The Sun.
London, England, 1810-01-29 00:00:00

SATURDAY, JAN. 27.

A number of cases in the Crown Paper stood for
argument this day.
THE KING V. THE INHABITANTS OF SCULCOATS.
The question here was, whether Abe Trustees
appointed under a drainage a& were liable, as a Cor-
porate Body, to be' assessed for rates within the pa-
rish where they resisided, but within which no part
of the lands to be improved by the drainage was
situated. •

The Court were clearly of opinion that the in-
creased value of the Irrids, arising from the draining,
being to be rated in the pariShes where the lands
respedively lay, and there being here no beneficial
occupation in the Trustees, within the parish„the
rate, could not be sustained. Were the Cfnirt to
do so, it would be:to open the door to the assessing
the Trustees on canals,' for the profits along the whole
line of each canal,within the individual parish where
the Trustees might happen to reside.

THE ICING V. THE INHAEITANTI OF NEWTON.

•
This was a question as to the settlement- of a
pauper. The pauper•had been engaged f'or 'a year,
as servant with a farmer residing within the parish.
She had served the whole period, short of ,ahout
three weeks, when the son of her miitresi turned her
out of doors on some frivolous pretence. She re-
turned the next day, expressing her wish to conclup
her contract, which was tensed; but her wages
were paid her; according to the rate which her mis-
tress contended was due to her for the whole pe-
riod. The pauper alleged that 'something -farther
was due to her, but never took measures for en-
forcing it.
It was contended, on the part of the parish, that
this was not an abiding, under the words of the Act,
for a year. .
The Court held, that the forcible turning of a
servant out of her situation; without an acquiescence
on 'her part, could not disappoint her of her legal
settlement, --The sentence of the Quarter Sessions,
sustaining the pauper's claim to relief,was according-
ly confirmed.,

SEDUCTION.

SANDERS V. DYSON.

Mrd SCARLET• said, this was an atlion brought
against the defendant, for seducing the daughter of
the plaintiff, whereby he had lost her • services.;--
The defendant had suffered judgment to 113's by de-
fault', add an inquisition' was had before the' Sheriff.
He was now instructed to move for a rule to skew
cause why thii inquisition should not be set aside,
-and another writ &enquiry executed on the ground
of excessive damages. He said, be knew he ought
to state a strong case for a rule to show cause, before
be could expect to obtain it, in such a case as .this.
He moved it, however, not on that wound' alone,
but also on the further ground that evidence was ad-
mitted,- which although legal evidences yet was s 6
used as to lay the foundation of damages, which ought
not to have been given,- and thiS he hoped would
lay the foundation•ot a further' consideration of this
case befoto another Jury. But although the whole
fortune of the defendant &Tended on the issue of
this cause, yet he was aware that such . a ground,
however serious to him, was not a sufficient one for
disturbing this verdict. The plaintiff, he said, is a
grocer and tallow-chandler, at the town ut Watford,
in Hertfordshire; the defendant of no particular oc-
cupation; but living with, and managing a farm for
his sister ; isof the age of 28 years.

The plaintiff's din Otter, Ann Sanders, is between
18 and 19. Soon atter she left school, which was
when she was. between, 14 and 15, the defendant,
being acquainted with her, lid professed an attach-
ment to her, visited het, with the consent of .her fa
ther and mother ; but, after a feW times visiting, he
was told by the parents he must not visit her at all,•
unless he came , oftener, that. is, once or. twice a
week, he before being sometimes away a fortnight;
he complied with this request of her parents, and
consented to vi,it hdr two or three tines a week;

he ti;e to carne at five in the afternoon, and stay
until ten at night, with, the consent of the. father
and *other; and continued so to do, during the
course of about three years ; nothing improper ap-
peared ; but some little time before the cause of tits
attion arose, the daughter went on a visit to a rela-
tion in London;witli thecocsent of her father and
*Other, and she 'appointed him to call on her io
London, giving Lai her addre.is ; came up to
:London, -called on her 'at her rel.-&o:ts, str.ingeri
- to* him ; he was invited to sleep in the house,
was perniitted to go with this yollug Woman to, rite
• play, no other with them.; they came. home late;
- the family 'were -gone to rest, they s•ipp,sid toge 7
t her alone ; theirbeds were in two a,:joining rooms ;
he came to her chamber in the night J tt:e result. .
was her pregnancy ; she went back to her -
rents ; on the very night of -her delivery, 11,2;
father called on the defend tut; desiriuc,- him rc
creme toThiS daughter;- ibesdefendant d:d so; of
terwards it appeared that the defendant •uished
to marry this yoUng woman; saying, he Could
command 4001. the lather said he: Kou d give 164
daughter the same nioue_y ; • the terms of inarriagc
being'agreed upon, the young woman gave it (.ut, tv
- avoid scandal," that they had been priva:ely married;
some time after, the lather said lie would not
4001. to his dayghter, but wourd give 1001. and lend
this yodng man '3OOl. more, iipon-u hich the youh,g
man said he flew off his word, and enneCtiou
was dricontinued, upon which this action was
br ;tight and.all these topics wre urged by Mr.
Warren, with his U'ell•knoWn,abillies; as topics of
a gray: at ion, such as la) po_Crisy, &c. and Ly wcich le
used the. evidence-which was admissi: only for
the purpose of supporting an action for the los: of
service to the father, in "support of an -i,Etion for a
brt'ach of piomise of marriage, with which this action
had nothing to do, but by means of which excessive
-damages weretiVen by the Jury, -under a mi'sap-
preheOsion of the case, into which thry were mis-
led by eloquence; upon these grounds he i:oped the'
Court would grant, a rule to shew Cause why a:lo-
ther writ of inquiry should not be executed n this
Cause..

Lord Et LuisnionOUGn.-- If there had been illegal
evidenee admitted, .:and that had produced' the da:-
mages, the Court would relieve the defendant by
granting this rule; but if only an improper use had
been Made by the address of the Lean:ea Gent. for
the defendant, you who had the privilege of ad-
dressing the Jury la t, counteraEted that abuse, no
doubt, by urging topics as you are doing now, and,
therefirre, the Court cannot; on that account, grant
a new inquisitioni And Sine this form of action
is not now held to depend on a mere_ loss of the
service, of the daughter 16 the fattier, but parental
feelings are allowed to be mixed in the consiiera-
lion of the damages, in which the Court has not con-
hoed sit merely to the father, but has extended
it to a person who stood only in loco parenlis, and
this, .by the authority of all the .Tudges, the Coinc
cannot, interfere on the ground i)t excessive .da-
Inage.i. If the damages were so eaonnowly .dis-
proportionate to-the. situation-of the parties, and-so'
.ontragetius that the Court must see them' to havre
arisen .froM.the jury having been aEluuted by err.;-.
neous motives, 'or
.by having-an erroneous view vi
the cause, the Court would interfere, but here
nothing to warrant untoset -aside the verdid.".

. ._ M
. . .
, -,- •7:
Mr. SCARLET—"AII tile property or I:1;s young
mail is but Owl, and the damages here ure 5001.•'
! Lord ELLENBOROUGH--" "We do not measure da-
ma.2ei done for au Injury, by the ktentlant's ability
.to pay, tor , the injury might have been done bent
• :heggar; in which case he must have paid in hi., Fr-
-, son.—Motion refnied. . -

Friday night the shop of Mr. Layton, pa v, ilbroWr,
in ,Waidour• street, Soho, wils broken opda anti
robbed of a quantity of rings and jewels._