The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-22 00:00:00

SHERIFFS' COUR':

Before R. 6ILLAM, Esq., Under-Sheriff, and a .Special Jury.)

SEDUCTION.-POWELL V. VF.RRIN.

This was an action brought by Mr. Edward Powell, as plain.
tiff, against the defendant, Mr. Edward Perrin, to recover
compensation in damages for the loss of his daughter's services,
in consequence of her having been seduced by the i4efendatit.
Mr. F. V. Lee and Mr. liuddlestone conducted she plain-.

tiff's case; and Mr. Allen appeared for the defendant, who did
not deny the facts of the case, and had put no plea of justifica-
tion upon the record.
Mr. Huddiestone opened the pleadings, and Mr. Lee stated
the case, which will be best gathered from the evidence.
'I he laintiff was a mineral, land, and coal surveyor. residing
with his wife and two daughters at Hagley. tear Stourbridge;
and the defendant, with his father and brother, carried on busi-
ness as extensive chain and nail manufacturers, near the same
place.
Elizabeth Ann Powell (a delicate and sickly-looking young
woman, but who appearod to have once possessed considerable
personal attractions) was called and examined by Mr. HUDDLE-
STONE.-1 am the daughter of Mr. Edward Powell, and am
twenty-two years of age. I know Mr. Perrin, the defendant.
My father is a land and mineral surveyor at Hagley. Perrin
is a chain and nail-maker and manufacturer at the Lye.
I became acquainted with him about four years ago, when I
was on a visit to Miss Good's, at the house of her brother,
who is a surgeon. I and his sister met him and his cousin on
the Kidderminster road, on Good Friday, 1641, when he
asked me if I was engaged. I told him I was not. He made
me an offer, to which 1 replied I would consider of it; and
he then said " I hope it will not be long first." He was in-
troduced to my mother, and afterwards visited at our
house. The first time he came he said be was a bachelor,
but he did not know how long he should continue
so, as it all depended upon Miss Elizabeth (meaning me).
This was on Easter Sunday. My father, who had been out
of town, returned on the 2d of May, and Perrin came from that
time up to the 18th, when he went to Hagley. He used to
come twice a week, and he always asked me whether I was
engaged, and if 1 would have him. On the 18th of May I
met him at the Post-office, when he asked me to take his arm,
and go for a walk by the Monument. I said " No." He re-
plied, " You had better go; it is a nice walk, a beautiful even-
ing, and no further than through the street." He at last pre-
veiled on me to go, and when he got to a wood near there he
put very improper questions to me, which I did not at all like.
I said I would have nothing more to say to him, and that I was
surprised at him, and went away through the wood. I had got
about twenty yards, when he overtook me, threw me down, and
took advantage of me, while I was in such a!state that I did not
know what I was doing. He begged me to forgive him, and not
tell a soul on earth, and he would marry me whenever ipleased.
He swore he would not do so again, and said I could hang him
if I swore against him. I saw him at our house on the fol-
lowing Sunday, when he was talking to my father for nearly
three hours about the iron trade, and said he had a large
stock, and a contract for two years. He was in partnership
with his father and brother, and they were all as one. He
paid his men 100/. per week. He was introduced to my father
as a lover, and received by him as such. On the 12th of July
he walkedwith me in the garden, and said, " I am frightened
you are ill." On the 24th he sent a man to ask me to meet
him at the Monument, which I did, whets he said I did not
meet him with that affection that I used to do. I had seen
some one at Stourbridge who had put me against him, and he
then took advantage of me again, saying, " I have spoiled
you now, and you can have no one but me." I was confined to
my bed some days after, and was attended by Mr. Evans.
Perrin came on the Monday; saw me in bed, and brought some
oranges. On the Bth of August he asked me to walk with
him in the garden, when he said he was frightened out of his
wits that I was in the family way. 1 said I could not tell;
and he replied, I suppose not, but if it is so, tell me, for the
sooner we are married the better. He visited at our house
continually after, and dined there as my lover, on Christmas-
day. On the 28th of January my mother took me to Dr.
Davis, as I had a pain in my side, and was very ill. I was
delivered of a male child on the 23d of March. I have been
in a weak state of health ever since. I have been employed in
the management of my father's house.
The witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr.
Allen, but nothing was elicited tending to weaken her evidence,
or impugn her character.
Mary Powell, sister of last witness, a very handsome girl,
was the next witness examined by Mr. Lee, but her evidence
was not material.
Several letters were here put in and read, being correspond-
ence between the defendant and Miss Powell, and her father,
Mr. Jones, his attorney, and Mr. Pargitter, the defendant's
solicitor. In one of the letters the defendant wrote to ask her
to meet him, and she wrote back a very feeling letter, in an
affectionate style, telling him her father would not let her, that
he had ruined her, and that it would be better for him to repent
before it was too late, pacify her father, and make them all
happy.
Other witnesses having been examined, and Mr. Allen having
addressed the Jury for the defence, they returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, 500/.

COURT OF B ANKRUPTCY,—JuIy 21.
(Before Sir C. F. WILLIAMS.)
DAVID HANNAY'S BANKRUPTCY.

