe Adams, the plaintiff's sister, was then
called, and corroborated that portion of her sister's
evidence which referred to events occurring in her
presence. In cross-examination she said their ob-
ject in going to the park was to ascertain if Mr.
Showell was inconstant. (Laughter.)
Miss Charlton corroborated.
Mr. Benjamin Thomas Adams, the father of the
plaintiff, was the.: called, and stated the part he
took in turning Mr. Smith out of his shop.
This being the plaintiff's case,
Mr. Elers addressed the jury for the defence.
He said his client would be called to contradict the
whole of the plaintiff's statement, and it would
therefore depend on the amount of credence to be
placed on his testimony whether their verdict was
given for the plaintiff or defendant. The amount of
damages, £lOO was ridiculous. It was not pretended
that the defendant committed an aggravated assault,
but that he had simply attempted to kiss the
plaintiff.
The following witnesses-were then called :
James Nimo Smith, the de.endant, said—On
the day in question I was passing through
Aston Park about eight o'clock, on my way to
a friend's house. When I was near the dancing
platform I saw the plaintiff and her two'friends,
Shook hands with the plaintiff. The two friends
moved off, and the plaintiff began to cry, saying,
" Have you seen Ted ?" meaning Mr. Showell. I
said "No ;" and she replied, "If he does not do his
duty, my father will make him." In the course of
the conversation we walked about 40 yards. She
conversed on the same subject. We then returned,
and she shook hands with me, and joined her friends.
The defendant then denied all that the plaintiff said
had taken place during the interview, and also gave
quite a different version of his interview with Mr.
Adams.
Edwin Showell- was then called. He stated that

he was with the defendant when he went to Mr.
Adams. This witness, like the defendant, denied.
the substantial portion of the evidence given by
Mr. Adams.
In cross-examination this witness admitted that
he wrote a letter to the plaintiff stating that hav-
ing h.-_,ard. that Mr. Smith had aspersed her charac-
ter, he would come forward to defend her; that he
had refused to give evidence for her on the trial un-
less his expenses were paid first; and that he had
tendered his evidence for the plaintiff without pre-
viously demanding his expenses.
The learned Judge, in summing up, remarked
that if the plaintiff's case were true, the defendant
had considerably aggravated the offence by the in-
jurious affidavit which he had made. The father,
with a commendable delicacy, had desired to with-
draw the action in order that the painful circum-
stances might not be disclosed to the public, but he
had been forced by the defendant to proceed, and
not only so, but an affidavit containing grave
charges against the character of his daughter was
given in by the defendant. He put it to-the jury
to decide whether the plaintiff's or the defendant's
version of the affair was the true one, and observed
that one would scarcely believe it credible—if, as
the defendant alleged, she was, while talking with
him, distressed only at the conduct of Showell—
that the plaintiff, while walking from the defendant
to her companions, a distance of only 15 yards,
could have fabricated so wicked a story ; and it
seemed the more difficult when there was no motive
assigned for her doing so.
The jury, after a short consultation, gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, with £5O damages.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-GLOUCESTER, AUG. 10.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Willes and a common jury).

CONSTANT V. WILSHEIt-NOVEL ACTION.

Mr. Whateley, Q.C,, and Mr. Gray for plaintiff;
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Phipson for the
defendant.

This was an action for debt, but the circumstances
are peculiar. They will be best gathered from the
following evidence :
Henrietta Ann Constant said—l am the plaintiff,
and live at Loxton, near Coleford. Have known
the defendant six or seven years, and in May, 1858,
he applied to me for a loan of money. The letter
produced related to this subject. (It was signed by
the defendant, who styled himself " Your affectionate
and constant lover, George." He said he had a good
trade in jewellery, with good profits, in Oxford-
street, London). I ordered my brother to send him
£2OO. I produce a letter acknowledging the receipt,
returning thanks for the loan, and promising to
make good use of the money. (In the letter defen-
dant said, "He hoped it would not be long before
they were settled, for his home wanted a mistress,
and he should not long sing the song, I want my
Missis.' ") I went to London in May last with my
sister, and asked him for the £2OO. He said it was
a paltry sum, on which my sister told him it would
be the more easily paid. He said he would pay.it.
Cross-examined—We were engaged to be married
when I lent defendant the money, but that hao
nothing to do with the matter; That was in Aug.,
1857. I never suggested that defendant should go
into the public business, or anything of the sort. It
was never contemplated that I should give him
money to start a public-house. The letter produced
is in my handwriting. The letter contained the
following passage :—" When I said you should have
£l,OOO, 1 thought less than that would have been
a poor beginning in the public line. I was willing
for you to begin in a respectable way, and I trust
we shall be as fortunate in our speculations as in
partnership." The letter was dated Jan. 15, 1859.
Witness continued—The letter produced (dated
9th of Dec., 1858) is in my handwriting. (It stated
that her money was on mortgage, and that was the
reason why she had told him he must wait for six
months. That was the principal thing that deferred
her marriage.)
Other letters were read from plaintiff to defendant,
containing many tender love passages and expres-
sions of affection, and hopes that they would live
happily in wedlock. In one she said her brother
would advance £300., and the rest would be made
in the marriage settlement. A letter noticing the
sending of the £2OO, said, " I hope it may be the
means blessed to us in our undertakin gin business,
which will be my sincere pleasure."
The lady was a very unwilling witness, and said
all this had nothing to do with the case. She might
have had letters from George, but not about the
money.
Mr. Huddleston—You had better answer, or I
shall have to go into particulars.
Witness (eagerly)—Have you got my letters ?
Mr. Huddleston—l will not answer that.
Mr. T. Constant proved the transmission of the
money, and identified the handwriting.
Mr. Huddleston, in a humorous speech, said the
lady was more " constant" in business than in love
affairs, and refused to be coaxed by him. He sub-
mitted that the money was advanced for the joint
benefit of the parties in the contemplation of mar-
riage. The plaintiff had broken off the contract,
which defendant was still willing to fulfil. He
contended that the spirit of the letters supported
this theory.

