Star.
London, England, 1825-03-23 00:00:00

DERBY, MAKII 21.

WILSIN V. BAGSIIAW.
•
This was an action brought to recover compens4tion
in dainagee for the injury the plaintiff had suttAined ;
in consequence of the seduction of his wife By the
defendant.
Mr. Serjeant VAUCITAN said, the plaintiff lived In a '

little freehold of his own, in the neighbourhood of
Tideswell. The defendant was a man in a similar rank
of life, but a man of more property, The plaintiff was
older than his wife, but not so much as to affect their
connubial happiness. He was a little more than sixty,
and she was about forty. The defendant was upwards
of sixty—(A laugh). The marriage took place as far
back as 1809 ; and since that event the woman, or
Lady, had borne the plaintiff eight children. But what
was a great aggravation in this case, it was impossible
to say how many of those children belonged to the
plaintiff—(A laugh). The plaintiff was in the habit of
carrying the produce of his farm to market, and it was
upon these occasions that the defendant undermined
the virtue of his friend's wife. How long the COnnec.
tion had subsisted it was impossible to say, but it could
be traced as fat back as seven or eight years. The de-
fendant frequently going to plaintiff's house when he
was absent, induced the friends of his client to use vigi-
lance. The plaintiff had some suspicions, but he was
living on in a state of the greatest misery, doubting, yet
hoping, that his wife was pure. The plaintiff's wife
and the defendant were watched, and be should be able
to spew that the defendant had taken the grossest and
most indecent liberties with her. He could see that the
Jury was struck by the levity with which his Learned
Ft tend treated this case—( Mach lankier, in which the
Learned Seiieant could not refrain front joiaimg). But
the Jury would read his friend a lesson that would not
be easily forgotten, and teach him, that though it was
sport to him, it was death to his unfortunate client.—
He should sheer that indecent liberties were observed to
have been taken many years ago with the plaintiff's
wife, and that his friends refrained from telling him,
because they were afraid of wounding, without serving
him. However, the completion of the offence he should
be able to prove from the defendaat's own acknowledg-
ment ; for it was with him, as it was with many others,
that amongst a great deal of knavery, there was mixed
no little folly. He should stew that the defendant had
been vile enough to make a declaration of his guilt in
a public-house. The fellow is red-haired, and he told
the company in this public-house that his stock was bet-
ter than Wilson's, and that they might be known, for they
bad red hair—t Laughter). He had audacity enough to
claim two of the children as his own, and it was said
that a mote correct facsimile of the fellow could not
he produced—(lmmense laughter). Yes, true it was,
that two of these must unhappy off.piing had the un-
speakable misfortune to carry the burning shame upon
their heads (Continued laughter). His Learned Friend
might say, why were they not brought hete to-day?
That would be a most unseemly thing, to stick the
little urchins upon the table, and then make their
poor red heads the object of every fool's jest. Besides,
there might be people who would maliciously say, why
really, the children are not unlike his Learned Friend,
the C.immon Sri jeant, Mr. Reader, or, indeed, any of
the Gentlemen of the Jury—(Great &teeter). He did
nut press for heavy damages, but the Jury would give
such as si °old teach a man of sixty-orie years of age,
that he could not throw the reins upon the neck of his
passions, and make havoc upon the domestic affections,
with impunity.
Nathaniel Womireofe, the parish clerk of Little Ilucklow,
proved the marriage of the plaintiff with his present wife, iu 1809.
Mr. Cosmos Septum was proceeding to ask the witness some
questions about the Bull's.head, public-house, at Hucklow, which
was kept by the plaintiff's wife's lather, when Mr. SerjeantVatiettan
object, d to any question bring put about bulls, unless they related
to the bull—the defendant.—(A laugh).
Mr. Baron Huttoce said the question was certainly irrelevant.
Edward Harbert examined.-1 am the brother-in-law
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his wife lived Kap-
ply together. He made her a good husband—a very
good husband. I saw something in 1818 which excited
my suspicions. We went about that time to a funeral
—Bagshaw was there; as we came along the road, he
laid his arm round my sister's waist, bat I prevented
him doing more. Some time after this, Wilson went
to Stockport market, I watched the defendant; I saw
the defendant go to plaintiff's wife about nine o'clock
in the morning ; he went away and came again about
ten o'clock. I have seen him take liberties with her at
Christmas, of all times in the year. I saw a big'light
in Wilson's house. I had a thatch-peg in my Until
There were two or three holes in the windows of plain-
tiff's house, and a great big blazing fire in the house.
De endatat was there. Plaintiff was gone to Sheffield.
1 watched defendant, and saw him take Mrs. Wilson
round the waist and kiss her. They then went into a
dark passage. There are two red-headed children:
There were six children before a red-headed one
came. I don't know whether they are like plaintiff
or defendant.
Cross-examined by Mr.COMMON•SIMICANT..-4 mar-1
vied the plaintiff's wife's sister. My mother-in-law kept
the Bull's Head, at Little Hucklow. There was nothing
improper going on there. No kissing in the pasaages,
nor locking in the rooms. I did not tell the plaintiff
about the defendant taking liberties with her at the fu-
neral. I would not tell him, because I thought it
would breed a partition between them. I never saw
anybody else take liberties with Mts. Wilson. I never
heard Wilson say that he would not have brought the
Action, if defendant had not asked him for some money
which he, plaintiff, owed the defendant.
Hannah Herbert examined.-1 remember being at
Tideswell Fair, in October last. I was at a public-
house. Bagshaw was there ; heard Bagshaw say that
lie was a better man, and had better stock, than Old
Wilson ; be said his children had red hair. The youngest
- but two, and the youngest, are the only ones that have
red hair. Plaintiff has not red hair; defendant has.
Mr. Berm Hm.s.ocir.—This is proving. a pedigree rather than
an act of adultery.
Cress-ezantincd.—l ant the sister of the last witness. I have
not beard about the owing the defendant mostry.l
William Sat ezantined.—l knew Bagshaw ; 2 went to
TidesweU Fair in October, for you must know I bad a little bad-
ness to settle.
Mr. Scrjeant Valuagan.—Never mind your business, but tell us
what passed at the public-house between Bagshaw and you.
Sk, I had a little badness to settle, and I went
to the public-house, and called far a glass of rum and wader. It

