The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-22 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April2o.

THE QUEEN V. THE INHABITANTS OF LEEDS.
There had been an appeal against an order of two
justices, by which a mother and her children were
removed from Leeds to another parish. The
sessions discharged the order, subject to the opinion
of this Court, as to whether the consent of the wife
to a separation from her husband should have been
stated in the examination.
Mr. Buss and Mr. STAPLETON now submitted that
the mother and children could not be separated from
the husband and father without the consent of
the wife and mother ; for it had been decided that it
was against public policy and good morals to separate
a husband and his wife ; and it was further pressed
that the husband and wife could not be separated,
even with their consent; and there being nothing in
the examination of the husband touching the wife and
children, it was informal.
Mr. PASHLEY and Mr. HALL admitted that it was
true the examination of the husband adverted only
to his settlement; but it was the complaint which de-
termined the subject of inquiry. The question be-
fore the justices would be shown by the complaint.
The examination was a ministerial, and not a judicial,
act. Where nothing else was shown the mother's
maiden settlement must prevail. No doubt it had
been supposed that the consent of the husband alone
was sufficient to the separation. Here there was no
proof that the wife had not consented. The order
was good as to two of the children, because they were
above the age of 19, though of tender years; there-
fore, if the mother ought to continue her maternal
care over them she must accompany them. In one
case the overseers had intended to send the husband
to Scotland, and the wife to a parish in England, and
it was one of those cases of hardship which sometimes
drew lectures from the Bench, which might scarcely
be correct in point of law ; but there was no such
hardship in the present case, and the wife having been
examined immediately after the husband, and not dis-
senting from the separation, it must be presumed that
her wish was the same as her husband's. A party
remaining silent under such circumstances must be
assumed to consent.
The COURT took time for
consideration.
INNES V. VOUCHER AND OTUERS.
The present action was brought a for assault and
battery by the plaintiff, who was a m member of the
Caledonian Society, at Itadley's Hotel, Newßr
Bridge-
street, Blackiriars, against the defendant, to ri
recover
g
compensation from him. It appeared that the plain-
tiff had claimed a right to sit at a particular part of
the room at one of the meetings of the society, upon
which a dispute arose, and one of the defendants al-
leged that the plaintiff had used threats of personal
violence, and the matter being brought before the
committee for regulating the affairs of the society, it
was resolved that the plaintiff should no longer con-
tinue a member. ft would then appear that on the
9th of November this resolution was submitted to a
a general meeting of the society: by which the reso-
lution was confirmed. Many objections were taken
by the plaintifl'to the competency of the meeting, that
he had had not notice of it, and that only one of the
members present had paid up his subscription. The
case was tried before Lord Denman, and a verdict
for the plaintiff was returned with 40s. damages.
Mr. EaLE was instructed to move for a rule to
show souse why there should not be a new trial, on
the ground that the plaintiff had no right to remain a
member.—Rule granted.

BAIL COURT, April 20.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGM)
Sir J. BAYLEY applied to the Court for a rule to show cause
why a mandamus should not issue to the overseers of the
parish of Thornely, in Yorkshire, commanding them to pay
to Luke Hunter, the assistant overseer of that parish, the
snm of thirty pounds, the amount of his salary for one year ;
and a further sum of sixteen shillings for expenses
incurred by him in execution of his -duty. The ap-
pointment of Hunter to the office of assistant-overseer
was made pumlant to the provisions of the Act 50 Geo HI.,
c. 12. It took place the mouth of June, 1842. When