This bankrupt appeared to•day on his adjourned final exami-
nation as the manager of the late Marylebone Joint Stock
Bank. He was opposed by Mr. Wordsworth for several of the
Shareholders, and supported by Mr. Clarkson. After a long
and tedious conversation, which elicited no facts of public in-
terest, it was arranged that a further adjournment should be
made to the month of November, the opposing creditors giving
the bankrupt notice of the objections they intended to raise one
mouth before he appeared.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
OSBALDISTON'S BANKRUPTCY.
The bankrupt, described as a horse-dealer at St. Alban's,
but who in reality is the attorney of that name, and one of the
Coroners for the county of Hertford, also appeared before the
Court on his final examination.
Mr. Commissioner FONSLANQUE said, in passing him, that
although no objection was made to the bankrupt's right to the
rule of Court, having furnished the best accounts he could, yet
it was impossible that the assignees could be satisfied with the
state of affairs presented in his balance-sheet. His transac-
tions as a horse-dealer showed about 501., while his profits as
an attorney, who was really the person before the Court, was,
with " official fees," 4,8881. ; his expenses of business were
put down at 4,2781., and his family expenses 4,0001., so that
he had in the ten years, the period over which these accounts
reached, just managed, what with business and family expenses,
to double in expenditure the actual amount of his profits.—
The bani:rupt was then passed.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NoRFoLK ClRCUlT—Cambridge, Jag 20.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and a Special Jury.)
FISHER AND ANOTHER 0. LILLEY.
This was an action for the speaking certain slanderous words
of the Plaintiffs impeaching their credit in their business as
bankers, to which the defendant pleaded " not guilty " only.
Mr. Kelly, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Sanders conducted the
case for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Byles that of the defendant.
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Fisher, carry en the business of
bankers in this town, and had been in partnership with their late
faller, who had conducted the business for half a century.
The defendant is P. brewer, living in the village of Grantches-
ter, about a mile i,'otn Cambridge. In the beginning of the
~:esent year there had ;;eon two or three extensive failures in
thi„..wyn, and some alarm and panic was caused by that eir-
curnstanc.'• No suspicion, however, attached to the plaintiffs,
whose credit Was and is beyond ,all exception ; their resources
and their respectability in their business being equal and un- '
doubted.
It appeared by the evidence that a Air. Balls, a currier in
Cambridge, keeps an aceount with the plaintiffs, and that
about nine o'clock on the evening of Saturday, the 26th of
March last, the defendant called at his house, and knocking at
his door, desired to see him. Mr. Balls accordingly went to
the door, and the defendant, who was on horseback, asked him
if he did not keep an account with Messrs. Fisher? Mr. Balls
replied be did, whereupon the defendant continued, " They
have stopped payment, and cannot go on, and asked if Mr.
Henry (Mr. son) banked with them, to which that gen-
tleman answered he did not, but his other son did. Mr. Balls
then told defendant that what he was saying was a most serious
matter, and be ought to have it. from good authority, which
the defendant said he had : he was satisfied about that. Mr.
Balls, upon this, asked the defendant what was the use of telling
him what he had done, as he could not at that time of night du
anything, if the fact was true, and the parties thereupon sepa-
rated. For the defendant, it was contended by Mr. Ryles that
this was a privileged communication, and his client entitled to
a verdict. Mr. Balls was a customer of the plaintiffs, deeply
interested in the communication made by the defendant, if
true ; and if the jury were satisfied that it was made bona
.fide,
and not with the intention of injuring the plaintiffs. the de-
fendant was not liable to this action. He admitted
defendanttedri'ithnut
the least reserve that the statement made by h
had no foundation in truth, and the defendant deeply regretted
having made it.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON told the jury that the plaintiffs must
satisfy them that the defendant had uttered the words imputed
to him ; that they were spoken of them in their business as
bankers in the sense given to them in the declaration, and that
ihey were spoken maliciously. Now, the speaking of words
injurious to the character or trade of another, without having a
justifiable occasion er excuse for doing so, constituted such a
" malicious" speaking as the law required, in order to render
him liable to an action of this nature. The words must be
injurious ; they must be spoken by the defendant, and spoken
without a lawful excuse. There was a large class of eases in
which the uttering of words injurious to the character of an-
other becomes justifiable by the occasion on which they are
uttered. Thus, where a party is applied to for the character
of a servant, and tile master in answer bona fide makes
use of defamatory words, he is not liable to an action,
unless he is actuated by express malice. The interests
of society required that this should be so. In like
manner, where the plaintiff was paying his addresses to
a lady, and the defendant, a near connexion of hers, wrote a '
letter to her to warn her against marrying him, stating as his
reason certain matters highly injurious to the character of the
rla'.ntiff, it urea properly left to the Jury to say whether, con-
sidering the near relationship of the defendant to the lady.
and the immense importance to him and herself of the step
she was about to take, he was actuated by malice in writing
tile letter, or whether he had used the occasion as a cover and
pretext for making a malicious statement. In that case the
Jury found a verdict for the defendant. In the present case,
however, the defendant is not applied to by Mr. Balls, he is a
volunteer ; and he tolls him, not that the plaintiffs are "about"
to stop payment, in which case the customer might perhaps
withdraw his account, but that they had already stopped.
This communication, even if it had been true, could not have
benefited Mr. Balls ; and being false, it would be for the Jury to
say whether the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover com-
pensation in damages for the unfounded and injurious statement.
The Jury retired, and in a few minutes found for the plaintiff,
wit' 1. damages.