Star.
London, England, 1822-12-06 00:00:00

PALMER V. LECOATT.

Mr. HOLT stated that this was an action to recover
damages for the seduction of the plaintiff's servant.
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury on behalf of the
plaintiff, who, he said, sought compensation for a
very serious injury, occasioned by gross misconduct
on the part of the defendant. The wife of the plain-
tiff, who carried on the business of a straw-bonnet
manufacturer in South-street, had taken an orphan
aiece, named Anne Allen, into protection at a very
tender age, bad 'received her as apprentice to' her
trade, and treated her as a matubdr of her family.--
Part of her house was let to lodgers; acrd Mt. Leg-

'7.7,17 •
it en/ the &feedlot% a gewaillim of ample fortune,
who had retired. cnisin byline* Occupied thi first
&or. He was chiefly attended by his servant, and
his deportment was such that Mr; and Mrs. Palmer
had not the least idea, until accident discovered the
troth, that he had meditated, snitch less effected, the
ruin of this unfortunategirr. It would, however, now
appear, that on the 21st of April in lass year, he took
an opportunity, when all the other inhabitants of the
house were absent, to send foi this young female, and
to complete her ruin. The intercourse was renewed
as opportunity offered, until it was followed by its na-
tural consequences, and she became with child. On
the 21st of January, Anne Allen was seen with bride-1
,Fake, which Mr. Leggatt had given her; she was
questioned respecting it, and at last confessed the
melancholy-truth toher aunt and uncle. Mrs. Palmer
immediately charged Mr. Leggatt with his conduct;
he made protestations and promises, which he had
broken, and the plaintiff was therefore compelled to
seek redress from their verdict. He had been forced
to maintain his niece during her illness, which conti-
nued throughout her pregnancy, to pay the expenses
of her lying-in, and to procure a servant to supply
her place in his business. When the Jury considered
the situation of the defendant—a lodger in whom
confidence was reposed, and a man of station, who
was called on to set an example—when they adverted
to the youth of the girl, then little more than seven-
teen—when they perceived that she was artless, un-
suspecting, and ignorant, liable to be deluded by the
arts of a man in the rank of her seducer—they would
feel that this was not a case in which they would deal
out compensation with a sparing hand.
Anne Allen, the girl, examined by Mr. GURNEY,
said, lam now nineteen. I was apprenticed to Mr.
Palmer, being niece to his wife. My mistress car-
ried en the straw bonnet trade. I am an orphan,
and have been seven years in the service of my uncle.
Mr. Leggatt lodged in the house, occupying the first
floor. He had been there three or four months be-
fore April, 1821. He bad a man servant who at-
tended him, and I occasionally assisted. On. the 21st
of April, when my aunt and uncle were out, I was
culled for, the man servant having been sent away.
The bell rung, I answered it: Mr. Leggatt begged
me to lay the cloth for supper, and to take water to
his bed-room—CHere the witness described what
took place further, and then proceeded>-He told
me if my aunt found it out he would keep me. The
intercourse was repeated when my aunt was out, on
which occasion he sent his servant away. On the
21st of ,:inirary my aunt made a discovery. A Mr.
.814:ken had been marl ied, and Mr. Leggatt give
me some bride-cake. I sheaved the cake to my aunt
when she c::rne in; she asked questions, which pro-
duces! the discovery of that which till then I had
kept secret. My mutt spoke to Mr. Leggatt, but I ,
did not hear what she said. Afterwards my aunt
sent me up stairs to Mr. Leggatt, to say he was the
man who seduced me. I became pregnant, and was
brought to bed two months ago. I was ill before
that occurred. That Gentleman (pointing him out)
is Mr. Leggatt. My t.ncle maintained me in my ill-'
ness, and procured another person to do my work; 1
am in his family now.
On cross•examination by Mr. Scanterr, the wit-
ness said, Mr. Palmer is servant to the Duke of Bed-
ford, but he sleeps at home. There were Mr. Leg-
gatt and a Mr. Palmer on the second floor, and Mr.
Sowry and Mr. Perceval in the attics. My aunt and
uncle slept in the parlour, and 1 near them on the
parlour floor. I cannot read or write. I do not
know what month we are in row, or the month or
day of the month when my child was born. I know
was the 21st of April on which Mr. Leggatt sent
for me, because the bonnets went home on that day.
I often know the days when the bonnets go home.—
On this night none of the other lodgers were at home,
or I slice.:f-i have called out. I did attempt to do so,
but was prevented. My aunt told me the day of the
month when she discovered it, but not the 21st of
April. I believe I heard my aunt say that Mr. Leg-
gatt was going to leave his lodgings. When she sent
me up to Mr. Leggatt she did not accompany me. 1
held the door in my hand and said—.. My aunt de-
' sires me to tell you, Mr. Leggatt, that you have
ruinated me." I do not know of any difference betweeo
Mr. Leggatt and my aunt about rent. I waited on
the other lodgers. Neiiher of the Gentlemen in the
attics ever went to the Tower ; one was
.a clerk in
Loarbard-street, and the.other was a Gentleman. I
know the first was a clerk in Lombard-street ; but I
never went with him. I have been once at the Tower.
I went part of the way with Mr. Sowry and part by
myself, to spend the day with a friend of my aunt's.
I came back before it was dark. I only went that
once. My aunt never told me to swear that Mr.
Leggatt was the father of the child. Ido not know
why the child was not sworn to any one. My aunt
now maintains me.
George Sowry said—l am a clerk in the Duke of
Bedford's office. I lodged at Mr. Palmer's two years
and a half. Mr. Leggatt lodged there, and Ann
Allen was in the house. I never saw anything incor-
rect in her conduct.
Cross-examined.—l believe she sometimes slept in
the attic floor. I have hoard Mr. and Mrs. Palmer
say she sometimes slept there ; but she could not al-
ways, because sometimes Mr. Leggett's servant slept
in the third room. The witness was asked respecting
his accompanying the girl part of the way to the
Tower ;' and explained, that Mrs. Palmer requested
him to allow here go with him as far as he went, to
which he acceded; but he knew nothing further of
her visit, or of the manner or time 9f her return. She
brought his breakfast as usual on the following day.
Mrs. Bolton deposed, that she had known Ann
Allen during the whole of her residence at Mr. and
Mrs. Palmer s. She offered to take the girl out of
mere humanity in her illness, which lasted for
three months.
Mr. GURNEY proposed to ask the witness as to the
demeanour of the girl.
Mr. ScAaLarr objected that this was not evidence,
as he had not asked the witness any question as to
herbleneral character. •