Hunter, however, demanded the payment of his salary, he
was informed by the overseers there were no funds for the
purpose.
➢lr. Justice COLERIDGE-TORY salary would le due in
June, 1843, andnow, nearly a year afterwards, you apply to
the Court upon the subject. At all events your affidavits
ought to show distinctly on what terms the engagement was
made. These salaries are directed to be paid out of moneys
raised for the relief of the poor, and not of money to be raised.
The salary for the year, it appears to me, should have been
paid out of the moneys raised for that year. All charges for
the year should be made and defrayed within the year.
Sir Jons BAYLEY—I can bring affidavits to prove that
application for the- salary was made, and properly made,
within the year.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Try to do so; and also get the
facts as to the agreement, when you can mention the sub-
ject again.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 2 0.
SEDUCTION.—MARLAY V. DEWING.
This was an action by the plaintiff to recover com-
pensation in damages for the injury he had sustained
by means of the seduction of his daughter by the
defendant.
Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. Bovill, conducted
the case for the plaintiff; and Mr. Jervis, Mr. Cock-
burn, and Mr. Bramwell appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Martin said this was one of these extremely,
painful cases wherein a father was compelled to appeal
to a jury of his country for compensation—if, indeed,
money could be considered a compensation—for the
debauchment of his daughter. The plaintiff had been
a Lieutenant-Colonel in her Majesty's Marines, but
had retired from the service on a pension. He had
been married twice, but from some circumstances,
into which it was not his duty upon the present oc-
casion to enter, had separated from the second wife.
He, therefore, after going to Broxbourne for a short
time, settled down at Cheshunt with his daughter,
who was even now not eighteen years of age, as his
housekeeper. Indeed, he might say that she was his
servant, because she had no other help than the occa-
sional assistance of a charwoman to do the more dirty
work of the house. Of course one of her duties was
to go to market and to the various shops in the village
for the domestic purposes, and it was during this
occupation that she first became acquainted with the
defendant. The Learned Counsel then entered into
a detail of the transaction, as stated in the following
evidence :
Mary Ann Marlay—l am the daughter of the
plaintiff, who was Lieutenant-Colonel in the Marines.
I shall be eighteen next November. I live with my
father at Cheshunt, to which place we went in Ja-
nuary, 1843. He had before lived at Broxbourne, only
three months at that place; but before that my father
lived in Wilton-place, where he had been about twelve
months. I was during that time at school at Grove
House, Walthamstow. I left school in 1842, towards
the end of the year. After that I went with my father
ther to live at Cheshunt and Broxbourne. We were
not able to keep a servant, and I acted as house-
keeper, having occasionally a female to do the work
of the house. At that place I became acquainted with
the defendant; I saw him at the house of his mother.
The business carried on there is a grocer's. I do not
know whether he has anything to do as a partner in
the business. It is a general shop. I was in the habit
of going there for articles, and in that way it was
that I became acquainted with the defendant. The
defendant paid me attentions almost immediately
after we went to Cheshunt. I was not introduced
to his family, although I was in the habit of seeing
his mother and brother in the shop ; I have
also seen his sisters there, and spoken to them there.
He continued his attentions to me, and repeatedly
expressed his attachment to me, and that it was his
wish to marry me. This was in January and Febru-
ary in the last year. I replied that I was sure my
father would never give his consent. He, however,
continued to pay attentions to me, and also renewed
his expressions of attachment. My father was' not
aware of the circumstance. The defendant has often
asked mo to take a drive with him, and I have done
so perhaps three or four times. n the 6th of April
last year I went to the defendant's shop to buy some
articles of crockery,' and told the defendant what it
was that I wanted. He asked me to go up stairs to
look at it. It was kept up stairs, and having pre-
viously purchased crockery I was aware it was kept
up stairs. On the former occasions the mother of the
defendant went up with me. On this occasion I went
up to select the articles I required. The defendant,
and no one else, accompanied me. When we were
there he proposed marriage, but I-said my father would
not consent. The defendant then said that if I were
to become a mother my father then would give his
consent. A proceeding then took place which in
the end led to my becoming a mother. Prior to
that proceeding the defendant used much persuasion.
I saw him about a week after that event, but not any
impropriety then occurred. I have seen the defendant
in my own bed-room. He gained access to the room
by a ladder. It was at night. This occurred twice,
and was in the May or June. I discovered my preg•
nancy in the summer. I told the defendant of the
fact, when he said it should be all right, for he would
marry me. About a week after I asked him when
he would marry me, and he again said it should be all
right ; he would marry me. This he said upon seve-
ral occasions. Some time afterwards, a week per-
haps, he told me I must put it off on the back of some
one who could better afford to keep it than himself.
At another time, a few days after, when I repeated my
request, he said I might put it on the back of old Har-
rild. Between that gentleman and myselfno impropriety
had ever taken place. I refused to do so, observing that'
knew nothing of Mr. Harrild. I again spoke to him
about the matter a few days afterwards. I pressed
him to marry me. I also asked him what he intended
to do about me, but he made no reply. About a week
after he asked me to take something to destroy the
child. I refused at once to do so. During this time
I often saw him, for he was calling for orders. The
conversations about myself were either at his own
house, or when I have accidentally met him out. I
desisted from making any further applications to him
about the month of July. At the last interview I
asked him what I was to do; he said, " Put it upon
the back of the old man, and when he comes down
here rll swear it is like him." The old man he al-
luded to was my own father. He told me I might
go and be d—d, for it was all lies. That was the
last time we met. My, father knew of my situation
in September. A child was born the 7th of January
last. My father sent me to lodge with Mrs. Farley,
in Hornsey-road, in October. I remained at her
house for a month subsequently to my confinement. I
paid that person 16s. a-week, and a pound a-week
after my confinement. My father gave me the money
to pay her. A medical gentleman was employed ; his
charge was two guineas. The defendant has told me
he is between twenty-five and twenty-six years of
age. Ile never told me what his means were. He ap-
peared to be living comfortably.
Cross-examined by Mr. JERVIS—The defendant
serves'as a shopman in the shop. It is a general
chandler's shop. My father was in the Marines. I
never was with him at Portsmouth. He has had two
wives. I do not know where my mother-in-law lives
now. I lived in the same house with her before I
went to school. My mother-in-law lived in Queen's-
terrace, Chelsea, and I lived there with her when not
at school. Although my father lived in Chelsea, my
mother in-law continued in Wilton-place. My father
did not go and live, a short time after we left Brox-
bourne, with my mother-in-law. I do not know the
state of his affairs, or why he does not live with my
mother-in-law. I do not know what her maiden
name was, but he married her about seven years ago.
I was at school at Mrs. Sorrel's, Walthamstow. A
boy Was kept there to attend to the garden and other
things. His name was Mills. I never walked out
with him. Part of the time I was at school
I slept at other houses in the village, at a
shoemaker's (Mrs. Buffey's). I was at the school
about three years or more. Soon after I quitted it
we went to Broxbourne. The defendant paid atten-
tions to me very soon after I had been in the habit
of going to the shop. The first thing that struck me
as marked in his conduct towards me was in January
or February. He asked me to walk out with him. I
did not do so when he first asked me. The first
time I went out with him was in his cart. Upon
that occasion he went round the village and up to
Bury-green, where he was going to. That was in
in February or March. He frequently came to our
house when it was absolutely necessary, and, I
thought, paid me marked attention. He did not put
me down at my father's house, but at the end of the
village. I know Woolley. I never got out of the
cart to meet him. The reason I got out at the end
of the lane was because the defendant was not going
that way. I afterwards frequently met him by
chance in the village. I did not, before this time,
walk about with him more than two or three times,
but before the 6th of April I may have walked with
him more than twenty times. Before that day he had
not taken any liberties with me that I remember. He
first proposed to marry me in February or March,
when he was driving me out. It was between
nine and ten o'clock in the morning, when I
went taon
yb uly the crockery.ibertiesNvithm T
e before
defendant
rem,e wnh
went up
upa
tod snotee
th the cr obefu
crockery.
y I cannot say how long we were up
stairsthis affair took place, but it might have
been half an hour. I looked out the crockery. The
defendant never mentioned such a proposeifitonb.before
to me as this transaction. He press m
a mother, and then that my father would coonseenotmtoe
our marriage. I did not consent at once, but resisted
him, and said I would not agree. I did not let him
into my bed-room ; I did not know that he was com-
ing until he was in the room. He opened the win-
dow himself, and got in without my assistance or
knowledge. I had not made any arrangement with
him to go when the proceeding was repeated. I did
not tell my father of his behaviour to me. I do not
think I ever saw the defendant in the shop after be
swore at me about Jnly. I went with my father to
'Father Mathew's meeting, and there we saw the de-
fendant.. That was before he told me I might go and
be d—d. We were in the shop, I think, when_ he
told me to put the child on Mr. Rarrild. It was

