Star.
London, England, 1825-08-22 00:00:00

fv?
cel

. SU.afiKER ASSIZES. .
' •

• - • LANCASTER, AUGUST Is.
• -sitittfertos.z-rox v. WILKINSOS.

This was an action brought to recover compensa--
tion in damages for the injury sustained by the plain-
tiff, in consequence of the loss of the services of his
d!rghter. The damages were laid at 5001.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated, that in this case the plaintiff
was a respectable farmer, living near Itadale, in this
county ; the defendant was also a farmer, residing in
the same 'neighbourhood, though not one jot more.
respectable than the plaintiff. The injury which he
had sustained was one of the greatest which -could
almost be sustained by any man, but in this case it was
heightened by the fact, that no blam-, no, not in the
slightest degree, attached to the plaintiff. Had he
been neglectful of his duty, then might he bear the
pang of self-reproach, but in no instance had he the
painful task of being obliged to condemn himself for
any neglect of, or inattention to the moral habits of his
family. The daughter of the plaintiff had been a mo-
dest and a virtuous girl up to the moment of her
seduction by the defendant, and she would this day
appeal before the Jury to tell-the story of her woes,
and relate those circumstances which led to her ruin,
and the destruction of her peace of mind. The state-
ment o' Ole abused and ill treated girl was that which
would form the ground and measure of compensation
which they would grant the father, and that being the
ca.e, he would not enlarge upon topics which might
be easily enlisted into a cae like the present, but leave
t'e Jury to decide eventually for themselves. The
Jefendant was a man worth abut 1001. s.year, and
the plaintiff's daughter became acquainted with him
about four years ago, at the marriage of a neighbour.
The parties met alter wards on similar occasions, and
that which was but a slight intimacy at first, subse-
quently became closer and more frequent. The de-
fendant repeatedly visited at the house of the plaintiff
as the avowed suitor of his daughter, and he proposed
marriage to her only, as it would appear in the sequel,
the more readily to accomplish his wicked object.—
These honourable professions not only aggravated the
crime of the defendant, but lulled to rest every doubt
which might have arisen in the breast of the plaintiff.
Being received at the plaintiff's house as the professed
suitor of his daughter, it was natural enough to think
that certain opportunities were allowed him which,
under other circumstances, would not have been ad-
mitted for a single moment, and which, indeed, if
permitted, would have been highly culpable in the
plaintiff. However, to quiet all suspicion upon his
part, the defendant made his daughter a promise of
marriage, and accomplished his object in October,
1823, just one year after his first introduction, and
in the next ensuing year, Miss Fox became the mother
of the defendant's child. These were all the circum-
stances with which he should now trouble the Jury,
satisfied that they would do justice to the wounded
feelings of an insulted and abased father.
Miss Fox called, and examined by Mr. BROUGHAM.—
My name is Nelly Fox. I have two sisters and a
br6ther. lam the eldest of the family, and have been
my father's housekeeper. I became acquainted with
the defendant in September, 1821, at the marriage of
Richard HodgMs. 1 met him at a christening in
August, 1822, and we became more intimate after
that. He then visited me with an intent to marry me.
In October, 1823, he made me a promise of marriage,
and gave are written paper to that -effeeti,but-he
succeeded in getting k back from me in Apra, 1824.
It was more than a year after the christening when I
got the paper from him saying that he would marry
me. I was induced by the promise that paper made)
to yield to his entreaties. I had a child by him, and
was put to bed on the sth of July, 1824. He often
talked to me about his property. He had one place
which he said he had let for 801. a-year, another
for 301. and so on. My mother was lame and could
not attend about the house. She is now obliged to
use clutches.
slr. WILLIAMS cross.examined the witness. but the questions
and answers were unfit for publication.
Mr. Wn.u4sts addressed the Jury for the defendant.
Mr. Baron Her.t.om left the question of damage to the Jury,
who found for the plaintiff—Damages 501.