The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL.......(TRII DAY.)

SEDUCTION.-AIANvELL v. THOMPSON.

Mr. Lowe opened the pleadings, which was an action brought
by the plaintiff against the defendant, for compensation in dama-
ges for the seduction of his niece.
Mr. WILLIAms stated the case to the Jury.—The plaintiff was
a ticket porter in the city, and the girl was the daughter of a late
brother. That brother died, leaving six children to the care of
the plaintiff, with a fortune of 9,0001. to be distributed among
them. The plaintiff, anxious to enable the children to provide
for themselves, put the unfortunate girl, who was to be brought
before the Jury, into the manufacturing house of Mr. Nichols, in
Gracechnrch-street ; she was then only 16 years of age, and the
defendant lived opposite the house of Mr. Nichols. The defend-
ant, who was thirty years of age, laid the train of his de-
structive object by writing anonymous letters to the unfortunate
girl. He wrote three letters to her, before she consented to
meet him on Southwark Bridge, on a Sunday morning
at eleven o'clock. He then, as he had in the letter he had
written to her, pledged the purest esteem and the greatest
affection. The acquaintance went on, till the defendant
urged her to leave the situation she was in, under an
assurance that he should marry her. She would not consent
to marriage until she had returned to her uncle's. He followed
her there. He was introduced to the uncle, who, from his ap-
pearance and recommendations, did not object to the growing in-
timacy, but recommended strict propriety. At length he per-
suaded her to accompany him to Highgate for a day, and having
bought the ring and presented her with it, as well as with some
other little articles, assured her that he should marry her on the
following morning. On the evening of the same day, on their
return to town, the defendant induced the girl to stop at a lodging
he had previously taken in the City-road ; and on that evening he
wrote the following letter to the plaintiff .
" DEAR SIR—I trust you will excuse your niece getting mar-
ried without your knowledge, but will call on you to-morrow
morning and explain. " Your's,

" W. G. THONIPSON.

" City-road, May 1, 1826."
After they had remained together all night, the defendant got
up, and went away, faithfully pledging himself to return to marry
her. But, instead of doing this, lie immediately wrote and sent
the following letter to her, which the Learned Counsel considered
exceeded all the heartless and cold-blooded acts he had ever known
or heard of, in romance, on the stage, or.in any act in human life.
"Dear Emma,—This is the last time I can ever address you.
On arriving at home I found my wife in a dangerous state, owing
to my absence ; and I feel convinced, if I were to stay away
another night, the consequences to her would be fatal.
—I regret exceedingly, what has taken place between us,
but I will take care to inform your uncle, that no improper
familiarity has taken place, and if he calls on me, I shall
certainly tell him, 1 endeavoured to prevail on you but could
not, and I therefore entreat you to return home without further
delay. All yon have to do is, to tell Mrs. Turtle that you shall
sleep in town to-night; take your things with you, and I
shail give up the lodgings, saying you did not like them.
if you are questioned, how you slept, say, in separate
rooms, and I shall do the same ; and that what induced you
to stay out all night was, that I said 1 would marry you
the next day, and that I persuaded you your uncle would
not let you out for another day. And, now, let me in-
tread you to go home immediately, and may you be happy.
With respect to the few Wicks I gave you, keep them, sell
then), or throw them away, and never more think of rne, for it
is out of my power to make you happy ; indeed, if I were to keep
up a connection with you, I should consider myself as the mur-
derer of my wife. If at any time you should want my assistance,
I
of you to return home, shall be most happy to render it to you. Let me again entreate,
140 ed but 'a disappointment in marriage. Adieu for ever.—...—
p' s. ito
The Learned and appear as if nothing more had hap.
this •
0 can say, that when
morning I evaded,and therefore you thought best to return
home. ) you pressed me about marriage
" WILLIAM."
the
eunsel concluded
his statement with a most pa.
thetic appeal to
Maieljltsnwlo. sworn examined by ,
Elizabeth Mr. Law.—My name
is Elizabeth M
David Manvell ;'ll April last ;
yell ; am the niece of the
I know the defendahwt was
seventeen years old
withibitn
at the time
present plaintiff,
le acquainted
I was living at Mr. Nicholls',
by seeing him at the Nicholls'
house in Graceehurch window.
He lived. opposite r. _
-atreet and kept a hoot and shoe shop.
My first acquaintance with him 11 letter
from him. I received the receiving
I first became acquaintedAl with him
Prat
began by
in this year, which I took second
no -notice of. I received a
rat letter on the 20th February

