The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENd E.—Nov, 28.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius in Mid. llesex, before Mr.
Justice Willes and a Com. mon Jury.)
TAPPIN V. NUNN--SEIDUCTIO
The plaintiff in this case wan a wi 'ow woman,
and she claimed damages for the seduction of her
daughter, Eliza Tappin.
Mr. Huddlestone appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant Ballantyne 'and Mr. J. J. Powell
were engaged for the defendant.
It 'appeared from the opening.speech that the
defendant, Mr. W. Nunn, was in business as a
patent lamp-manufacturer, in S. t, George's-in-the-
East ; that he met Miss Tappin at a public ball-
room ; that he introduced himself as Capt. Brown,
and that this introduction led to an acquaintance
which ultimately ended in her ruin.
Eliza Tappin was called and examined—l am
the daughter of the plaintiff. lam 23 years old.
My mother is a dressmaker, living in Pollard's-row.
Bethnal-green-road. I was in the employment of
Mr. Cope, a flower-maker, for seven or eight years
previous to 1859. My mother worked for the wife
of Mr. Hayward, who keeps the Eagle Tavern. In
December, 1858, I went to the Eagle Tavern, where
there is a dance once a-week. I went with Miss

Bonsor, who is since dead. I was there introduced
to the defendant by Amelia Bonsor as Captain
Brown. I have learned since that he is a manu-

facturer of port and starboard lights for the navy,
and that he is a married man. I saw him at the

Eagle many times, and danced with him. He
took me to Madame Tussaud's on the 28th Decem-

ber. Miss Bonsor was to go, but did not. The
defendant paid me attentions. I was led to sup-
pose that his intentions were honourable. I sin-
cerely believed him to be a single man. He several
times took liberties with me, but I told him I

would raise an alarm if he did not desist. On the
- - - - -

17th January, 1859, I met him by appointment at
Somerset-house. He went into Somerset-house and

I stayed at the Admiralty door. We went to dine
at an hotel in the Strand afterwards. He said he
had been at Somerset-house on business, and had
done more that day than he had ever done in his
lifo before. We then went to a coffee-house and

had tea. We then went into a cab to Cheapside, the
defendant being so ill from bronchitis that he could
not walk. He got out of the cab because the air in
the cab was too close. In Bishopsgate-street he said

he was so ill he could not walk.: He asked me to ac-

compay him to the house of a friend. He took me
up into a bedroom, and when I saw it was a bed-
room I entreated him to let me go. He said, if
I would stay till he recovered he would let me go
as I came. I was overpowered. He seduced me.
On my oath I had never before been acquainted
with any man. I saw him on the following Sun-
day at a place they called Harry Levy's, in the
Mile-end-road, when he made a laugh of it, but said
he would be a good friend if I would hold my
tongue. I found I was in the family way in
January, 1860. He had then left me. I sent to
him, and he came and said it was a bad job, and
offered me £5, which I refused. He then asked me
to meet him, and said he would see what he could
do for me. I met him at the George public-house,
in:Commercial-road. From thence he went to his
solicitor, Mr. Young, who, he said, when he came
back advised him not to give me any money. I was
confined on the 4th October, 1860. He saw me nearly
home, and promised to meet me on the following
Saturday. Ho took me to several places, and ulti-
mately to an hotel on Tower-hill, where he gave me
£lO. He made me sign a paper, but Ido not know
what it contained. My earnings were from 15s. to
20s. a week, but working 16 or 18 hours a day, in
consequence of my being in the family way. The
defendant sent me £2 during my confinement. I
was ill ten weeks, and the last month of that time
he gave me 10s. a week.
_ _ _

Cross-examined—l am not now going by the
name of Tappin, but by that of Mrs. Capue. I have
lived under the protection of Mr. Capue for eight
months. I met Mr. Capue at the Eagle Tavern.