.r. Hors and Mr. GURNZT replied, that the whole'
course of the cross.examination bad been toimpeach
her character, though no question had been asked
directly; and the insinuations were quite as effectual
as direct attacks.
The LORD Came Jturrsea held, that as the girl was
not herself the plaintiff, in this stage of the cave he
could not receive evidence of her genera, desseaneer.
Elisabeth Till proved that Mrs. Palmer supported

'. .

-...

1„,
and paid her while site soma Ann Alto In her
lying-in..
Mr. fryar, a surgeon, who anemia the girl, pfoied
the charge to be 71. ss. 7d. which had been paid.
Mr. Walford, formerly clerk of the defendant,
stated that he bad retired from, business in January
last. He then believed him to be a man worth 4001.
or 5001. a-year. He kept a servant and
This was the case on behalf of the plaintiff.
Mr. SCARLITT addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. This was a species of action to which every
man, however innocent, was liable, as in the case of
indictment for rape, when any wicked witness thought
fit to charge him as her seducer. She had only to
lay the scene in some place to which no one was near;
to represent, as this girl had done, that all who were
usually present were out of the way, and she might
walk over the Course swearing whatever she chose.
In these cases, then, there was no protection for
mens lives, except in the vigilant attention of Juries,
requiring confirmatory circumstances to support the
well learnt tale, and looking vigilantly at the proba-
bility and consistency cf its details. If the plaintiff
were entitled to any verdict, it could be for little
more than nominal damages: he was not the father
of the girl, whose agonized feelings might require to
be appeased ; he had no legal obligation to support
her ; the child might still be sworn to Mr. Leggett,
and he might be compelled to indemnify the parish
against its charge. But he trusted that he should be
able to shew that the gial was undeserving of credit ;1
she had sworn that all the lodgers were out of the
way ; why were they not called to prove this? She
intinuated that Mr. Leggatt's servant was sent out of
the way ; why was he, no longer under Mr. Leggatt's
controul, not called to confirm her? She could not
write or read ; she did not know the present month
or that in which her child was born ; but she had the
two dates, the 21st of April and the 21st of January
by heart, and confessed that her aunt suggested
them. How much else of the story had her aunt
'suggested ? It appeared that her aunt desired her to
go up to Nlr.Leggatt, and tell him he had" ruinated
her"—necessary information, dipubtless ; 'and she did
go and tell him, what he heard with surprise. This
was true; it was the only part of the story which was
true; the rest Mr. Leggatt positively denied, but he
could not be called. as a witness. If he could be so
called, be would swear in the most solemn manner
that he never had any intercourse with the girl.
Mr. GURNEY rose and said, " My learned friend
boasts that his client will swear that .the charge is
false; f ant quite willing to put the question upon that
issue. Let him swear it, and I will give up my case."
Mr. SCA ILLETr.--.. I am quite ready to do so,
my Lord."
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—" You know I cannot
take the oath of a party in a cause: but you may, if
you please, refer the case to some Gentleman at the!
Bar, before whom lie may be sworn."
Mr. SCARLETT.—" I consent to it, my Lord ; I
earnestly wish that my friend may consent.'
Mr. G URNEY.—" I cannot refer a case of this kind;
it is impossible."
Mr. SCARLErT..-14 I knew my friend would not
consent ; I knew it was mere bravado on his part,
because he was aware that my client's oath could not
be taken, and he refuses the only possible mode by
which it can be received!" The Learned Conn-
-el proceeded to urge that the girl had sworn she
always slept on the parlour floor, whet eas it was
clear that she occasionally slept in one or other of
the attics; that it was more probable that any one
else • rather than the defendant should have taken
freedoms with her; that her story of the discovei y
was improbable and absurd ; and that there was
every reason to believe that she had fixed on Mr.
Leggatt because he was the wealthiest lodger in the
house, and not because he was guilty. If the defend-
ant were on trial for rape, and his life or death in
issue, he could have no defence against the falsest
and foulest charge, but that which such improba-
bility, such want of confirmation, and such contra-
diction, would supply.
The LORD CHIEF Justice recapitulated the evi-
dence to the Jury, leaving them to decide on the
credibility of Ann Allen. If they believed her testi•
mony, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff;
and in estimating the damages, they might include
the expenses of the illness and lying-in, because,
though the plaintiff was not strictly obliged to incur
them, yet theie was fair reason why she should do so
in a ca,.e like the present. They would also give da-,
mages for the loss of service ; but not for the distress
and degradation which, in the case of a parent, were
birly regarded by Juries ; because, though in one
instance such damages had been given in the case of
a niece, there the relationship was averred on the re-
cord, whereas here the girl was only described as a
servant. If they disbelieved Ann. Allen, they would
had a verdict for the defendant.
The Jury retired for twenty minutes, and found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £25.
PREROGATIVE COURT, DECEMBER 4.
BELL V. ARMSTRONG.