Which I answered. t received a third, and then met him at the
appointed place. Upon seeing him, he told me they came from
him. I produced them, having them with me. There were two
letters that I destroyed. He comforted himself then like a
gentleman, and entreated me to make an appointment with
him again, but I resisted, and would not consent. I
saw him freqiiently afterwards whilst itt Otacechurch-street, but
as seldom as 1 could. The defendant bad a young person living
at his house, to whom be introduced me as his sister. The de-
fendant wished me to leave Mr. Nicholls to get married to him ; I
put it off as long as I could, and . at last I left and went
to my uncle's. This was ahotie the beginning of May.
I retuned to my Uncle ; he bad no other servant at the
time. After my return, I received another letter, and saw the
defendant, he continuing to conduct, himself with every propriety.
I made a communication to my relations of what he had proposed.
I have seen him and my uncle together. Cannot say what
day I left my uncle's house fti gb tti Highgate, but it was
on s, Monday morning very early in May. This letter put
into my hand is dated on the Slat of April, and it was the
day before this that I went back with him ; he then proposed
that I should go with him to the Exhibition at Somerset House ;
we went in a hackney-coach at 11 o'clock. It rained, and he
drove to Covent-garden ; when we got out there, I asked where
he was going ; he said to Highgate to dine • I expressed my sur-
prise, but went; we dined and drank tea there. On our way back
I thought I was going home ; when we arrived at Covent-garden on
our way back he called a hackney-coach,
into which we got; did not
hear where he ordered the coachman to drive to. When I was near
home, I observed that the coach was going in a direction not likely
to take me home, and on inquiring respecting that, the
defendant told me, that we were going to his house. In the
coach he gave me a wedding ring, put it on my finger, and
said I might consider myself married now. I said
that was not lawful ; but he said it was too late to obtain a li-
cence for .that day, for which he was very sorry; but that the
marriage should take place on the following morning. On our
way in the coach, we stopped in Gracechurch-street, where we
both got out, and went into the shop ; in the shop he wrote a
note, which, after we had got into the coach again, he told me
was to my uncle, to let him know where I was to be all night.
I did not know what the note contained nor how he conveyed it,
but I think he must have given it to the coachman to convey.
He desired the coachman to drive to Windsor Terrace ; I said 1
should not pass the night there, but he told me his determin-
ation was firm, and it was of no use my resisting. When
we got to the house, he introduced me to the woman of the house,
as Mrs. Thompson. He ordered supper, which was immediately
got. We did not say much, because the landlady was in and
out every now and then. The bed-room was adjoining to the
sitting-room. At about twelve or one o'clock, he banded me
into the bed-room ; I would not stir until be took me to the door,
and not knowing the house nor seeing any body in it, I did not know
what to do ; I was only in the bed-room about five minutes be-
fore he came in, in which, and in my bed he passed the night;
previously he told me he should marry me in the morning; in the
morning, about nine o'cloca, he left me, saying, he should call on
my uncle, and return in an hour, and do according to his pro-
mise ; I saw no more of him, but received the letter from him now
put into my hand; I returned home directly.
Cross examined by Mr. DENMAN—I and my brother and sister
had some money left among us. My uncle has aeon and slaughter
of his own. We all assisted in doing the domestic offices. My
property I believe paid for my maintenance. My uncle never inti-
mated that he was keeping me at his expence.
Mr. DENMAN now submitted that this action was not main-
tainable, on the ground of there being no proof that the uncle was
either the guardian or trustee of the witness.