The attorney bringing the action is not employed
by Mr. Capue. My child is living with my mother,
and is brought by her to see me at Mr. Capue's,
Mr. Capue is a general merchant in Leadenhall-
street. I had never been to the Eagle for amuse-
ment more than three times before I met the defen-

dant at about Christmas, 1858. There are many
daughters of working people go there.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantins—And many "girls of
another sort

Witness—l suppose so. You find them every-
where. (A laugh.) The only other dancing place
I went to was Harry Levy's, and I will swear that
for 12 or 18 months previons to Christmas, 1858, I
had not been in the habit of going to dancing
saloons. I swear that Mr. Hayward never said, " I
suppose you know who is the father of your child?
and that I never replied, " No, I wish I did." I
have not for three years associated with prostitutes
at the Eagle, nor has Mr. Hayward threatened to
turn me out of the room if I did not behave myself
decently.
Re-examined—l worked until the day before my
confinement, but afterwards, having lost my cha-
racter, could get no work. I had no alternative but
living with Mr. Capue, or going upon the streets or
starving.
Mrs. Tappia (the plaintiff)—l have been a widow
11 years. My husband was a patent cart-grease
manufacturer in Bethnal-green. Since his death I
have maintained myself, my son, and while neces-
sary my daughter by dressmaking. Whilst my
daughter was in work she gave me every farthing
of her earnings. I did not know that my daughter
was in the family-way until Aug., 1860, and then
she left home because I could not have the disgrace
at home. She was as good a girl as ever lived to
me before then. She used to assist me at my work
after she had done her own, and used to do my
household work also.
Cross-examined—When my daughter began to
stay out late, I inquired where she had been, and
she said she had a young man—a captain. She
stayed out as late as half-past ten or eleven, and
she said she had been to take a walk. I never saw
any gentleman with her.
Re-examined—She never said anything about
his promising to marry her.
Mr. Justice Willes—The previous witness did
not say so herself.
Mr. Cornelius Cope—Eliza Tappin conducted
herself very well until the last twelve months, when
' she was very irregular with her work. She worked
out of doors at this time, and sometimes she would
only do one or two days' work a week.
Mr. George Sheen—l keep a coffee-house in
Bethnal-green-road, and I have known the plaintiff
and her daughter for 16 years. The daughter
has borne a very good character until the last year
or two, when she became very irregular.
Mr. Gammage—The plaintiff's daughter came to
lodge at my house in Jubilee-street, to be confined,
and conducted herself with the greatest propriety
whilst there.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said he had not, like his
friend Mr. Huddleston, the pleasant task of defend-
ing " injured virtue," but he had to defend a person
who, in the situation inwhich he was placed, would
be likely to meet with anything but sympathy. His
client was a husband and had three children, and
he believed that but for these facts they would never
have heard of this action; but the jury must consi-
der that they had no tnow to punish immorality in
a neighbour, but to consider whether the plaintiff's
daughter had by her conduct entitled her mother to
damages.
Mr Justice Willes said he had great difficulty in
seeing what the loss of services on the part of the
mother was. If no child had been born there would
certainly have been no right of action; and it seemed
that the turning the daughter out of doors before
her confinement was an election on the part of the
mother to have done with her, and a determination
not to bring forward her shame any more. He must
reserve that part for the consideration of the full
Court.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, in continuation, said
in most instances a defendant in a case of this kind
had to rely upon a speech of his counsel ; but in
this case he should call witnesses who would prove
conclusively that the plaintiff's daughter had com-
mitted gross perjury in giving her evidence. He
then detailed the circumstances which he should
prove, stating that the defendant, with two friends
the defendant himself, being in joke, called Capt.
Brown, and another of them Captain Allbosh—
(laughter)—met the plaintiff's daughter at a dancing
saloon in July, 1858 ; that she introduced herself to
t
anything but
conclusion
woon ma
of
them, and that she was apparently at that time
thae modest
sinihe learned sergeant's
address the baby was b
ing which was
declared rought into court, a:proceed
sympathy, similar to thattot be an attempt to excite
" Barden v. Pickwick." tried with such success in
Mr. Wm. Nunn—On the day of Fairlop: Fair, in
1858, I was with two friends. .
Eagle Tavern in the evening. saw the
went , to the
daughter there on that evening for the fl'irsatinttliff's
She was dancing and walking about the grounds..
She came to our table and asked me to treat her. I
did so. She sat down with us drinking between the
dances. I was there several times between that
night and Christmas. She was generally dancing.
She introduced herself to us as Miss Jackson. On
the 28th December, I went to a bal masque at the
King's Arms with my two friends. I saw the plain-
tiff's daughter there dancing. I danced with her
for the first time. In the course of that evening I
left the room and went with her to a house of
accommodation. We came back to the ball and she
went on dancing. Gave hex half a sovereign. When
I went home at two in the morning, she asked me
if 4 would meet her nest day, and ghe did meet me

