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

L occurred that the defendant was a married man and
that he had 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 Set sixteen years old. She
remembered the day that she went away, and imme-
diatoly suspected that she was gone with the de-
rehdant. Having procured the assistance of a con-
itable;'• she, and her husband started in pursuit, but
didbnnt 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 his
intention was to destroy the peace of mind of her
mother. 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 Toffs, 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 Learned 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
chat 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 fur 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.
The 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 of
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 Wiriams, 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 of 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 cer-
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." lie at the same time implored the
merciful consideration of the Court upon the grounds
that he had 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 Mama 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
fondant.

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 orercome 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 a 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
daughter of the plaintiff. He kept
thesheWhweaastshtehaef
Inn, Edenbridge. There were four other children
at present living at home. Witness was twenty-six
years of age last December. Her mother died eight
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. He
occupies five farms. The defendant told her that he
was upwards of fifty years of age. This was be;bre
her misiortune. 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, part of the way, and when they parted he promised
to visit her the' following day and bring a bunch of