The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-19 00:00:00

LiSTER. V. BOYLE.

'fhe plaintiff in this case is a lir:en-draper, in Sun-street,
the action was brought to recover the sum of 31. Os. 9d., for
drapery gooci4.
It was proposed, on behalf of the plaintiff, to prove the de-
livery of the goi.d= to the wife, and her admission of the debt.
'I he SN CONDA KY said, unless the wife was carrying on busi-
'lees S agei,t for her bust:find, her admission was not binding.

The attorney said the god were for domestic purposes.
The SECONDARY said in that case the debt wav due from
defendant, and the admission by the wife was not sufficient.
Ki ur s 'A a. 4 t!i.n called, v.ho proved an admission by de-
fendant hi tnAelf.— Verdict plain, if.

SMITH V. BRIGGS.
Thi4 wa4 an action by an ac,:ountant for making up defen-
dant's books. The charge was ss. per hour, and amounted to
91. Us.
It was clearly proved that sum had been agreed on. and that
it wac a common charge. The jury ihourtht it a very high one.
foe SECONDARY said it was a very usual one by accountants.
—Verdict for ptainiiff.

A SSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CI CU IT. —Chelinsfo-d, July 17.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice CotZLIDSE, and a
Common Juty.)
ENVER IP CARTER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff torecnver damages
from the de endant for the seduction o. hilt daughter.
Mr. Chambers, with tir. Eiwiu James, conducted the case
on behalf of the p ;tad ff, and Mr. sergeant Shee and Mr.
Wordsworth ty, rt. for the d-fendant.
Mr .1 A MILS in the absence of his leader) addressed the
jury, and aid that this way an action brought by the plair•tiff
to r,-cov,r compensation far what was termed by a action of
law the losa of hia daughter's se• vices, but in sub.tance it was
to obtain dam ,g,e,t for An injury committed by the defendant in
the seduction of hi. daughter. The Learned Counsel then pro-
ceeded to slate that the plaintiff in this action had formerly
been an exten:ise farmer at Belcham, in this county, but be

