The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-27 00:00:00

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE

BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION.
Sir,—On Monday the 25th, the principal debate
was in Committee on the Chief Justices' Salaries
Bill. Many reasons may be advanced against the
policy of beginning economy with the cutting down
the salaries of the Government in general, and of
the heads of the law in particular. I can perfectly
conceive how it may suit the Protectionists to say,
" You have made a cruel interference with our purses,
and have reduced the price of corn. Now then the
first thing we will do for you, shall be to cut down
your own salaries, that as far as we are able you may
be a warning to yourselves and to future Govern-
ments, how they meddle with our purses and reduce
the price of corn." I can perfectly understand how
and why they should say this, and how they should
add (as was done with much eloquence and clear-
ness last night) that another object they have is to
demonstrate the truth of what they always main-
tained, that Free Trade is a humbug and a fraud,
and means cutting down every man's salary or wages,
from the top of the tree down to the bottom. But
the thing I cannot comprehend, or reduce to any
measure of public or private reason, is why those
who consider themselves Free-Traders, should hop
down upon this bushel of chaff, and scratch about in
it with as much glee and earnest delight, as if it
really was a good thing providentially set
before them for the welfare of their cause.
That men longing for, and seriously calculating en
the restoration of restrictions upon foreign commerce,
should state that the country is in a state of undis-
guised pauperism in consequence of the grievous error
of Free Trade, and insist on the necessity of begin-
ning economy in the most wounding way, by cutting
down the salaries of the high offices in the law and
Government, is nothing perhaps but what the Free-
Traders would do if they had for thirty years had a
tax on home-grown corn in favour of foreign, and
were now suffering under the removal of their wrong.
But that the Free-Traders at this moment should
chime in with this, and present themselves as willing
co-operators with their interminable enemies ;—that
they should give up the opportunity of stating, that
though they cannot resist voting for economy,
they believe the country to be intrinsically better able
to pay 1,0001. in salaries now than it was 9001. five
years ago, the proof of which is in the fact that sale•
ries and wages are raised in something like that pro-
portion in all but the classes which are justly suffering
for their sins ;—that they should quietly sink the
opportunity of strengthening their cause against
future dangers, and run their heads into every noose
the ingenuity of their adversaries can frame to take
advantage of their yielding moments, is what nobody
is bound to explain, but everybody who understands
the circumstances to resist.
On Tuesday the principal debate was on requiring
the Royal academy to produce accounts. It ap-
pears they have not had any public money ; but
they have had a public house. Nevertheless, the
right to demand any knowledge of their accounts was
negatived by 47 against 19. The House broke up
Sir, your obedient servant,
till the Bth of Afari.
nal,
AN OLD REFORMER.
London, 27th March, 1850.

It will be seen from a notice in our advertising
columns that the extensive house of J. P. and E. West-
head and Co., of Manchester, whose warehouse and
stock were entirely destroyed by fire on Friday morning
List, resume business this day (Wednesday), with a coal.
plete,and well assorted stock, after an interval of only
four days. The accomplishment of this stupendous re-
sult, which will doubtless prevent the loss of their
Spring trade, is, we understand,
.mainly
owing to the
great promptitude and exertions of the buyers of the
,
house, and to the circumstance of the extensive works of
the Messrs. Westhead supplying
a considerable portion
of their general warehouse stock.
TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE.--MT. Milner Gibson his
given notice that he will, on Thursday, April 16,
submit a motion to the House, as to the policy of
abolishing all taxes which directly impede the diffusion
of knowledge amongst the great body of the people,
with a view to the repeal of the stamp on newspapers,
the excise tax upon paper, the tax upon advertisements,
and the duty on foreign books."
Ma. JUSTICE ERLE AND THE QUAHERS.—At the
opening of the Assize Court at Bodmin on Monday them
were several Quakers present who refused to take off their
hats. Mr. Justice Erle, who presided, addressed them, and
said that all spectatori in a court must take off their hats ;
hereupon one of them assured the Learned Judge that they
did not keep on their hats in contempt of the Court, but from
a religious scruple not to show respect to man ; to which Mr.
Justice Erie rejoined, " Then you had better leave the court,
and if you refuse I must order you to do reamed," where-
upon all the Quakers left the court.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, March 26.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PONBIANQUE.)
IN RE Ch ARLEs JOSEPH CARTTAIt,

