The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-18 00:00:00

" 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 Belchaae, in this county, but
he had latterly 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 her as an honourable suitor, and visited her at her
father's house in that capacity, and she also went to see him
at his father's and was received on the same footing. Before
the month of March, 184:3, he had promised to marry her, and
told her that if he did not do so he wished he might never
prosper. In the course of that month she had been out on her
pony for a ride, and when she returned she was going to turn
it out, as usual, into the meadow, when the defendant caste
upon her unawares, and took her by force into a shed that was
close by, and there, in spite of her resistance, accomplished his
purpose. Their intimacy continued after this until the month
of September, 1844, when she gave birth to a child. She had
repeatedly asked the defendant whether he intended to marry
her, and he always told her that he did, and repeated the ob-
servation that he hoped he might never prosper if he did not.
After the child was born the defendant offered to allow her ss.
a week for its support.
In cross-examination, the witness said that her own mo.

ther died in 1832, and her father married again in 1840, and
she was questioned at considerable length with regard to
the conduct of her father, and she admitted that a ►roman
named Sharpe was supposed to have had an illegitimate child
by him, and that her mother-in-law complained very much of
his conduct in this respect, and had reproached him with al-
lowing his illegitimate children to be brought to the house
where his wife and grown-up daughters resided, and that she
eventually left his roof in consequence of his proceedings with
regard not only to this woman, but to two others named Plum
and Mouse. The witness was then questioned with regard to
her own conduct, and she denied positively having had any

intimacy with other young men. She admitted that she hsa
occasionally ridden on her pony over to the house of the
defendant's father, unaccompanied by any person, and without
a groom.
Mr. JamEs remarked, that it was not very likely that ti
farmer's daughter would have a groom to attend upon her.
The cross-examination was then continued at considerable
length, but nothing material was elicited tending to shake the
testimony given by the witness.
Re-examined—Witness denied positively having been to meet
any young men at the village of Clare, or that she had
ever been in Whitehouse-wood with the defendant. Her father
and her stepmother lived unhappily, and the defendant was
aware of the fact.

Mr. P. Viall deposed that he knew the defendant, and saw
him at Sudbury, when he told him that he had settled the
business between Miss Ewer and himself. He afterwar,!: told
him that he had promised her marriage, and that he would
serve her sister Helen or any other young lady in the same way,
unless he intended to makeher his wife. He said that he had
promised to marry her, but that she could not do anything in it
because she had not got any "black and white" to show for it.
Cross-examired—A good many people were present when
the defendant said this, and they cried " Shame l"
Mr. John Barley deposed that he was acquainted with the
plaintiff and his family. He 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 virtuous, well-conducted girl. After shs had
been delivered of the child the defendant called upon him and
said that he wanted to make some settlement about the " Fex
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 1001. of the principal should he 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, or that the offer was made on
behalf of his father. The defendant, he believed, was not
more than 21 or 22 years old. Before witness left him he said
that he would rot in gaol if his offer was not accepted; and he
likewise said that his father 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 Foz
Earth, deposed that after the action had been brought, the
defendant called upon him, and said he wanted him to give him
some information, and when he asked him on what subject, he
said " About Miss Ewer." Witness told him that he knew
nothing disrespectful of her, upon which the defendant asked
him " Whether he had not seen a man in her bedroom," and
said that if he would give hint information about her, he would
loses nothing by it. Witness told him he had never seen any
improper conduct on her part, to which he replied, "You are
a liar." He then said that he would give anything in
reason if he could 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 accouchement, proved that fact, and also said that he
had never heard anything against the character of the young
lady.
Mr. CHAMBERS said this was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant &LEE then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant, and commenced by saying that he admitted there were
very few cases which involved more important questions as re-
garded morality than those of this description ; but at the same
time they varied most materially in their circumstances. In
the case where the father was the husband of a virtuous woman,
where he had trained up his family virtuously and religiously,
and where a daughter who had just arrived at the period of
virtuous womanhood fell a victim in an unguarded moment to
the arts of a seducer, he would admit that it was impossible
to feel too much sympathy in such a case, or that any amount
of damages given by a jury could be too great for one party to
pay or the other to receive. He should, however, put it
to the jury whether this was a case of that description, and
whether it was one in which the plaintiff ought to receive any
serious amount of damages. He would admit that legally the
plaintiff had made out his right to a verdict, and the question
for the jury was to say, taking into consideration his own con-
duct in the transaction, what amount of damages he wasentitled
to. He begged the jury to remember that this action was
brought by the plaintiff, and that his daughter had no interest
in, and would not receive the least benefit from, any
amount of damages they might think proper to award him.
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 young woman of cousidereble personal attrac-
tions, and therefore necessarily exposed to great danger and
temptation, in a course of virtue and religion, he appeared
never to have taken the least care of her, and instead of warding
off from her that worst of all possible evils, a bad example, his
own conduct appeared to have been the worst that could be
possibly imagined. He appeared to have carried on an intercourse
with women, one or two of whom appeared to have had illegiti-
mate children ; that he introduced these women and children
under his own roof, to his own children, and that his own wife
was at length compelled to leave him in consequence. This
was the conduct of the man who now came forward to seek
for damages for that of which, he contended, he was himself
the sole cause, and who, instead of endeavouring to protect the
virtue and innocence of his child, had really been the occasion
of her destruction by his baneful example. After some further
observations upon the conduct of the plaintiff, the Learned
Counsel called upon the jury to dismiss such a case with the
ignominy it deserved, and he concluded by expressing an
opinion, that if the jury were to give heavy damages under
such circumstances, it would not only tend not to advance
morality, but that it would hold out a positive prize to un-
principled
rinctin akplmedpe a market
ersonstonengfletcham.
t the education of their children
and
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE having summed up,
The jury, after deliberating about ten minutes, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 500/.