Star.
London, England, 1823-07-22 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

YORK, JULY 19.
SIDUCTION.—WALKER V. 91.11111 C.
This was an action in which the plaintiffsouAht to
recover by damages compensation for theirolovices of
his daughter, of which services he had been, deprived
by the seduction of the girl by the defendant.
Mr. HARDY stated the plaintiff's case. The plain-
tiff had-been a cloth merchant, and resided at Wort-.
ley, and the defendant was a maltster, and had kept a
shop also in the neighbourhood. The latter had been
married to two wives, and was then a widower. He
was introduced to the family of the plaintiff by a Mr.
William Thornton, on Christmas-day, 1821 ; on his
introduction that day to Miss,Walker, he expressed
himself highly gratified at the introduction; so struck
was he with the young Lady's accomplishments, she
having played on the piano, and accompanied her-
self with her voice in the morning, that he repeated
his visit the same evening, and made an avowal of
the most honourable intentions. He talked of his
own property, of his not looking for money by way
of fortune ; for he well knew that the father of the
Lady bad been a bankrupt some time before. The
defendant was engaged in building extensive pre-
mises for his malting business at the time, and had
acknowledged, that independently of his freehold
property, he was worth two thousand pounds. His
visits were continued under this understanding of his
acknowledged views, until, in the course of the sub-
sequent February, he had. the address to persuade
Miss Walker to an intercourse, of which her preg-
nancy was the effect. The Jury would find, as was
too often instanced in cases when the base passions
were gratified, that after he had made his victim ac-
cede to his desires, he became cool in his attentions,
until he at length abandoned her, and was afterwards
married to another woman. On the 6th of March,
1822, he addressed a letter to Miss Walker, in which
he states, that he found, with deep regret, that she
had' denied seeing him when he called ; that he
found she had been out to very late hours three suc-
cessive nights ; that, with a knowledge of his own
faults, he felt, that two of the same description would
ill suit, and that he judged it, therefore, most ad-
visable to bring the business to a close. It-was with
deep concern he was, he said, brought to that deter-
mination. That was the sort of dismissal which he
was pleased to give a woman whom he had deceived
and sacrificed to his own base gratification. He (Mr.
Hardy) knew well the talents of his Learned Friend
(Mr. Brougham), whose duty it would be to address
them for the defendant ; he was conscious of his own
inability to contend with him, hut he called upon the
Jut y, as fathers of females—as persons who were
themselves at the head of a domestic circle, to weigh
the injuries the plaintiff had sustained by the ruin of
his daughter. lie asked them to extend to the plain-
tiff that consideration a hich, were he in the box as a
Juryman, and any of them a plaintiff seeking redress,
they would wish to have meted out to themselves.
Miss Mary Walker, is the daughter of William
Walker; her father is a cloth merchant; his family
consists of two sons and three daughters, the lather,
and a female servant ; she knows the defendant, and
Las known him for 1.1 years ; he lives a quarter of a
mile from her father's; he has been twice married;
he visited frequently at her house during his wife's
lifetime. His wife died at Christmas, 1821; she was
dead about five weeks; he came to her house with
Mr. Thomas Thornton and Mr. Wm. Beatson. No-
thing material happened on Christmas-day ; they
asked her to play on the piano, which she did. They
. went away at noon ; ,saw him again in the evening,
with Mr. Wm. Beatson ; her father was at home both
times ; he staid then at her house till about nine
o'clock. Mr. lleatson was there only a part of the
time; the defendant called her out, and said he
wished to have a little conversation with her. Wit-
ness told him th:y were going to supper, and that if
he would stop, she would afterwards converse with
him. He said that Mr. Thornton was taken ill, and
he would go and inquire after him, and then return.
Ile came, back in the course of an hour ; he said to
her separately that be was in want of a wife, and that
the witness had been recommended to him; he told
her his age was 36 ;her age was 29. It was strange,
witness said, for him to come, when he buried his
wife so. lately. The defendant said it certainly was,
but that he was in such a situation that he could not
do without a wife, he must have one ; he wanted a
mother for his child, and to assist him in his busi-
ness; he was at that time a shopkeeper as well as a
maltster; his late wife principally attended to the
shop. She (the witness) told him that she would not
fo to be a shopkeeper; be said be did not wish her;
It was Isis intention to give up the shop; be began
telling her how much he was worth ; he could safely
say, after all his debts were paid, that he was worth
£2OOO, perhaps £2500; his estates paid him about
£l5O per annum. He remained till twelve o'clock
that night. Witness answered by saying " Well, Mr.
