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

look as if he had had a paralytic stroke. I see that
on his moving his countenance.
Mr. SKINNER addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages, contending that as the defendant had
suffered a paralytic stroke, the plaintiff could not
have suffered any loss from his not fulfilling his
original intention ; and that it would have been ex-
tremely improper and unfeeling in him to prosecute
an arrangement made by him in good faith be:ore
Providence had visited him with his fearful affliction,
and that the real author of the action was not the
plaintiff or her father, but her brother, who sought
to avenge the slight cast upon himself by the defend-
ant's sister, who, when she came to know him better,
loved him less. It was, in fact, the brother's action,
and he trusted that the jury, by the amount of the
damages which they should award would not en-
courage him in such a course of proceeding.
Mr. Justice PATTSSON, in summing up, said the
only issue was whether the defendant promised to
merry the plaintiff, and if the jury thought that he
did, the next question for them would be to consider
what amount of damages they would award to her.
The jury deliberated for ten minutes, and then
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 501.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 25,
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
WOOD V. COOPER SEDUCTION.

This was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff,
Mrs. Sarah Wood, for the seduction of her daughter
by the defendant, whereby she had lost her daugh-
ter's servicee, and had been put to great costs and
charges. The defendant pleaded, first, Not Guilty ;
secondly, that the plaintiff's daughter was not her
servant; and thirdly, that the plaintiff had not been
put to any costs respecting her.
Mr. Bliss, Q C., and Mr. Pashley, appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Stam-
mers for the defendant. -
Mr. Buss, in opening the case, said it belonged to
a class of cases unhappily too often the subject of in-
quiry. The plaintiff complained that her daughter
had been seduced by the defendant, and when he
added that in addition to the disgrace which the de-
fendant had brought on the plaintiff's family, that
his victim had since died in childbirth, he had given
them a brief outline of the sad circumstances of the
case. The parties were in a humble station in life,
the plaintiff being nearly seventy years of age. For
some time the plaintiff's husband had worked in a fac-
tory, and having accumulated a little money,
he had set up as a grocer, and on his
death had left the plaintiff his business to live
upon. The plaintiff had four children, two of whom
were daughters, and one was the subject of the
present action. She lived at home and managed the
house, owing to her mother's advanced age. The
defendant lived in the same village, Glossop, at no
great distance from the plaintiff, and was a married
man and a journeyman cotton-spinner, working in
the mill of a Mr. Sumner, in which mill Betty Wood,
the plaintiff's daughter, had also worked. It was at
this mill that the acquaintance between the parties
had begun. The pregnancy of the plaintiff's daughter
had not been discovered until immediately before she
was delivered of a child on the 27th of April last.
Three weeks afterwards she died. For a short time
the deceased had refused to disclose the father of the
child, until the doctor called in bad used a threat that
"he would not deliver her unless she declared who
was the father," and then she had stated that the de-
fendant was the father. Communications had then
taken place with the defendant, and he bad sent her
money, and made arrangements for her leaving home
to be delivered, and also for the support of the child.
After the death of the mother, however, the defendant
absolutely refused to make any provision for the
child, which the plaintiff was now compelled to main-
tain. These were the facts of the case, and the ury
would, he trusted, give such damages as its distress-
ing nature demanded.
Thomas Fielding, of Glossop, journeyman cotton-
spinner, stated that he knew the defendant, and that
he had been employed in the factory of Mr. Sumner,
of Glossop, for some years, as a cotton-spinner. Wit-
ness was employed at the same mill, about three years,
whilst the defendant was there. He knew Betty
Wood, the daughter of the plaintiff. She worked at
the mill whilst the defendant was there, and in the
same part of the mill. He heard, about May last,
that Betty Wood had had a child, and soon after lie
had a conversation with the defendant about it. He
told the defendant he had heard that Betty Wood had
had a child. He asked witness who had told him.
Witness said Charles Wood had told him, and that
Betty Wood said he was to tell him (the defendant)
that the doctor would not deliver her of the child
until she told who was the father, and that she
said defendant was the father. The defendant did
not say anything, but blushed red in the face. He
told witness to tell Mrs. Wood that there should be
nothing wanting on his part to bear the expenses.
The defendant also told him that he did not think
any other man knew what she was but him. He
also said, " Tom, I think as well of that lass as I
do of my own life." He also told witness that he had
given Betty Wood 71. to go off with, to be delivered
of the child, that no one should know anything about
it. Before Betty 'Wood died witness told defendant
that he had heard the child was going to be fathered
on him. He made no answer. He very often had
conversations with the defendant about the child, and
defendant said that nothing should be wanting on his
side in regard to the expenses. Betty. Wood died in
May, and after her death the defendant said he would
not have anything to do with the child, and would
pay nothing. He had heard that they had used
her ill.
Cross-examined—Is cousin to the plaintiff. He did
not know that Betty Wood was 30 years of age. The
defendant and the plaintiff lived near each other, and
Betty Wood knew the defendant was married, and
used to go and see his wife and nurse his children.
He did not know that Betty Wood was a milliner.
She had not worked at the mill for some time before
she had the child, but he had seen her going down
the road with "her breakfast and bagging" (tea) to
the mill.
William Robinson, overlooker in Mr. Sumner's
mill, stated that the defendant worked under him. In
May, last year, he had some conversation with the
defendant about Betty Wood's child. Witness told
him that it was reported they were going to father
Betty Wood's child on him. Witness told him he
had'better make an arrangement to pay a weekly sum
without having the child fathered The defendant
said, " I have no objection, I have given her a good
deal already." He waived the subject till after Betty
was dead, and then he said it was advisable not to
enter into any arrangement, for if he did they could
do anything with him. At one time witness drew up
an agreement in writing for the defendant to support
the child, at the wish of both parties. Afterwards,
when the defendant began to demur about supporting
the child, witness told him he wished he had never
known anything about it, as he had been made a
fool of.
Cross-examined—He knew:the family of the Woods.
He had seen Betty a few days before her confinement.
He could not tell what she bad been doing for a
living shortly before she died, of his own knowledge,
and hearsay was no good there.—(Laughter.) She
had been discharged from Sumner's mill because o
some disturbance in the mill.