at our gate that he asked me to take something to
destroy the child. This was upon my asking him
what I was to do if he would not marry me, and
when he was breaking off. I know the clergyman,
the Rev. Mr. Morris, of Cheshunt. I have never
walked about with his pupils, but they have tried
to talk to me in the defendant's shop. Mr. Mor-
ris complained to my father that his pupils had
been walking about with me, but they had not done
so. It might have happened that they walked by me
as I went home from the shop, but I have never
walked with any of them. Ido not know that after
this time I ever saw Mr. Morris walking. The vicar
complained to my father that he had beard that I was
with Mr. Harrild ; but I never had been so. This
was a month or two after the occurrence in the
crockery room. 'Mr. Harrild never walked about
with me. He has never talked to me from
my bed-room window between ten and eleven at
night. I haze no recollection of doing such a
thing. Ido not think that I ever spoke to any per-
son from my bed-room window at night, except the
defendant. The fence in the garden is broken, but
not large enough far a person to get through. I have
seen Martinson, the butcher. I know him. I have
waited at his shop for the defendant, and once while
it was raining. I have never been up stairs in his
house. I have seen a Mr. Aldersey, but have never
walked with him. Ido not know that the vicar re-
monstrated with my father about my conduct with
that' gentleman, but I have mentioned to the de-
fendant that the vicar had spoken to my father about
Mr. Harrild. I know Mr. Butts. I never rode with
him in his cart. He never asked me to do so. I
never rode in fany cart but one driven by the de-
fendant. Ido not know a Mr. Lincoln.