Clerk, I do not know what your intentions are, but
we have had a great deal. of trouble in the family."
She said her father was unable to give her any for-
tune at present. He replied his intentions were
strictly honourable, and that he did not want money.
She hoped they were honourable, and he pledged
himself they were. He then took leave, and said be
would -come again on the Sunday after. It was
Christmas-day, and on a Tuesday. He came on the
• Sunday following. Witness in the meantime had a
conversation with her father on the subject. He be-
came a frequent visitor after that; she remembered
receiving a letter from him. On the 24th of February
she yielded to his desires, and became with child.
On the 22d of November the child was born, and the
defendant, Clerk, is the father. During the courtship
her eldest sister was absent 17 weeks. Her sister and
herself manage the domestic concerns of her father.
When her sister was absent the whole of the duties
devolved upon her.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRODGIIAM—She is now .1
30; Thornton it was who introduced the defendant
to witness; he came in the evening of Sunday, just
after six and staid perhaps till twelve; does not know
that he stopped till one; her brother was in the same
room part of the time; her brother was there more
than an hour ; -her father was in the house; her bro-
ther went to bed by about ten o'clock ; and her father
about nine, he went to bed soon after Clerk arrived ;
on Christmas night her father was iu bed when the
defendant returned ; witness told her father that he
was returning; when she asked him to stay sapper,

he said he wanted a !agile; Ad during the time he was
away she mentioned it to her father ; her father had
just retired when the defendant came back; her bro-
ther stopped some time, and left them together; he
took no liberties on the Tuesday, nothing passed
,thebe-
tween them • second night nothing material
passed, will swear that ; the third time will not say.
(Mr. Brougham said be would not press her farther.)
It was in the parlour without a sofa ; the defendant
and witness retired once into the kitchen; before he
left the house she went through the kitchen with him;
he came three nights straight forward; her father
went to bed at his bed hour ; be staid till two o'clock
on a Sunday in February; he came several nights
three times running; he generally stopped till twelve,
and once till two ; he is a maltster, and keeps a kiln.
Examined by the Defendant—Had offered inde-
cencies to her many times before he succeeded; that
took place on the 24th of February, that was the first
time; lie was several times at her father's, sometimes
she did not see him.
Jacob Brook identified the defendant's hand-writ-
ing ; he is a maltster, and was a shopkeeper at Wort-
ley beside; his malt-kiln is new; his freehold pre-
perty,*viz. the house and malt-kiln he should think
worth .170 a year; he had other property, but he dis-
posed of it about last November.
Cross. examined by 'Mr. ALDERSON—He is the pa-
rish schoolmaster, but not the parish clerk, if they
mean the Amen Clerk.
Examined—The houses were sold about the time
the child was born.
Mr. BROUGHAM then addressed the Jury. He was
ready to admit that the plaintiff was entitled to a ver-
dict; the very proof of the seduction of the daughter
entitled the father, beyond all question to it. But on
estimating the amount of damages to which such a
father was entitled for the seduction of such a
daughter, it became his duty to tender to them his
assistance in ascertaining what the conduct of the
parent himself, as well as of the daughter, really gave
a claim to in the shape of compensation. If the fa-
ther has evinced carelessness and the daughter ex-
hibited facility—if he, in place of being vigilant
and cautious, has been studiously negligent and re-
miss—and she, in place of being repelling and diffi-
dent, has been most forward—then they were bound
by every sense of what war due to justice and to
decorum, to cut down the damages to a very mode-
rate. sum. His Learned Friend who had, in the ab-
sence of Mr. Scarlett, so ably conducted his side of
the case, had placed bins (Mr. Brougham) under no
small embarrassment. He had argued the case as if
it were not an action for seduction, but an action for
a bleach of promise of marriage. Ile has had the
benefit of the daughter's testimony because it is an
action for seduction, and he has been endeavouring
to inflame the nature of that seduction by considering
it as a breach of promise of marriage. Observe also,
the hard case in which the defendant is placed by
such a course. On the morrow, though he should be
mulcted in damages this day jor the seduction, he
will be exposed to the action of the daughter for a
breach of promise of marriage. The girl has been
made a' species of family property. In money, and
in money alone, the affair commenced; with refer-
ence to money it was conducted, and in money it
would terminate. He was going to say, that by this
course the attempt was made to wheedle them out of
damages. It was true that hi sLearnedFriend told them,
that it he had 'said anything extraneous, his Lordship
would tell them to banish it from their con.ideration.