The bankrupt was a solicitor and newspaper pro-
prietor, of Greenwich. He was also coroner for that
division of Kent.
He now passed his last examination without oppo-
sition or remark.
The balance- sheet bas 'the following items :—The
unsecured debts are 4,1521. ; there are also 3,3901. on
account of a deed of assignment. The assets are—
good debts, 374/. ' • property, 16/. The losses include
, a sum of 2,l 94/. by the West Kent Guardian, of which
the bankrupt was the proprietor.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FANS.)
IN RE JAME., ELLIS. _

The bankrupt was the proprietor of the Cremorne
• Gardens and the Adelaide Gallery.
He now came up on a balance-sheet, prepared by
Mr. Hutton, to pass his last examination. Subjoined
is an abstract of the accounts from November 15,
,--.`,_1845, to October 13, 1849
Dr.
, . To creditors £12,343 10 3
'Sundry mortgages on property at Cre-
morne Gardens, held by Mr. Simpson
and Mr. Jacquet, and relinquished by
them, less as per arrangement with
' the assignees, of 11,3771. 4s. I Id.;
11,281/. 4s. 11d.
Liabilities as per contra ... .
Profit on sundry refreshments furnished
at Cremorne Gardens, Adelaide Gal-
lery, Italian Opera, and Lyceum Sa-
loons; balls at Hanover-square and
• Princess's Rooms, and Baker-street
Cattle-show ... 30,141 12 1
SUNDRY ADMISSIONS AS UNDER:-
Cremorne Gardens 20,005 8 11
Adelaide Gallery 21,396 16 7
• Hanover-square Rooms ••• ••• 103 2 0
Ball, Princess's Theatre ••• ••• 154 14 6
Capital on 15th November, 1845 ••• 750 0 0

96 0 0
4,310 0 0

£89,300 4 4

Cr.
By debtors ••• ••• ••• ••• 29 12 6
Property 19,674 14 7
Total amount of debts agreed to be re-
linquished and settled by Mr. T. B.
Simpson, 15,1191. 2s. 4d., and for
which Mr. Simpson agrees to pay ... 2,086 7 3
Property held by creditors ••• 81 0 0
Liabilities as per contra ... 4,310 0 0
Tolls payable to Mr. T. B. Simpson—
. Cremorne Gardens ... ..•
Adelaide Gallery ...
Royalty of Cremorne Gardens, payable
to Renton Nicholson ...
Sundry expenses—
Cremorne Gardens
. Adelaide Gallery •••
Italian Opera Saloon ...
Lyceum Theatre
Ball, Hanover-square Rooms ...
Bal Masque, Covent-garden ...
Ball, Princess's Concert-rooms ...
Crockford Rooms ••• •••
General trade expenses •••
Interest and discount ...
Law' expenses ...
• House and personal expenses ..
Losses—
Adelaide Picture Gallery
Sale of property under fiat
Bad debts

