The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-06 00:00:00

THE ALLEGED ABDUCTION CASE AT BATH.

The hearing of the case,Th Yescombe v. Roche and
another," sosee particulars of which have already ap-
peared in The Sun, was resumed on Friday, before Mr.
J. Smith, judge of the county court, and concluded on
the following day. The defendants, Mrs. Roche and
Mademoiselle Kccb, the governess for the loss of whose
services the action was brought, were examined and
cross-examined at great length, and their evidence may
bo described as alicioEit amounting to a point-blank denial
of that which had bisen given by the plaintiff and his
witnesses. According to Mademoiselle Koch she left
her situation in c,ruiequence of illtreatment, and had
gone to Mrs. Madd ock's house until the affair was
settled. Mr. Rocbe'si conduct towards her had never
been anything but thist of a gentleman. At the conclu-
sion of the defendants' case on Saturday Mrs. Yescombe
was recalled, and sole mnly denied several of the state-
ments made by the ;governess on the preceding day.
During the course of .Mrs. Yescombe's examination Mr.
Walter Savage Lando r came into court and was at once
called as a witness for the plaintiff. He deposed to
being present at Mr. -I(escombe's house when the gover-
ness said she would n rite a letter to Mr. Roche that
would make-him ashat red of his attentions to her, and
that she went upstairs apparently for that purpose.
Mdlle. Koch had stated that this letter was written at
the dictation of Mrs. Vesconabe. He (Mr. Landor) had
addressed a letter to the governess, giving her very good
advice. He could neither rebut nor substantiate the
charge of abduction against Mr. Roche. The plaintiff
and some other witness, is having been called to contradict
some of the statements made by and on behalf of the de-
fendants, Mr. T. W. Saunders addressed the jury on the
additional evidence givi in in support of the plaintiff's case,
regretting that Mr. Linder should have been induced
to make the exhibition of himself which had been seen
that day, and contending that the weight of evidence
fairly entitled the defer dants to a verdict. Mr Siack
then replied, and subrai tted the plaintiff had established
a case which entitled hi in to the full damages allowed by
the jurisdiction of the Court. His Honour, in summing
up, said the jury had to consider, in the first place,
where the truth lay. If they c insidered that the case
on the part of the plaintiff was true to the full extent to
which it had been opene d to them, and if they were also
of opinion that the cork Oct proved against Mr. Roche
was the came of the departure of the governess from the
service of the plaintiff before she had completed the term
of her service, then the plaintiff would be entitled to a
verdict ; but if theyfoun d that the conduct of Mr. Roche
a t conduct governessi
n
was not the procuringmight
tcause
that
thea mo
ral
point leaving,
ora
p
whatever
the plaintiff could not recover damages.
After some remarks
on the law of the case, as affecting
ante ov fre
view,the y
most unhappy and melancholy
n
the count charging the defendants with harbouring Ma-
demoiselle Koch, the learned judge, in conclusion, ob-
sa families of high station, whose
one. There
T that
her
e the
w er casee
two was
in before the Court
icontradictory
entirely
and the public, giving evidence example must influence tidthers,ence so coin in
upon oath that it was utterly impossible to escape !from
t against whom 'the jury
the conclusion that the
stigma of wilful per-
jury recorded against them. TI
be left in the position of havion'tere
was no escape from
might feel it to be their duty to retthuern that verdict would
other members of
absence
this result, either as regarded Mr. Roche or Mr. and
Mrs. Yescombe, to say nothing of the
their fatally. The jury then retired,
and after an
n tur harbouring,
f
from court of rather more than an hour, returned with
cou
a verdict against Mr. Roche on the
—damages one farthing. The jury afined
r to have
dt o make
qexcept those
been brought into court. His Honour dec i
ought, never expressed the
'
any special order as to cos, allowing
of
Mr. Maddccks, one of the defendants ; so
that each party
unanimous opinion that the case ou
will have to pay his own. The plaiudff withdrew
action for trespass which had been
Roche. another
brought against Mr.