By the aouliT—There was a business left which was to sup.
port us; the business was carried on by the executors until they
died. Before they died, my uncle received some money, but I
don't know that he has received any since. The money was not
to be paid so us till after we were 21 years old. The money is
pow in the Bank, and I rather think, but I don't know, that my
uncle receives the dividends.

The LORD Om? ArsTics now decided that the relation of
master and servant was made clear.

Mr. DisMAN's examination continued—When I was between
14 and 15 I Went to live with Mr. Brasier in Bell-alley, where I
remained six weeks; afterwards I went to live with Mrs. Hall in
Cheapside, where I resided for eleven months ; I next went to live
with a lady in Finsbury-circus; and lastly, with Mrs. Nicholls.
After I became acquainted with the defendant I wrote to him once
or twice, to let him know I was going out in the afternoon. Never
put up a muslin curtain, or made a cross on the window as
a mark that I was going out. I never knew that the
female living in the house with defendant, was his wife. Never
heard of her being Mrs. Thompson until I received the letter that
has been alluded to, till to-day. Neither of the letters that I de-
stroyed contained any proposal as to how we were to live together.
As we were going towards Wiudsor-terrace, his manner and lan-
guage were different from what they were before; so much as,
that I thought he was not on honourable. terms.
asked him if he thought I was a - common girl, that
he wished noe to remain with him all night. I resisted it in-
stantly, but he expressed surprise, and asked me if I doubted his
honour. On our way we stopped twice; on one of the occasions
he got a parcel with some tea and sugar, and on the other, he
bought some female's night-clothes. When he fastened the door,
he opened the night-clothes parcel, and insisted on my putting
them on. After he had bought these clothes, in the coach he told
me his determination was, that I should remain with him all night,
and that I could not do so without these things. Windsor
Terrace is about a mile from my uncle's.
Mary Manvell.-1 am daughter of the plaintiff, and am 24
years old ; resided with my father in the spring of this year; re-
membered last witness being absent enc night in May. I did not
know of her going, nor did my father. She returned home at
about half•past three on the day after ; she was in a very agitated
state ; we sent for Mr. Roberts, the surgeon, with whom she had
lived for some time previously. We were obliged to watch her
for some time that she did no harm to herslf. She has been low
spirited ever since.

Roberts. —I am a medical man ; I was called upon to at-
tend her on the let of June last; she resided with Mr. Roberts
for about three months ; I found her very agitated, both in mind
and body; I recommended that she should not be left alone ; I
also advised moderate exercise out of doors ; she was not able
to take another situation.

Mr. DENMAN, in a most powerful speech to the jury, on behalf
of the defendant, observed strongly on the improper conduct of the
girl in receiving anonymous letters, and easily forming an ac-
quaintance with the defendant through such a medium, being au
entire stranger to her. He contended that she must have
known throughout, that the defendant was a married man.
Mr. Williams had said, no action would be brought
hereafter by the girl herself for a breach of promise of mar.
riage, but still that might be done to-morrow, and if heavy
damages were now to be given to the plaintiff, and the same on a
future occasion on an action for breach of promise of marriage, the
defendant's prospects in life would be destroyed.
The LEARNED JUDGE summed up. It was clear, from the de-
fendant's own letters, that the girl had known nothing of the
defendant being married, of which there was no proof even now,
though he wished himself to be considered as such. At the
same time, as the girl might bring an action immediately,
for breach of promise of marriage, the Jury on this occasion would
only have to give a verdict, not for the irreparable loss she had
sustained, hut for the loss of services the plaintiff had sustained,
and the destruction of his affections for, and the prospects he had
cherished of seeing his niece respectably situated in life, having
been tints destroyed.
The Jury retired, and upon their return into Court, found a
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 400/.