Balance at bankers
Deficiency ••

3,710 2 9
1,401 1 11

... 7,354 9 3

39,225 18 0
17,046 3 0
792 11 6
155 12 11
91 8 4
120 17 2
10S 18 6
44 5 0

986 15 11
5,025 8 4
2,987 17 3
925 10 11

377 13 5
2,405 12 3
20 15 6
2 15 1
9 7 7

£89,300 4 4

Among the creditors are :—Bass and Co., City-
road, 211/. ; Blumenthal and Co., Crutched-friars,
547/. ; Donaldson and Dixon, Mark-lane, 134/. ;
Darby, Lambeth, 1091.; Foulkes, Stockwell, 1,3801.;
Grimble and Co., 799/ ; Imperial Gas Company,
523/. ; Last, Joseph, West-street, Smithfield, 24.51. ;
Miller and Reilley, 1051.; Pook, John, Golden-
square, 300/. ; Reid and Co., Liquorpond-street, 6421.;
Simpson, T. 8., Great Russell-street, 3,9591.; Tasker,
J., Idol-lane, 6351. The item of property, 19,6741.
14s. 7d. includes the lease and good-will of Cremorne-
gardens, 2,2851.; building improvement., 6,4371. ;
• fixtures and fittings of Cremoroe-gardens, 4051. The
sum of 19,6741. is said to be the total cost of Crc-
morne-gardens. The expenses of the gardens are
thus made up : Fire insurance, 74/. ; printing,
2,959/. ; gas, 1,752/. ; rent, 1,948/. ; rates and taxes,
658/. ; balloon expenses, 2,515/. ; theatrical expenses,
735/. ; fireworks, 1,186/. ; wage,, 8,6931. ; advertising,
2,7371.; band expenses, 4.8001.; theatrical salaries,
4,6051.; sundry trade expenses, 5,805/. ; expenses
: of tournament, 5121 ; cost of licence, :241/. • total,
39,925/. The total expenses of the idelaide
Gallery are. 56,2721. ls., and include rent
• 2,8001., band and expenses 7,5671., salaries 1,012/.,
• wages 2,394/. :The rent of the Italian Opera
Saloon is entered at 760/. The receipts for admission
into Crernorne-gardens were—in 1846, 3,181/. ; in
1847, 4,944/. ; in 1848, 4,556/. ; in 1849, 5,094?. The
receipts at Batty's tournament were 8661.; for seats
in balloons, 1491.; at the esplanade bridge, 2361.; at
the row, 1551.;. at Burns' cottage, 231.; of the pano-
rama of Mexico, 211/. ; of the bowling alley, 1431.
• The receipts for admissions to the Adelaide Gallery
were—in 1846, 2,441/. ; in 1847, 5,619/. ; in 1848,
4,459/. ; in 1849, 5,815/ ; total, 18,3261. The amount
paid for refreshments from 15th November, 1845, to
13th October, 1849, was 23,323/. 2s. 91 The total
receipts for the same were 53,464/. 14s. 103., and in-
, elude the following items :—Cremorne-gardens, 1846,
8,Q26/.; 1847, 10,977/ ; 1848, 9,719/. ; 1849, 1,791/.
Adelaide Gallery, 1846, 1,546/. ; 1847, 2,833/. ; 1848
and 1849, 3,783/. Italian Oplra Saloon, 2,208/. Ly-
ceum Theatre Saloon, 168/. Bal Masque at Covent-
garden Theatre, 203/. Crockford's Rooms, 260/.
Mr. TAYLOR, for the assignees, did not think that
better accounts couli be furnished.
Mr. LAWRANCE applied for an allowance, on ac,

. _
count of the voluminous character of the accounts.
his HONOUR ordered an allowance of 251. to be
made for this purpose, and passed the bankrupt's ex-
amination.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gouutuari.)
IN BE T. W. BOULTON.
. • -
The bankrupt was a potato salesman in Broad-
court, Bow-street. Mr. Dawson supported, Mr.
Bagley opposed the granting of his certificate.
The chief ground of opposition sustained against
the bankrupt was, that he had been in partnership
with a Mr. Cufflin, and that he had during that time
drawn largely from the assets of the firm. After
Mr. Cuftlin had taken upon himself the payment of
the debts of the firm, the bankrupt had violated the
terms of an agreement, and commenced business in
direct opposition to his late partner. The bankrupt's
debts were upwards of 5001., his assets 21. 15s.
The COMMISSIONER suspended the certificate two
years; protection not to be granted unless the bank-
rupt shall have been in prison six months.
IN RE R. RAWLINS.
The bankrupt was a linendraper, in Queen's-row,
Pimlico. Mr. Parker opposed ; Mr. Lawrance sup-
ported his application fur a, certificate. The bank-
rupt's debts were about 1,1001., his assets nominal.
The COMMISSIONER suspended the certificate six
months, on the ground of reckless trading; when
issued, to be of the second class. Protection was
_granted.