The defendant, Mr. Geo. Wilsher, deposed—.
There was an engagement to marry between me
and Miss Constant as early as August, 1857, when
I was foreman to a saddler. In 1857 I had an in-
terview with her at Loxton, and she said if I would
start in the public line she would give me £l,OOO. I
declined that, and at Christmas proposed to go into
partnership with my brother. She agreed to that,
and promised to advance £5OO. The match vas
broken off -in September, 1858, and in May last
plaintiff called on me in Oxford-street, and asked
me to repay the £2OO I had received. I said,
" I cannot ; I have not the money. Are you not
satisfied with getting me out of that situation.
and the misery you have caused me by breaking off
our engagement ? Do you wish to 'crush me ?" I
said I would repay the money, if ever it should be
in my power. I told her I considered it a gift, ad-
vanced by her for our mutual benefit, or I would
not have received it. The business did not turn
out fortunately.
Cross-examined—Never asked her to lead me
money..
The-jury, without deliberation, found a verdict
for plaintiff for £2OO, the amount claimed, with full
costs.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Elizabeth Holtham, a girl of 14, was charged
with maliciously and wilfully setting fire to the
dwelling-house of Mr. S. Holder, her master, at
Painswick, on the 17th June, the said Samuel Hol-
der and others being in the house at the time.
Mr. Powell pro!. ecuted ; Mr. H. James defended
the prisoner.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and sentence
of death was recorded against her. She exhibited
the utmost unconcern ehroughout.

HOME CIRCUIT.--CROYDON, AUG. 10.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
MANSLEY V. FIELD.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover damages for the loss of the services of his
daughter, by reason of her seduction by the defen-
dant.

Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Doyle were for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, QC Mr. Robinson,
and Mr. Francis were for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action was a wine and spirit
gauger, and the defendant is a tallow-chandler, and
they both reside in Lambeth. The plaintiff's
daughter, it appeared, was 34 years of age, and the
defendant is 50, andthe
i two families were on in-
timate terms, and were n the habit of visiting each
other for several years, and durinc, the lifetime of
the defendant's wife he used frequently to joke with
the young lady, and say that if his wife were to
die he would marry her. The wife of the defen-
dant, it appeared, did die in 1856, and the inti-
macy continued, and about three months after
that event had occurred the plaintiff's daaghter
went to the defendant's house 'to visit his daugh-
ters, and he asked her in, and took her into a room
where no one else was present, and he succeeded,
under a promise of marriage. in seducing her, and
the result was the birth of a child in July, 1857. It
appeared in the course of the case that the plaintiff
did not live on very good terms with his family,
and that his daughter and her mother had left his
roof and occupied a small house together, and the
young lady obtained a livelihood by making of
millinery. The defendant had paid the expenses of
her confinement, and had allowed her five shillings
per week for the support of the child down to the
present time, and it also appeared that another
action for breach of promise of marriage had been
brought against him.
Mr. Hawkins, at the close of the case for the
plaintiff, submitted that no loss of service had been
made out sufficient to support the present action.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said he was inclined to
agree with the learned counsel, and he should re-
serve the point, but should not withdraw the case
from the jury.
The learned counsel then addressed the jury for
the defendant, andle urged that the plaintiff had
made out no case to ask for damages, and that under
the domestic circumstances that had been proved
to exist in his family, it was clear that he had not
sustained any damage, and that the proper time for
disposing of the question wa-; when the action for
breach of promise of marriage came on to be tried,
when the young woman herself would be entitled
to receive any damages that might be recovered.
Mr. Justice Blackburn having summed up, the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 40s.

COUNTRY MA.RKBTS.

MANCHESTER—Aua. 11.

The market was moderately attended this morning. Both
English and foreign wheat in fair request, at the prices of
this day se'nnight. Flour met a very slow sale, at late
rates. Oats were ld per 45 lbs and oatmeal Gd to is per
load cheaper. For Indian corn the demand was good, at a
'eduction of is per. qr.

NEWARK—AuG. 10.
There was about an average show of wheat to-day,. but,
the attendance was limited. A tolerable amount of busi-
ness was transected, and in some instances is per qr more
money was realised. Several samples of new oats realised
27s per 24 stone. Beans were scarce, with a moderate de-
mand.
White wheat, new, 51s to —s Barley, grinding.. 28s to 30s
Red do. —s to —s Oats, old, .. 26s to 30s
Old white 4Bs to 54s New do 27s to —s
Red do. 46s to 50s Beans. 46s to 60$
I
Barley, malting....3Bs to 40s Beans, new —s to --s

BOSTON—AuG. 10.
There was a small supply of wheat to-day, which
sold slowly, at no advance on late rates. Little or no bar-
ley on offer. The trade in oats was slow, at about barely
recent currencies. Beans in small supply, and the prices
fully as before. Peas dull.
Wheat as to 44s I Oats..
White do .44s to 46s 1 Beans 46s to 49s
Barley —s to —s Ditto, old to --r

Averages for the week :
Wheat 1,28 G qrs., at 43s 8d
8ar1ey......... „ —s Od
Peas •• • —s Od
/,
Beans 5O „ 4Bs 7(1
Oats B3 „ 255 2d
Rye
•-•-• )I •-5 Od