This was a suit respecting the will of the late Mr.
William Bell, who died in July, 1818, propounded
by Mr. John. Bell, this next of kin, and calling upon
Mr. Armstrong, the acting executor, to prove, in so-
lemn form of law, the validity of that will. Against
this suit of petition the defendant had entered a pro-
test, in which it was contended, that the plaintiff was
barred of his right to commence this suit as next of
kin by lapse of time, .as well as by evident acquies-
cence in. and approbation of all that had taken place
under Mr. Armstrong's administration. It appears
that the deceased, who was a person of considerable
property, residing in Portman-square, feeling himself
to be in a declining state of health in February 1817,
called on Mr. Armstrong, a Gentleman who had pre-
viously acted for him in the capacity of a stockbroker,
to assist him in the arrangement of his money trans-
actions. Mr. Armstrong wrote to the plaintiff, Mr.
Bell's brother, who was a farmer in the North of
England, advising him to come to London without
delay ; which advice was, however, disregarded by the
latter. Oa the 15th March following Mr. Armstrong
' wrote again, and expressed his surprise at the :appa-
rent negligence which Mr. John Bell had exhibited.
Mr. Bill then came up, and arrived in town eight,
days after the execution of the will now in question.
He waited Cll% the defendant, accompanied by Mr.
James Blackburn,. and was told that there was a,
• handsome legacy for him. 111 the course of a few
days be went io see thc afternoon
at his country house,
4 aridossid with him the afternoon of one day, and the

•
morning of a second ; after which" he rainina4
town and s!epaired tip his own farm iq the .North,
did not revisit London until he heard of his brother's
decease, upon which he came up and expressed his
belief that the whole was a swindling transaction...
This language might be :apposed intended for a 00.
dicil to the will, by which a person named Sanders
was appointed a residuary legatee, and which codicil
had been afterwards controverted and set aside....
According to some statements, Mr. Armstrong lead
suggested to the plaintiff the wisdom of their divid..•
ing the expense of opposing the codicil, and sharing
the property of the deceased between them. Mr. Bell
however, in his affidavit, deposed that Mr. Armstrong
had promised to secure him from all expense, and
upon this understandineg paid to him, as he CONIC
cerved,
.the legacy of , beqiteathed to him b 7
the will which he now sought to invalidate as frau:
dulent and unjust. This fresh suit was instituted Sec:
April 1822, the plaintiff having seen the widow of
the deceased long before, having also seen a copy
the will in May 1821, and learned that a will of 114.
terior date had likewise been executed in 1815,
whereby he himself was a principal legatee.
Dr. JENNE& and Dr. LOSIIINOTON were this dim
heard in support of the protest, contending that the
plaintiff by long acquiescence in, and regular know-
ledge of the will in question, forfeited his right et
now disputing its validity.
Dr. SWANEY was heard shortly for the plaintiff.
. Sir Joust Ntcuot (Judge) observed, that the cases
of Ewins and Weeks, as well as of Gore and S,:encerp
were distinguishable certainly from the present, not
only by a greater lapse of time, but by tie tact (4.
the validity of the will itself having been br,,ught
in question during the previous proceedings, in each
of those two cases. It must be some very poi erful
consideration to bar the next of kin from a full in-
quiry into the causes of hi; being set aside. lle (Sir
John Nichol) could not in the present state of the
whole cate,• take it upon himself to Lietermine whe-
ther the plaintiff might have interfered with pro-
priety before, nor could he, from anything which
had passed, pretend to anticipate the result of a fa-
cure inquiry. Stall he deen,ed it necessary, %kb a
view of guarding against vexatious litigation, to di.
rect that before any new Petition the legacy be re-
paid, and within a reasonable time. The defendant
would be thus pretty well secured in regard to costs.
___ _ _

LONDON BLGGARS.