IN RE J. PYM.
The bankrupt was a merchant in Broad-street. His
case has been alreany frequently noticed. lie this
day pissed his last examination, and obtained on
order for his discharge from prison. Mr. Lawrence
appeared for the creditors; Mr. Hawkini for the
bankrupt.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
ROME CIRCUIT, Maid tone, March 25.
CRP WN SthE.—(fore Mr. Ju*tica Matn.E.)
George Kipps, a man apparently more than fifty
years of age, surrendered to answer an indictment
for misdemeanour, in having unlawfully taken a girl
named Charlotte Jeffrey, under 16 years of age, away
from her part nts without their consent.
Mr. Decides prosecuted, and Mr. Campbell appeared
for the defendant.
Charlotte Jeffrey, a good-looking young girl, de-
posed that her father kept the Bell public-house at
Kemsing, and she was living there at the time this
occurrence happened. She knew the defendant, who
was a married man and had several children, and
f he
resided near her father's house. On the 28th o May
she went to his house on a visit, and the defendant's
• -wife asked her to remain and take care of a child
while she went out on an errand, and she and the de-
fendant were left together, and upon this occasion he
took some indecent liberties with her, and he at the
same time told her not to tell his wife. After this
time he repeated his indecent conduct upon several
occasions, and he repeatedly told her that he wished
he was not married and he would take her away
with him, and he several times asked her to leave
'ner father and mother and go away with him.
During this period he sent her several letters, which
he told her to burn; and also a lock of his hair, and
she gave him one of hers. She also wrote several
" letters to him. On the 18th of November she met
the prisoner by appointment at the church gate, and
they went away together to Cobham, where they
slept, and the next day they went on to Sheerness,
and afterwards to King's Ferry, where her father and
mother, accompanied by a constable, overtook them,
and she returned home with them. When she left her
father's house she took away a bundle containing her
clothes, and also 145., and this money she gave to the
defendant. _ _

Vv
Cross •examined—The defendant gave her a poetry
book before he wrote any love letters to her. She
burned his letters as be bad requested. Her mother,
upon one occasion, had beaten her on account of her
suspecting that she was too intimate with the defen-
dant. She did not believe that the reason her mother
beat her was because she " looked wicked" at the
men, but she would not swear that this was not the
reason. She never before wrote letters to either young
men or old men. She knew very well when this

occurred that the defendant was a married man and
that he hail 'eight children. She made no complaint
to the defendant's wife of his having acted indecently

towards her.
Sarah Jeffery, mother of the last witness, deposed
that her daughter was not yet sixteen years old. She
remembered the day that she went away, and imme-
diately suspected that she was gone with the de-
fendant. Having procured the assistance of a con-
stable, she and her husband started in pursuit, but
did not come up with them until the Tuesday follow-
ing, when she found her daughter and defendant
together at King's Ferry. She had suspected that
there was too great an intimacy between the de-
fendant and her daughter for some time before she

went away.
William Jeffery, the father of the girl, proved that
she went away without his consent.
James Upton deposed that after the prisoner had
been taken into custody he told him that he took the
girl away on purpose to destroy the peace of mind of

her mother.
Mr. CAMPBELL then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, and he read portions of some of the letters
written by the girl to show that she had gone away
of her own accord.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said, that
the conduct of the defendant had been most atrocious.
He WAS a man advanced in life and married, and had
a large family ; but still it was evident he had laid a
deliberate plan to seduce and ruin this poor young
girl, and he had then unblushingly admitted that hi(
intention was to destroy the peace of mind of her
m )they. If he had the power to order the defendant
to be hanged for what he had done, he did not think
any one would consider the sentence too severe, and
he felt himself called upon to pass upon him the full
sentence prescribed by the statute for the offence of
which he had been convicted.
The defendant was then ordered to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for two years, to pay a fine
of 501. to the Queen, and to be further imprisoned