in the City, and went with me to Somerset-house.
I never went with her to Madame Tussaud's. On
that day we went to a brothel in Wych-street, and
I again made her a present. We afterwards went to
the Lyceum. I left her at Bishopsgate Church, she
saying she was going home, and afterwards to the
Eagle. Two or three weeks afterwards I met her
at the Eagle, and whenever I was there I saw her.
On a subsequent occasion she went with me to
Somerset-house ; and on that occasion we went
again to a brothel, as well as on other occasions.
About five or six weeks after Christmas, 1859, I
went with her to a brothel kept by a person named
King.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine complained that the at-
tention of those engaged in the case was distracted
by the child not being so quiet as it might be.
Mr. Justice Willes said the child must be taken
out of court.

Mr. Huddleston, however, observed that for the
purpose of seeing the likeness it would be necessary
to have the baby in court. (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Willes—lf it is necessary to see it, it
is not necessary to hear it. (Laughter.)
The defence being closed, the jury, after consider-
ing the matter for a short time, said that they were
unanimously of opinion that the defendant was the
father of the child, and they assessed the damages
at £25.

In answer to his lordship they added that they
did not think that there was what was popularly
called a seduction, but that the defendant picked the
girl up and got her with child.
His lordship, after some little discussion, said he
would consider in what shape the case should be
put, for the purpose of taking the opinion of the
full court upon the matter.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.--Nev. 28.

TIIE MURDER AT DEPTFORD.

George Inkpen, described in the calendar as being
20 years of age, and by trade a hammerman, was
placed at the bar to plead to an indictment charging
him with the wilful murder of Margaret Edmunds,
and also to the coroner's inquisition, charging him
as an accessory to the murder.
The officer of the court having read the abstract
of the indictment and the finding of the coroner's
inquisition,
Mr. Justice Byles interfered, and after a short
conference with Mr. Avery, the clerk of arraigns,
directed that the prisoner should be given in charge
to the jury on the indictment only, as the finding
of the coroner's inquisition raised an important
question of law which might as well be avoided if
possible.
The prisoner, who is a simple-looking youth,
with a mild expression of coantenance, was then
arraigned on the indictment for wilful murder, and
in a low but firm tone of voice pleaded not guilty.
Mr. F. H. Lewis conducted the prosecution, and
Mr. Sleigh, with whom was Mr. Orridge, the de-
fence.

Mr. F. H. Lewis, in opening the case, briefly
alluded in feeling terms to the painful nature of the
transaction which gave rise to this prosecution, and
proceeded to detail the facts as they are disclosed in
the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecu-
tion, and having done so, called
Stephen Ellis, who deposed that he was an in-
spector of the R division of metropolitan police,
stationed at Greenwich, and that, from information
he had received from some friends of the prisoner,
he went on the evening of the 11th of the present
month to Amelia-terrace, Deptford, where the pri-
soner resided. He then asked to see the prisoner,
and was told that he was upstairs in bed. Shortly
afterwards the prisoner came down, and witness
asked him to walk a short way with him. At that
time three or four of the prisoner's friends, some of
whom had given information to the police, were
present. When the prisoner came outside the door,
witness said to him, " I suppose you can point out
the spot where it occurred ?" The prisoner then
said, " I will tell you all about it," and then went
on to say as follows—" I had been to a footrace at
Hackney-wick, and came down by the train, and
got out at the High-street, Deptford. I then went
to call on Brimell, the barber, and then went to the
Lord Duncan public-house in the High-street.
Whilst I was at the bar there, she (meaning the
deceased) came in for the supper beer, and I went
out after her, and we had some conversation, and
she asked me to have some of the beer, which I did,
and we drank it between us. In the course of fur-
ther conversation, she said it was of no use living,
for her friends were always ' nagging' at her. We
then walked down the Mornington-road, towards
the Surrey Canal, and when we got there she pro-
posed that we should drown ourselves. She asked
me if I had got a handkerchief to tie ourselves
together with, and I produced one, which she said
was too short, and that it was not long enough to
tie us both together. She then said I have got
some tape with me, but I did not bring it out for
that purpose. I then said that I had got some boot
laces, and that they would do, and we then fastened
ourselves together, and she said she did not think
she would be able to sink because of her crinoline.
We then threw ourselves into the canal, she having
put her arms round my neck. We turned over in
the water two or three times, and the string or