was warm.
Mr. Serjeant Vaiussu.—Tell us what the defendant Baphaw
said. Never mind about the rum and water.
Witness—But you must hear about Bob Bagshaw
first. I had got my ram and wailer in my hand, and
I had four or five sups at it. Bagshaw says sup it up,
and ha' a sup wi' me: Nay, says. I, I do'ant want any
of your rutn and warier ; I can pay for rum and warier
myself. Says be, what have you to say against our
Bob? But I have o're-run my story. I should he
told you that Bob is a butcher, and Now,
out of his time.
He is a tidy made chap enough. Now, they tell me
that Bob hasbeen atter our Suki—that's my daughter ;
but I never seed him about the house mysel, never, or
I should ha' forbid him, that's sure enough ; for I do'ant
like the breed ; it's a bad breed, in my opinion, and
Bake shall saver be him by my consent. Bat, says

.

IBaritaire why ...met you let your daughter have4ob ?1
Bekase, says I, I do'ant like your breed, and never did.
Says he, Bob is able to get a good lleing. Says I, that
may be, but he shan't have my daughter • I do'ant like
the breed, Gentlemen, and never did. ilut, says he,
Bob would have something worth having. Nay, but.
.eays I, he shan't have my daughter though, for all that.
Says he, my breed is not a very bad breed ; look at my
red-haired stock at Wilson's. -The doctor was there;
I mean the man-midwife, and he wur dunning Bagshaw
for laying Wilson's wife. He was axing Bagshaw for
the money for doctoring Wilson's wife when she war
brought to bed. Pretty devil of a tale, thinks I, For
him to be axing Bagshaw for the money for such a job.
I wur *end, bekase I thought Wilsnn was queerly,
but I heated it talked of for years. Bagshaw said, his
was a better stock than Wilson's; they had all red hair.
*He said he had had her with him at his own house.
Cron-examined by Mr. COMMON SIDUZANT.—I was
not very well pleased to hear Bagshaw's talk. There
was an old quarrel between us. He is a queer chap, I
can tell you. I have several daughters married, and one
is married to my brother. He might say, I had better
marry her to Bob, than to my brother. We have never
been very friendly, for he is a roughish customer: The
doctor was joking with him ; Oh, no. I did'ut rightly un-
derstand you, it was no joke. It wor the talk of the
whole neighbourhood. and had been for years. I told
Wilson about it. He said that he had never seen note
(nothing) clearly, but be had heard about it often. I
said if you have not you must have bin deaf and dumb;
I could ha' found it oat years ago if I had been in your
place. The youngest of the red-haired stock is about
five or six years of age, I should think, but I don't
know exactly. He is a good slapping chap.
Re-examined by Mr. lisz.ouv.—Bagshaw lives upon his own
Prolberty. He ne'er does no work—not he.
During the examination of this witness the whole Court was in a
roar of laughter. It was in vain so endeavour to keep him to the
point in qiiestion. He could not tell anything, unless he was al-
lowed to talk about his daughter Suke and Bob Bagshaw.
Mr. Baron Houciex.—What do you think, Mr. SerjeantVaughan,
now, of the proposal that was this morning made? I don't see
what you can do with such a case as this—but do as you please.
After some consultation, the parties agreed to withdraw a Juror.
George Batty, aged 36, was indicted for having vio-
lated and abused the person of Miss Martha Hawkes-
ley, aged 16 years. Francis Ellis, aged 19 years, was
charged with aiding and abetting George Batty. Miss
Hawkesley was accompanied by her mother into the
witness-box. She appeared to be handsome, and a fine
grown young Lady, but much dejected and agitated.
She said that she was returning with her sister, a girl
about 14 years of age, from Sheffield, to her father's
house, on Friday week, and her sister called at Mrs.
Dyson's. Witness wa ted outside, and the two pri-
soners passed her; she knew Ellis before; they went
the same road ; her sister was in Dyson's about five'
minutes; she and her sister went by Bagshaw Wood'
on their return home; they had passed two fields be-