until. such fine should be paid.
James Taffy, 49, indicted for embezzling 701., the
moneys of James Dean, Thomas Edward Frater,

and others.
Mr. Knapp and Mr. F. Smith prosecuted, and Mr.
Parnell defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutors were members of
a benefit society at Chatham, which was not enrolled,
and the prisoner, who was a member of the society,
acted as secretary and kept the accounts, and by
means of false entries it was alleged that he had de-
frauded the society to a very considerable amount.
The Leained Judge, upon the opening statement of
the counsel for the prosecution, expressed an opinion
that the prisoner did not stand in the position of a
servant so as to fulfil the requirements of the statute
in a case of embezzlement. He was a member of the
society which was alleged to have been defrauded,
and it could not be said that he was a servant to

himself.
Mr. KNAPP said that this difficulty had suggested
itself to him upon perusing the depositions, but he
felt it to be his duty to lay the circumstances of the
case before the Court.
Mr. Justice MAULS, addressing the jury, remarked
that it was a great pity that these societies did not
get themselves enrolled, because then trustees were
generally appointed; and had that been the case in
the present instance, the prisoner might have been
indicted as their servant. It was not for him to give
advice, but it was clear from the prevalence of of-
fences of this description that something should be
done to protect societies like this, as under the pre-
sent system a cunning fellow was enabled to rob them
almost with impunity. As he was perfectly satisfied
the prisoner did not come within the definition of a
servant, as required by the Act, it would be useless to
occupy their time by hearing the evidence, and they
would therefore at once acquit him.
Tne jury accordingly, under his Lordship's direc•
tions, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The prisoner was then charged upon another in-
dictment with forging a receipt for 401. 133 , with
intent to defraud the same society.
Mr. KNAPP said he was very sorry for the sake cf
the public and of the poor persons who had been de-
frauded, that for the reasons stated by his Lordship
he was compelled to abandon this case also.
The jury therefore returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.
William Williams, alias George Ammoner, 45, a
very respectable-looking seafaring man, who wore
the Acre medal, and also a decoration of the kingdom
of Spain, was indicted for forging a letter cf attorney,
with intent to defraud John Oliver.
Mr. F. Smith prosecuted ; Mr. Parnell was for the
prisoner.
It appeared that in July last the prisoner went to
a Mr. Solomon, a navy agent, at Chatham, and asked
for an advance of money, representing that his name
was John Oliver, and that he was a third-class gunner
on board her Majesty's ship Dolphin, stationed on the
coast of Africa, and that he had a considerable amount
of prize-money due to him for the capture of slavers
and for wages; and upon his producing a forged car-
tificate of the captain of the Dolphin to that effect, a
letter of attorney was drawn up, which the prisoner
signed, and Mr. Solomon then advanced him 50/. It
turned out that the prisoner's story was entirely
false, and upon the arrival of the real John Oliver in
England, in November last, the fraud was discovered,
and the prisoner was sought after and apprehended at
Plymouth.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
Another indictment of a similar character against
the prisoner was then brought forward, but to this he
pleaded "guilty." He at the same time implored the
merciful ponsideration of the Court upon the grounds
that he bad been twenty-five years in her Majesty's
service, and that he had lost a pension of 301. a year
through this transaction.
He was sentenced to be transported for seven years
March 26.
(Before Mr. Justice MAULE and a Common Jury.)
BRYANT V. LEIGH.
This was an action for seduction.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Simmons were for the
plaintiff ; Sergeant Shee and Mr. Creasy for the de-
fendant.