Re-examined by Mr. MARTIN-Mr. Butts never
took any liberty with me. He never made love to
me. I never walked about with Mr. Aldersey, nor
did he ever take any liberty with me. The time at
which the clergyman made complaint to my father
that he had heard the report about Mr. Aldersey was
subsequent to the transaction between the de-
fendant and myself on the 6th of April. No impro-
priety of any description has ever passed between
Mr. Harrild and me, neither have I ever walked
with that gentleman. He never either addressed me
in the terms of love. I never had any more than the
common passing civilities of the morning with him.
Upon no occasion have I had a long conversation
with him. I have not the slightest recollection of
ever having spoken to any person•from my window
other than the defendant. The pupils of the vicar I
have seen in the street, and at the shop of the defen-
dant. They bowed to me, and of course I returned
the civility. I have never walked about with any of
them, but it may have occurred that some of them,
as they have been going my way hone, may have
walked up the road by me, but not with me. I
never took a private walk with any of them,
nor did any one of them ever take the least
liberty with me, or make proposals of any descrip-
tion to me. I informed the defendant of the fact
of the complaint to my father by the clergyman sub-
sequently to the 6th of April. At that period the de-
fendant did not say that he entertained any suspicion
as to my rectitude of conduct. My father was en-
tirely ignorant of any intimacy bikween the defendant
and myself, until the fact of my pregnancy was dis-
closed to him. Our acquaintance began about Jan-
uary, 1843. The defendant never took any improper
liberties with me, nor made any improper proposals
until the 6th of April. My father is separated from
my step mother I know, because they do not live to-
gether. It was in the month of October in which I
left school. The reason why I slept out of the house
when at school was, that occasionally there were so
many scholars that the house would not contain them,
and then it was that I and others were sent with one
of the teachers to sleep in the rooms of the cottage,
which was just across the road. The rooms were
taken by the school-mistress. There was a lad of the
name of Mills in the school to clean shoes and attend
to the garden. There had never been any improper
conduct between that lad and myself, and what is
more, I never heard of such an imputation until this
day. The defendant and his mother keep two shops,
and appear to carry on an extensive business.
Mrs. Sorrell, the lady who keeps the school at NI al-
thamstow, to which the young lady had been sent,
stated that she had been a pupil at her establishment
from 1839 to 1842. Her conduct had been extremely
good ; but she was very dull and slow in learning.
She had not heard of this transaction until Monday last.
Cross-examined—The young lady had been placed
at her school by her stepmother in 1839, and at the
holidays she always returned to that lady, in Wilton-
place. The plaintiff at that time was at Malta, and
in 1842, after his return to England, he took his
daughter away from school. Part of the time Miss
Marlay was with her, she did not always sleep in the
house. She had deemed it requisite, from the increase
in the number of her pupils, to take rooms in the cot-
tage opposite, where the children were under the care
of one of the teachers. She had never had any occa-
sion to find fault with this young lady's moral con-
duct. She had never complained of the lad Mills
being too intimate with Miss Marlay, because she
had not had reason to do so.