-
Evidence to a similar effect was gi►en, and
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS, for the defence, addressed
the jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages, 251.
CHOWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
John Grundy was indicted for having, on the 22d
of last January, feloniously assaulted Mary Fern-
worth, with intent to murder her.
Mr. Sowler appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
T. Pollock for the defence.

It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix,
that she was employed in a mill, and that the prisoner
was her sweetheart. On the 22d of January last she
was going to her work across a field to the mill,
about a quarter to six in the morning, accom-
panied by a man named Massy Williams. It was
quite dark. The prisoner was standing in the
field. The prisoner had wanted to marry her
three years ago, and she bad always refused him.
He seized hold of her as she passed him, and she
asked him what he wanted ? lie replied, that
"He wanted her to promise him." She said,
" Promise what ?" He replied, " Whether you
will marry me or not? " She answered, " She
could not promise until she had seen her aunt." He
answered, " He would make her," and shook a coal-
miner's pick in her face saying, " He hid bought it
on purpose to kill her, that he would wait no longer
as he had waited long enough, and that he would
either have her or her blood." He then asked her
to go home with him, and put his arm round her
waist, and they both fell. She screamed out
" Murder," and he then stopped her mouth with his
hand. He got up first, and as she lay on the ground
he struck her with the pick on her head. The pick
went through her bonnet and hit her head. He asked
her if he had hurt her, and she said "Yes." IL
then asked her again if she would go home with him,
and she again replied that he must wait a bit. He
then struck her again three times with the pick while
she was on the ground. She was afterwards taken
home and attended by a surgeon.
In answer to his LORDSHIP, the prosecutrix said
she had had the prisoner in prison before for the same
kind of conduct. He had once stopped her and hid
her shawl in a coal-pit, which she left in his hands to

get away from him.
The Learned Counsel for the defence contended
that the prisoner was unable to distinguish between

right and wrong.
His LORDSHIP having summed up,
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and sentence
of death was ordered to be recorded agsinst him.
His LORDSHIP intimated that he would be taken
care of.