laces broke and we were separated, and she seemed
to be soon drowned. I got out on the opposite
side of the canal, and instantly got in again, and
tried to get her out, but could not find her. I
then swam across the canal and got out and
went home. Before we got into the canal I was
very bad, and she was obliged to hold me up."
The witness then proceeded to say that seeing the
prisoner shivering, he asked him if he felt any
better now. The prisoner replied " Yes, and if I had
been like this some time ago, I should not have had
this charge against me.' The prisoner then
pointed out where it would be likely to find the
body of the deceased, and soon afterwards her body
was diseovered and got out of the water quite dead.
The prisoner then asked to be allowed to looked her
face, and inquired if she was disfigured. Witness
permitted him to look at her face, and on seeing it
the prisoner said, " She is so changed."
In his cross-examination by Mr. Sleigh, the wit-
ness stated that the prisoner told him he had been
drinking freely, and mentioned the places where he
had been at during the day.
Mary Ann Collins was next examined, and stated
that the deceased was her sister, and was 24 years
of age. She had seen her alive on the night of the
10th Nov., and she was then in good spirits, as, in
fact, she always was. The deceased has kept com-
pany with the prisoner for about two years.
Mrs. S. Russell, the wife of Mr. Russell of the
Income Tax Department of Revenue at Deptford,
proved that deceased was in her service as house-
maid, and that she was always a girl of very good
spirits. Witness last saw her alive about half-past
7 o'clock on the evening of the 11th inst., when she
was going out for their supper beer, and at that
time her spirits were as usual, and she did not evince
any singularity of conduct or demeanour. The
deceased was only sent out for a pint of beer.
The landlord of the Lord Duncan public-house
was then called, and stated that he well remem-
bered the prisoner, whom he had long known, being
at his bar on the evening in question. The prisoner
was a very sober young man. He came into the
house at about half-past 7, and witness believed he
had partaken of either a pint or glass of porter. He
saw the deceased come in for her beer, and he no-
ticed that she and the prisoner spoke together.
When she went out she reopened the door almost
immediately, and beckoned the prisoner to come
out to her. The prisoner did so, and they appeared
then to be the best possible friends.
Mrs. Sarah Lewis was next examined, and proved
she lived in a cottage built under one of the rail-
way arches, near the scene of the occurrence, and
that on the night in question she heard a loud
scream as if from a female.
Another person, residing in an adjoining house,
also deposed to having heard a scream, which she
described as a fearful one and of long duration.
John Rossiter stated that he met the prisoner in
a lane leading from that part of the canal where
the body of the deceased was found. The prisoner
was running and was very wet, looking as if he
had been overboard.
Further evidence was given, the substance of
which was to the following effect :—That the boot-
lace which the prisoner had spoken of was three
days after finding the body, dragged up from the
canal, at no great distance from where the body
was found, by police-constable Turner, 237 R; and
it also appeared that the prisoner had been, as
stated, to the foot-race with the waiter at the Ship
and Bell public-house, East Greenwich, and that
they had drunk, between three of them, half a pint
of brandy, and subsequently a pint of ale between
two, and that the prisoner had had nothing to eat
during the time he and Ibis friend the waiter were
out, with the exception of a biscuit, of which he bad
only taken a mouthful. While they were drinking
the ale,a man came in with boot-laces, and the pri-
soner and the waiter each bought one, in order to
get rid of him. The laces were bang leather ones,
of the same description as the ones taken out of the
canal, and now produced.'
Mr. Joseph Henderson, surgeon, of High-street,
Deptford, proved that he had examined the body of
the deceased, who had died of suffocation, produced
bruise on the u
by drowning. There
whatever upon
upon the left side of their head, her were
withno marks of violence
upper
corresponding
of the left arm, and two
erperson, the exception of a
had been occasionedea
slight bruises in line up the body
,bwhdich, in all pro-
bability,eceased having
fallen against some hard substance.
The The case for tho prosecution having closed,
Mr. Sleigh, in a very feeling address, contended
that there was a total absence of any proof of malice
prepense on the part of the prisoner, ao as to efilt%