Mr. CHAMBERS said that the plaintiff in this action
was Ambrose Bryant, an innkeeper at Edenbridge,
in this county, and the defendant was Henry Leigh,
who carried on the businesses of farmer, surveyor, and
land agent, in the same ;neighbourhood; and the
action was brought to recover damages from the de-
fendant for having seduced Mary Anne Bryant, the
daughter of the plaintiff. It would appear that there
had been no intimacy between the parties until the
month of August, 1847 ; and at this time the plain-
tiff's daughter was about twenty-four years old, and
the defendant nearly fifty. In that month the young
woman had gone on a visit to a relation, and upon
her return by the train the defendant got into the
same carriage, and he entered into conversation with
her, and asked permission to accompany her home,
and expressed his intention to visit her on the follow-
ing day. He did so, and from this time an intimacy
sprung up between them, and the defendant was a
constant visitor at the house of the plaintiff, and he
repeatedly promised to marry the daughter. In the
month of January, 1848, the plaintiff was unfortu-
nately from home upon business, and the defendant
took advantage of the opportunity afforded by his
absence to overcome the scruples of his daughter, and
succeeded in accomplishing her ruin, and the result
was that she became in the family way. The defen-
dant continued to profess honourable intentions, and
upon one occasion he fixed the period for the marriage,
but postponed it upon some excuse of business, and
he went so far as to give the young woman money to
purchase ft wedding ring. At length she entertained
a suspicion that he was upon intimate terms with a
widow lady named Stevens, residing in the same
neighbourhood ; but upon her taxing him with it, he
indignantly denied it, and asserted that he would never
marry any other woman than herself. The suspicion,
however, turned out to be well founded. Shortly
afterwards the defendant married this lady, and upon
an application being made to him to make some repa-
ration for the injury he had inflicted upon the plain-
tiff and his daughter, he very coolly remarked that
she ought to affiliate the child, and he afterwards said
that he had consulted his lawyer, and he would rather
spend 2001. than settle the matter, or make any com-
pensation. The Learned Counsel then stated that the
young Woman was delivered of a child, which was
still alive, in the month of October, 1848 ; and he said
that owing to the conduct of the defendant towards
the young woman shortly before, and which would be
detailed to them in evidence, her delivery was of the
most painful description, and for six months after-
wards she suffered most severely from illness, and
under these circumstances the plaintiff came before a
jury to obtain compensation in damages from the de.
fendant for the very serious injury he had received at
his hands.
Mary Ann Bryant deposed that she was the
(laughter of the plaintiff. He keptthoethNeVrheehatilsdhreeanf
Inn, Edenbridge. There were four
at present living at home. Witness waser tdwieendg
tyei-shixt
years of age last December. Her mother
years ago, and since her death witness had managed
the domestic business of the house, and she was to
be paid 141. a-year wages. Knew the defendant,
who is a farmer, builder, and surveyor of timber. lie
occupies five farms. The defendant told her that he
wag upwards of fifty years of age. This was before
her misfortune. In August, 1847, witness went
with: a young woman to visit a relative at Brenchley,
and on her return she saw the defendant in the rail-
way carriage. She knew him by sight, but had
never spoken to him before. Witness had a bunch of
hops in her hand, and the defendant began to con-
verse with her about them, and when they got out the
defendant proposed to accompany them home, and he
went pact of the way, and when they parted he promised
to visit her the following day and bring a bunch of

