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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 28.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Nini Prius in Middlesex, More Mr. '
Justice Willes and a Common Su .y.)
TAPPIN V. NUNN-SEDUCTIO 4.
The plaintiff in this case was a w ow woman,
and she claimed damages for the seduction of her
daughter, Eliza Tappin.
Mr. Haddlestone appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant Ballantyne and Mr. J. I. 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 St. 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 lid not. The
defendant paid me attentions. I wes 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
life 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. lie 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. He 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, bat working 16 or 18 hours a day, in
consequence of my being in the family way. The
defendant sent me L 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 Ballantine—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 previous 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. Tappin (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 goad 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. .1 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 eye—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 in which he was placed, would
be likely to meet with anything but sympathy. His
client was a husband and had thres children, and
ho 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 Willer 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 brinc, 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; hut 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
them, and that she was apparently at that time
whitchhe was ba b
de
anything but a modest woman.
(Towards the conclusion of the learned sergeant's
address
y elwataos
redto b
brought into court, a`proceed-
in lug
that
trieedawn
twith
attemptsuch
success to excite
sympathy, similar
" Bardell v. Pieltwiek."
Mr. Wm. Nunn—On
the day of Fairlop Fair, in
lEBasgBl ,e IT
awvaesr nwiint with
htewo evening.fried4- We went to the
saowr
thethe plaintiff's
daughter there on that evening f
She was dancing and walking about thefirgrstartndstir".
She came to our table and asked me to treat h eri
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
ng I plain-
tiff'sthec ou rse ofenh.i
daughter therln dancing. I danced
that ev wit her
for the first time.
left the room and went
back to the ball and she
aaccommodation.We cameh h
with er to a ouse of
morning, she asked me
at two in the
went on dancing. Gave her half sovereign. When
I went ho me
y, and she did meet me
if I would meet her next da