fore anything happened. At the bottom of Great Tom's
Crush Field site again saw the prisoners ; she was getting
over a stile with her sister, when Batty put his arms
round her neck, and she cried •' Murder r She got
from him ; he pursued and forced her into a hedge, and
pushed her through it. He put his finger in:o her
mouth, and she bit it badly; she scratched his face;
she asked him what she should give him to let her go
away? and lie name she should not go till he had done
with her. (Witness was gr.. atly affected.) He effected
his purpose. When he left her, he sad, with an oath,
" You may go now, I have done with sou." She went
home, and told her father and mother she had been
ill-used ; she did not state the particular injury till raga
day, and then she told her sister.—Cross-examineds
The struggle lasted 20 minutes; her sister left her whoa
she cried Murder ! She saw the prisoner'Batty next dad
he came to beg her pardon. The sister of the aliOns'
witness corroborated her evidence.
Jahns Hawkesley, the faih.r ef the girl, said, that
on the Friday night his daughter came home with her
fate • coveted' with blood, and in a very forlorn Condi-
titin ; B..ttly was apprehended next day, and said, " the,
devil was m him, and be deserved to be hanged." His
finger was iejured.
• Other evidenie, cirroblratory of the above, was
VMS not put' on his•defence. tatty was
found, Guilty. ""
James Clarke, aged 62, and Henry Clarke, aged 2.5,1
were indicted with George Cdarke (who has absconded).
with feloniously killing and-slaying George Wildgoose,l
on the 6th of September last, at Washington.—Thomas
Atkin was at the Horse and Jockey public-house on the
28th August last. George Clarke and George Wild-1
goose talked about fighting for agninea. it was to be;
a fair stand-up 'figlit. There're: to be no purring'
(kicking on the ribs) or Um/iv (catching below the
breeches and throwing down.) Witness was at the
fight on Washington Greens. When George Clarke
was on his second': knee, Henry Clarke said to him,
Why don't you follow him, crush him, and fall into
him; you may fight this way for a week." Beth fell,
on the ground atter this. Witnesi bend something
like a clash. Wildgoose tried to fight inether round
but could not; he was put up, but he fell back appa-
rently senseless.—ln cross-examination, witness said they
fought for an hour ; the constables were present looking
on ; twenty rounds were fought ; witness could not say
that "fall into him," means " throw yourself upon him."
Wildgoose frequently threw himself down ; witness did
not see him kick out his feet at his antagonist.--Other
witnesses were examined ; The deceased lived twenty
minutes only after the fight. In cross-examination,
they said, that the piisoners at the bar did not inter-
fere in the fight any more than any one else.
John Kirk heard the prisoner, James Clarke', say to
his son George `Ge Why. don't you turn* into him, *with
your knees or elbows into his guts."
Mr. John Wheeler, surgeon, proved that the death
was caused by a rupture of a bjood 'Vessel. • It 'mig4
have been caused by exertion, or' by a fall.
Witnesses were called, who deposed that it ma fair
fight, and that the prisoners were merely lookereos.—
Verdict-I%ot Guilty.
CAMBRIDGE, MARCH 19.
- • DAVLICNIR v. ELDER AND OVUM
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a cler-
gynian, and a Member of the University of Cambridge,
against the defendants, who- were the Churchwardens
of the Parish of St. Sepulchre, in this town, in the year
1823, for not nominating him to the perpetual curacy
of that parish, he having been duly elected, The ac-
tion was brought upon a return to a writ of eseedanses,
issued from the Court of King's Bench, ordering- the
defendants to nominate the plaintiff to the curacy ; and
the cause now came to-issue to try whether the right of
election was in the parishioners, and that votes which
were tendered at the election for the plaintiff, and re.
fused, were refused on legal rights, and can neatly
to decide whether the plaintiff or the Rev.