hops to show her. He accordingly came and re
mained there until ten o'clock at night, and the de-
fendant paid her a good deal of attention,
and when he went away he said he should
come again very shortly after. He visited her
again in a few days, and continued frequently to
come to see her from this period, and he generally
spent h;s Sundays with her, and appeared to
lead her to believe that he intended to make her
his wife. On the 18th of January, 1848, her father
was away from home on business, and she and three
brothers were left in charge of the house. The de-
fendant came in about seven o'clock, and remained
until two the next morning, and in the course of that
evening he told her that he fully intended to make her
his wife, and there was no one else he could be happy
with, and she unfortunately yielded to his solicita-
tions. The family were all gone to bad, and the
affair took place in a little back parlour. Toe de-
fendant after this appeared more attentive than before
and visited her more frequently, and she believed
more than ever that he intended to make her his wife.
Upon one occasion he sent a sovereign to pay for a
beer score, and as there was nine and sixpence
change, he told her to buy a ring with it. She re-
plied it would not buy a good one, and told him to
buy one himself, but he replied that it would not
look well for an old man to buy a wedding-ring.
She bought a wedding-ring afterwards, and the de-
fendant put it on her finger, and told her to wear it
as a token of his love. She had worn that ring ever
since, and the defendant took away a ring which she
had been in the habit of wearing, and said he should
keep it, as it was an emblem of his love, to
which, like the ring, there was no end. Wit-
ness did not mention the matter to her father,
because he bad no wife, or any other daughter
but herself. The defendant afterwards asked her
to go to London to get married, and she consented to
do so as soon as she could prepare her dress. The
defendant said her clothes would do, and she then told

him to appoint his own time and she would be ready,
and he said the marriage should take place at the end
of a fortnight, but when the time arrived he made an
excuse for not going, as he had business with a gentle-
man named Streetfield, to whom he was agent. After
this he continued his visits, but kept postponing the
day for the marriage. In August she was far ad-
vanced in the family way, and one day she saw the
defendant driving by in his cart with a widow lady
named Stevens, and she reproached him for doing so.
He told her not to fret, and said he could not bear to
see her weep. Witness said she could not help it, as
he was deceiving her, and she had heard he was going
to be married to Mrs. Stevens. The defendant re..
plied, " No, my dear, it is not likely I shall leave my
babe and you.' Witness continued crying, and said
if her father came to know it he would banish her
for ever, and she had no mother to take her part.
The defendant, upon this occasion, told her that he
had 2,0001. besides his farming business, and he cried,
and said he would never marry any one else.
Shortly after this conversation the defendant called
her attention to the report of a trial for seduction,
" Brown v. Yardley," and asked her what she thought
of it, and she replied that she thought it was very
cruel, and the defendant said he should be ashamed
to treat any young woman so. On the sth October
the defendant was at her father's house, and he wanted
to kiss her, but she told him she would not permit
him to do so while he carried that widow woman
about in the manner he did. The defendant slid he
should never think of having Mrs. Stevens, while she
lived. At this time she was far advanced in pregnancy,
and the defendant said if it was a boy it should have
his name, and if it was a girl it should be christened
Martha, which was his mother's name. She told him
she should never live to see it, and the defendant