Mrs. Catherine Woolley was next examined. She
lived opposite to the plaintiff; and had constant oppor-
tunities of watching the conduct of his daughter, and
had never seen anything improper in it.
Mr. Harrild was then put into the box. He denied
in the most positive terms that there had ever been the
slightest impropriety of conduct between Miss Marlay
and himself.
Cross-examined—He had heard that the clergyman
had complained upon the subject to the plaiutiff, but
that complaint was without the least foundation. He
had scarcely been even upon speaking terms with the
young lady. He had never held a conversation with
her from her bed-room window.

Mr. JERVIS then addressed the jury at consider-
able length on behalf of the defendant, contending
that his client was the seduced rather than the se-
ducer. It was not likely a young man in his station
of life would look up to a young lady who was so
much above him in rank unless he had received the
first encouragement from her. After going through
the evidence of the lady, he submitted that even, if
they should be satisfied that he had been guilty of
the act of which he was accused, that the conduct of

the lady had been of such a nature as to render a very
trifling sum an abundant compensation for the injnry
her character had sustained, or the loss her father had
been put to by her absence.
Mr. Baron RoLFE summed up, and
The jury, after ten minutes' consultation, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1001.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

A man of respectable appearance and good address,
who at first refused to give his nacre, but afterwards
said it was Edward Bathurst, was charged with
having endeavoured to obtain 2,0001. Exchequer
Bills under false pretences from Wm. Davis, a stock-
broker. It was stated that the prisoner uad been in-
troduced to Wm. Davis by Mr. Moxhay, the pro-
prietor of the Hall of Commerce, who had agreed to
accept the prisoner as a tenant, in the belief that he
was a man of property. Two days after the intro-
duction he requested Mr. Davis to purchase 2,0001.
Exchequer bills, stating that he had an account at
the banking-house of Messrs. Dennison and Co. and
Messrs. Coutts and Co. It was, however, ascertained
that he had no account at either of those banks. Mr.
Davis did not purchase the stock, suspecting that
there was something wrong about the business, but
gave the prisoner into the care of a policeman. Mr.
Resaigh, a clerk in the banking-house. of Messrs.
Dennison, stated that he never saw the prisoner till
that moment, and the house had no account in the
name of Edward Bathurst, neither had they any ac-
count with Coutts' bank.

Mr. Ellis, a clerk to Mr. Moxhay, stated that the
prisoner had signed an agreement for a counting-
house in the City with Mr. Moxhay two days ago.
Mr. Moxhay knew nothing of him until he called to
take a counting-house as a yearly tenant, when he
represented himself as having recently returned from
India, where he said he knew some eminent person,
whom he named, and also a personal friend of Mr.
Moxhay. He likewise represented himself as a man
of property, and expressed a wish to be introduced to
a London banker, stating, at the same time, that his
bankers at the west-end were Coutts and Co., with
whom he had lodged money amounting to about 2,000/.
Mr. Moxhay, not supposing for a moment that there
was any doubt as to the prisoner's possession of the
cash, introduced him at Messrs. Dennison, in the
belief that the money would be immediately lodged
there. _

Sir P. LAURIE called upon the prisoner to ac-
count for so remarkable a transaction'? The prisoner
said he could explain the 'whole matter in the most
satisfactory manner. He had, he said, had a corres-
pondence with Coutts's house, while he was in India,
since the year 1830, and down to 1842, and he handed
a letter to Sir Peter Laurie, with a request that the
Alderman would read it.

Sir P. LAURIE read the letter, and said, " Well,
there is nothing explanatory in this."
The prisoner proceeded—When he returned to
England, he renewed the notice of the aocount which
he wished to have with the house, and the firm re-
quested that he would write to them the nature of
the business he meant to transact with them. He
did as he was requested, and he bad a copy of the
letter he had sent to them.—(He here produced an-
other paper which Sir Peter Laurie read.) He also
had the answer which he received from them, in
which they stated they consented to let him draw
bills, subject to their approbation. Afterwards he
saw Mr. Moxhay, asked him about an office, and
mentioned to that gentleman how he was situated
with regard to Courts and Co., and that he was de-
sirous to open an account with a City banker. Mr.
Moxhay
,subsequently introduced him at Messrs.
Dennison's house, lie (the prisoner) also stated to