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

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
agar in .a few days, and continued frequently to
come to,see her from this period, and he generally
spent his Sundays with her, and appeared to
lead `here td 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 be could be happy
with, and she unfortunately yielded to his solicita-
tions. The family were all gone to bed, and the
affair took place in a little back parlour. The 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 scare, 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 had 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 e. -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 said 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 tnother'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
had a nurse and medical attendance, and was supported
by her father.
Cross- exarnined —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 Ferns, 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 he 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 months 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 bring 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 E ienbridge,
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 (laughter ought to have affi-
liated the child, and not to hare brought an action.
The defendant made au 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 SUER 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
daendant 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 otker 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
refrebhment, had 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 MAULS having summed up, the jury,
after a very short deliberation, returned a verdict fur
the plaintiff—Damages, 2001.
(Before Chief Justice WILDE and a Special Jury.)
THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION or RoCoasTER r. LSE.
Thi• cause, which has been going on for five days,
was late to-lay brought to a conclusion.
The object of the action was to establish the right
()fti
broughtle c
withinpor at itohne
their
ro levy certain tolls upon coals
jurisdiction.
The case fs,r 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. JCSTICA summed up most
elaborately, and the jury having retired, after an ab-