became angry, and shook and squeezed her violently
In consequence of this violence she was taken very
ill, and was obliged to go to her bed, and on the 20th
October she was confined of a male child. She
continued ill for upwards of six months, and was
unable to do any work ; and during this period she
bad a nurse and medical attendance, and was supported
by, her father.
Cross-examined—Her father formerly kept a beer-
shop only, and the defendant signed a certificate of
his good character in order to enable him to obtain
a spirit licence. Witness was the only person who
waited upon the customers, but there was a girl
kept to do the household work. They had a very
good run of business at the beer-shop. Her grandfather
previously kept Marsh-green Farm, which was now
occupied by the defendant, who obtained possession of
it by giving 201. a year more rent than her grand-
father. Her father, of course, was not very well
pleased at the conduct of the defendant. She was
aware of this unpleasant feeling when she first became
acquainted with the defendant. Two of the farms
occupied by the defendant were the property of the
lady whom be has married. She had no curiosity
to ascertain what the defendant's property consisted
of. It was not customary for ladies to ascertain what
amount of acreage their intended husbands were pos-
sessed of.—(A. laugh.) She believed the Marsh-
green Farm was about a hundred acres. She did
not sit and drink with the defendant. Her father
knew they were together, but he might have sup-
posed that she was waiting for orders. In 1844 she
stayed for eight mouths at a public-house at Bletch •
ingly, kept by a person named Sheerman. Remem-
bered a gentleman named Littlewood staying at this
house. He was driven away from a public-house in
the same neighbourhood for b.ing found in bed with
the landlord's daughter. He left his horse and
chaise behind.—(A laugh.) Did not make acquaint-
ance with this gentleman. Was never in his bed-
room while he was there. No such charge was
ever made against her. Knew a young man named
Lashman. He used to frequent the house at Bletch-
ingly. She had never been found fault with about
him. Defendant did not say how much he was over
fifty years of age. She never told her father that
she was in the family way, but her grandmother
found it out, and told her father, and it made him
very ill, and he took to his bed. The immorality
with the defendant occurred between ten and eleven
o'clock, and he stayed until two the next morning.
Could not say when it happened again. She did not
keep any account of it. Could not answer the ques-
tion whether the intercourse always took place in the
same back parlour, but it was repeated on a number
of occasions.
Mary Jenner proved that she nursed the daughter
of plaintiff during her confinement, and that she was
in attendance upon her from October, 1848, to the
succeeding January, and during that period she said
she was unable to do anything for herself, or to assist
in any way in the household affairs.
Samuel Munday, a schoolmaster at Edenbridge,
deposed that in October, 1849, he went to serve a
writ of summons upon the defendant, and he asked
him not to do so at that time, as his wife was by, and
also to try and hush up the matter, and he said he
thought the plaintiff's daughter ought to have affi-
liated the child, and not to have brought an action.
The defendant made an appointment to meet him the
same evening, but he did not keep it, and he could not
serve the writ upon him for several days, and when
he did so the defendant said he had consulted his
lawyer, and his money was all tied up, and he would
spend 2001. rather than settle the matter. The widow
Stevens, who at this time was married to the defend-
ant, was present at the time, and she said that she
had given orders to the workmen on the farm not to
go to the plaintiff's public-house on pain of dis-
missal, and she added that the action should not do
him any good.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Sergeant Sacs then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, and said that the defence he was instructed
to offer, and according to those instructions, which he
was bound to lay before them, was, that the statement
of the plaintiff's daughter with regard to the conduct
of the defendant was not true, and that in point of fact
no such intimacy or connexion as that which had
been spoken to by her had ever taken place between
them. The jury would see that it was utterly im-
possible for him to produce any evidence to show this
was the case ; and all he could do was to call their
attention to the circumstances as they appeared by the
evidence, and to ask the jury whether the reasonable
inference to be drawn from those facts was not the
one he had suggested, namely, that the young woman
was not speaking the truth when she asserted that the
defendant was the father of her child under the cir-
cumstances narrated by her. The case rested entirely
upon the evidence of the young woman herself;
there was not the slightest attempt at corroboration ;
and he urged upon the jury that if it was true that
the defendant had been so constantly at the house, as
was stated, nothing could have been easier, at all
events, than to have proved that fact by °tier testi-
mony. If, however, the jury should think that they
could place reliance upon the evidence of the daughter
of the plaintiff, it appeared to him that they must be
of opinion, at the same time, that this was
not a case of deliberate seduction, but that the de-
fendant, by going to the house of the plaintiff to take
refreshment, bad fallen into company with this young
woman, and that she had listened to his improper
proposals, and was as much to blame as he was ; and
that in such a case a very small amount of damages
would cover the injury that had been sustained by the
plaintiff in the present action.
Mr. Justice MAITLE having summed up, the jury,
after a very short deliberation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, 2001.
(Before Chief Justice WILDE and a Special Jury.)
THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OP ROCIIIISTER v. LEE.
This cause, which has been going on for five days,
was late to-day brought to a conclusion.
The object of the action was to establish the right
of the corporation to levy certain tolls upon coals
brought within their jurisdiction.
The case for the defendant closed on Monday night,
and this morning the Attorney-General made a most
powerful and convincing reply on behalf of the cor-
poration upon the whole case.
The Learned CHIEF JUSTICB summed up most
elaborately, and the jury having retired, after an lib-