The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-23 00:00:00

AS3IZE INTELLIGENCE,

WORTE-STER.
BREACH of PROMISE of MARRIAGE and SEDUCTION•
HALFORD V. RICHARDSON. • •
This was an action brought by the plaintiff,
who is a farmer, residing at Broadway, in this
county, against the defendant, who is also s.
farmer, living at Laverton, parish of Buckland.
in the county of Gloucester, for a compensation
for the seiloction and loss of services of hif
daughter, Miss Ann Ha!lord.
Mr. PULLER stated the declaration to the Jury.
and Mr. Jeavis detailed the circumstances of the
case to them in doing which, he stated that the
present was an action which any parent would
most unwilling bring into open Court, were he
nut compelled by the call of justice to do
The plaintiff, Mr. Edward Ualford, resided at
Broadway ; and the defendant, Mr. John Rich..
archon, lived at Laverton, in Gloucester, and its
the year 1810 was attracted to the House of the'
plaintiff by an attachment to one of his daughters..
He was received into the family of the plaintiff
under the impression that his intentions were fair
and honourable. There appeared to be a reci
procity of affection, which however, unhappily,
for both families, terminated in the disgrace of
both. In one unguarded moment, when reason had
deserted her throne, to the unspeakable sorro.°l
of her parents, the young lady fell a' victim to the
arts of the defendant. She became a mother, and
thus the plaintiff was deprived of her valuable see'
vices. His visits had been received under an ex-
pectation that he would make her his lawful wife;
but on the 12th May, 1817, a Lady of more top*
tune having presented herself to his view, he mar'
ried her, and the plaintiff was compelled to thee`'
himself under the protection of a Jury of his coull-
try for a pecuniary compensation ; anti any
mages which they should award would he wretche4l
indeed, when compared with the unspeakable
sorrow and disgrace to which the family had beer'
exposed by the artifices of the defendant. Under
these circumstances it would be unnecessary for
him to attempt to excite the feelings of the Jury;
for as fathers and husbands they must feel what
was due to a father upon the loss of his child.
Miss Ann Halford, the young woman, stiff"
the case of her pregnancy. But no proof of ail
promise of marriage was given. he used to d')
the work of her father's house as a servant.
Mr. DAUNCEY rose to address the Jury in mite
gation of damages. The transaction complainea
of tools place in the year 1812, and he was yo'f
addressing a Jury of fathers in 1818, and it wsls
not a little extraordinary that five years sboul"'
elapse before the action was thought of. 'Dr;
young woman in the present case had not 5801
any thing to prove that the defendant made
promise of marriage ; for she had said that fill lie
stated was, that he had no intention to slight
her;
and therefore it was not before the Jury that A
breach of promise of marriage had been cornwit.
fed on the present occasion ; and when she o'ss
asked if he came to her father's house to address.
her, site quietly said, " Oh, ye 3, he addressed
me, and said he would not slight me." TO'
then, was all the evidence of a breach of promise
of marriage.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH in summinr, up obser",
ed, that, at all events, the plaintiff was entity'“
to a verdict for the loss be had sustained in losiog
the teryiccs of his daughter : at the atone titilei
thoer al:evatillo
damages--on
o tii e c contrary
n circumstancestrat
yvv.h c :tut e,
illodri re
furyhtet i•o
uflodubnedadieucirualteto the injury.
plaintiti—dkimag
Pounds.
esi
,FortyT