had re, ired from business, and at the time of this transaction

MS living, with his daughter Emma, the subject of the pre-
sent inquiry, and other members of his family, at a village
called Fox Earth. The defendant was the son of a wealthy
farmer in the sone village. and he believed he was about 22
Tears of age. An intimacy had sprung up between the young
people, at,d t.le defendant was looked upon as her arknowledged
suitor, and no. (;iiuht was entertained of his intentions, being ho-
nouratee. It would appear, however, that he had deliberately
planned the seduction and ruin of the plaintiff's daughter, and in
March, t 843, lie secceoded in obtainini pos-ession of her pi r-
son, upon (1: he was inswuoted) a solemn promise to make hilt
his wife. Their intimacy continued until the latter end of
1844, when the young woman gave birth to a child, and the
defendant then not only retused to perform his promise to
marry her, but had the cruelty to make a paltry offer of ss. a
week for the supeert of the child. The Learned Counsel,
after detailing some other circumstances, which will be found
in the evidence, concluded a very able and forcible a dress by
saying that the case was entitled to the most serious consideration
of the jury. A yeueg girl, who, up to the time the defenda it
crossed her father's, threshold, was virtuous and happy. and
performed all her filial duties, had been disgraced and ruined.
The defendant found his victim virtuous and unprotected; he
ruined and deserted her—
" Plucked the fair flower and rifled all its sweetness,
Then cast her, like a loathsome weed, away."
At the early age of 18, in the very dawn of life, before she had
felt and known that, " man to his fellows oftentimes unjust,
was ever so to woman," he had betrayed her, and left her a
prey to misery and temptation.
Emma Ewer, the daughter of the plaintiff, a very pretty
young woman, was then examined. She deposed that the
plaintiff. her father, was formerly a farmer, occupying a con-
siderable quantity of land at Belcham, in this county, but
he had latierly retired, and gone to reside with his family
at the village of Fox Earth. Her father had been twice
married, and upon his second wife going to reside away from
him, she (witness) used to keep his house for him. There
were two other sisters and a brother, but they were at school.
The father of the defendant lived in the same parish, and
witness became acquainted with the defendant, and they
were upon intimate and affectionate terms in 1843. He
*addressed tier as an honourable suitor, and visited her at her
father's house in that eapacity, and she also went to see him
at his father's and was received on the same footing. Before
the month of March. 1843, he had promised to marry her, and
told her that it he did not do so he wished he might never
prosper. In the course of that month she had been out on her
vie), for a rinte, and when she returned she was going to turn
it eat, as u uat, into the meadow, when the defendant cane
upon her unawares, and took her by force are a shed that was
close by, arid there, in spies of her resistance, accomplished his
purpose. Their intimacy continued after this until the month
of September. H 44, when she gave birth to a child. She had
repeatedly asked ,he defendant whether he intended to marry
her, ant he always tole her that he did, and repeated the ob-
servation that tie heeed he might never prosper if he did not.
After the child wa. been the defendant offered to allow tier se.
AI week for its lope. rt.
In cros--examination, the witness said that her own mo-
ther died in 1832, and her fattier married again in 1840, and
she was questioiied at emisiderable length with regard to
the comluct of her father, and she admitted that a woman
seamed Sharpe was siippesed to have had an illegitimate child
by him, and that her mother-iii-law complained very much of
his conduct in this re:pect• and had reproached him with al-
lowing his illegitimate e.hilitren to be brought to the house
where his wire and grown-up (taught-Ts reeided, and that she
eventually left his r .of in con-equence of his procee.iings with
raga, d not only to this woman. but to two others named Plu,n
and Meuse. fire witness was then questioned with regard to
her own ronduie. and she denied positively having had any
intimacy with other young men She admitted that she had
ocCa.tonally ridden en her pony over to the house of the
deiendate's fatner, unaecompaniea by any person. and without
a greom•
Mr. JAMES remarked, that it was not very likely that a
farmer's itaught,r would have a groom to attend upon her.
'the cross-examination was then continued a considered,
length, but n(rbi,•g material was elicited tending to shake the
testimeny Awe b" the witness.
Ileeex min d --Witness deni-ri positively having been to meet
any veung men at the village of Clare, or that she had
ever b eo IF, Whitehouse-em-1 with the defendant. Her father
and her stepmother lived unhappily, and the defendant was
scare of the fact
Mr, P. Viall deposed that he knew the defendant. and saw
him at Suiibury, w en he told him that he had srt•leit the
busineaa h.,tween 11i,s Ea,- and himself. He aiterwares told
him that !its tete 7,rOrro?,rl her marriage, anti that he would
serve her steer Helen or env other young lady in the same way,
unless he intended to makeher hi: wife. He said that he had
promised to marry her, but that she could not do anything in it
becau,e she had lit ~,ot any "black and white" to show for it.
enes.ex imined—A good many people were present when
the defendant said this, and they cried " Shame !"
elr. John Barley deposed that he was -cqueinted with the
plaintiff and his family. lie was a retired farmer, and his
daughter kept his house for him. He never saw anything
improper in the conduct of his daughter, and she always ap-
peared to be a virtuou-, well-conducted girl. After she had
been delivered ~f the child the defendant called upon him and
said that he wanted to make some settlement about the " Fox
Earth affair." Witness told him he should be very glad to
communicate any proposition he might make to Mr. Ewer, and
the defendant then said that he would settle the interest of 2001.
upon the child, and that 100 i. of the principal should be ap-
plied to educate it, and the remainder to put it apprentice; but
he added " he would not give a farthing to the girl."
Cross-examined—Witness was not aware that the defendant
had not got a shilling of his own, nr that the offer was made on
behalf of his father. The defendant, he believed, was not
more thee '2l or 22 years old. Before witness left him he slid
that he would rot in gaol if his offer was not accepted ; and he
likewise said that his tether would settle his property in such a
way as that no one should touch it.
Re-examined—The defendant is the eldest son, and his father
is considered a man of good property.
George Kidd, a tradesman, residing in the village of Fox
Earth, -depo.ed that after the action had been brought, the
defendant called upon him, arid said he wanted him to give him
some interma ion, and when he asked him on what subject, he
said " About. Mks Ewer." Witness told him that he knew
nothing disrespectful of her, upon which the defendant asked
him •t Whether he bad net seen a man in her bedroom," and
sail that it his would give hien information about her, he would
lose nothing by it.. Witness told him he had never seen any
improper conduct on her part, to which he replied, "You are
a lie then sale that he would give anything in
reason it' he ceuld obtain any information ; and witness told
him that rather than forswear himself he would cut his throat
from ear to ear.
Mr. Bates, the surgeon who attended the plaintiff's daughter
in her acconehernent, preyed that fact, and also said that he
any thing against the character of the young
had never heard
lady.
Mr. CH a MBEKS ',aid this was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr ergeant nEt then aildre,•ed the jury fir the
S
defen-
dant, and teiiiimenced bt saying tha' he admitted there were
1:-tv e• .ate which involve,: m.ire important questions as re
very
gargled morality than those of his description ; but at the same
time they varied must reeterially in their eh chms antes. In
the eve where the father was the htlaband of a virtuous witman,
where he had trained up his family virtuously and religiondy,
:rad were a eailehter who hat jest ar ived et the period of
'virtuous womenheed fell a victim In an unguarded moment to
the art- et a „iedocer, he would *emit that it was Imposeilile
to fee; too much svieptthy in such a case, or that any amount
of da i.ages eivert b• a jury could be too great for one party to
ray or the other to receive. He should, however. put it
to the jury whether Hata was a case of that description. and
. whether it was one in which the phintitToirght to receive any
primas amount of damages. He woulit admit that legally the
Vaintiff bee itiaite our his right re a verdict, and tee queelion
or the jury was to say, t:kine into eonsideration his own con-
duct in the trareactirin "ha' amount of damages he waeentitled
to. He leitue'l the fury to remember teat this action was
• brought b t..e plaintiff, aid that his daughter had no
muter,
st
in, and would not receive the least benefit fro
.n,
of damages they might think proper to awardri
hiihim.ny.
And he would now ask them what appeared to have been the
conduct of the father in this case? Instead of bringing up
his daughter, a younge wnrnan of considerehle personal attrae.
tines, and therefore necessarily eepeeee to great danger and
in a course of virtue and religion, he appeared
tempt a' jol
r,„y,_r to too,. -ken the lea, r ire of her, and insead o warding
off from h. r teet rat of a.ll ties, ble evils, a bad example, his
~son reitiduitt leiee,ritif to have been the worst that ceuld be
To.a„ibl* 4.pearrii to have (tarried on an neervourse
tee!, xemee, n,,e or ter. 4lt taiienn aepeaced to have had
mate eiiiidreii ; that tn. introduced there women and children
under his •e.n root, to has own children, nii,; that his own
woe
was at length cemeelled no
leave him in consequence. This
was the conduct of the ma . who now came forward to seek
for damages for that of which, he contended, he was himself
the sole rause, and who, instead of endeavouring to protect the
',films and innocence of his child, had really been the occasion
sx he; destruction by kis baneful example. ,After some further