Did it not occur to his Learned Friend that it would
be a much easier course not at all to state what was
extraneous, and being extraneous, was incompetent,
and being incompetent, ought not to have been said ;
than to go through the operation of first hearing it,
and then endeavouring to dismiss it from the atten-
tion ; wouldit not be better -to keep the linen or the
paper free from soil, rather than first sully it, because
in a subsequent process you may restore its purity ?
•As to the facts of the present case, they were short.
If a father, careful and anxious for the character of
his family, has sustained one of the greatest injuries
that can be inflicted, by the seduction of a daughter,
brought up in a sen e of virtue and decorum ; and
evidencing that sense, even when her affections have
been engaged in a long struggle and resit.tance to the
wiles and importunities of the seducer—such a father
was and ought to be the object of the fullest com-
miseration, and such a se loser was a proper subject
for the most exemplary damages. But if a father has
throwi his daughter in the way of temptation ; if, on
being told of what was going on, he forbears to inter-
pose for the prevention of his daughter's degradation;
it' he was found always retiring, to allow opportu-
nities to the seducer of his child; if he was found
always sleeping while they were wooing ; if for nights
successively the parties were allowed to be in a room
together alone; if precautions were taken, not that
they should, but that they should not be impeded,
then he would tell them, what they must anticipate,
that such a parent had no claims to the character of
a easeful father. Had the plaintiff any such claim?
Let his own conduct give the explanation. Did the
daughter appear either in her manner or in the cha-
racter of a diffident girl ? 'fake the whole of her tes-
timony to the very letter, in the sense she intended it,
and was it possible to discover a glimpse of that
shrinking delicacy which a sense of modesty naturally
suggested to the female heart, when a proposal of af-
fection or of marriage was mlide to her by a man ? The
first day of the introduction, but five weeks after the
death of kis last wife, the proposal of love and mar-
riage was made to her, as she swears, by the defendant.
She was treated as a bale of goods, and yerexpressed
no feeling of reluctance, or even hesitation, at a pro-
position thus made. She. asked him, she said, to stay
supper, for the purpose of.having this interesting con.
versation ; and, strange to say, the ardent lover re-
fused the invitation. It could not escape the obser-
vation of the Jury, as it had not escaped,the obser-
vation of his Lordship, or himself (Mr. Brougham),
that though in her direct examination she told the
more probable story, namely, that it was not until
the defendant returned the second time on Christmas
night that he made her the offer, yet in her cross-
examittation she changed suddenly, and swore that
both before he went away in the early part of the
night, and after he returned, he addressed the same
words to her. She never whispered a syllable in her
first statement of the proposal of marriage being
made until after the return of the defendant. Did
the Jury see the cause of 'that change ? It was this.
The father, it was in evidence, had gone to bed; it
became essential, thertfine, that she should as she

proceeded, class the story of the proposal of mar-
riage an hour or two earlier, because that interval
allowed of its being told to the father, and would ac-
count for his leaving the pirties together. He was
to be saved from reproach, lest his claim for damages
might be depreciated. The story, it was true, suited
better with the interest of the plaintiff, but, as fre-
quently happened in such contrivances, there was
not time enough to make it a consistent story.—
Was it conceivable that a man should go thus unne-
cessarily twice over the same ground, that before he
retired for a time, he should say—" I want a wife, and
you have been recommended to me;" and that on his
return he should repeat the same conversation in the
same words? But, if he had even repeated them,
would she, as she has sworn here, have alio repeated
she same answer about the death of the wife? Was it
not more natural to think she would have said,
" Why, you have told all that a while ago."— But
where was the necessity of telling it to her father
twice, once before he went to bed, Christmas night,
and in the course of the week between the Tuesday
and Sunday ? . These considerations were very ma-
terial, as they went to shew what sort of a witness
the daughter was. Besides, it must strike them that
she wished it to appear that she resisted the impor-
tunities of the defendant, although such a conclusion
was repugnant to the whole of her story. The last
day she saw him, she made the time of her submis.
sion to his will, and that day, the 24th of February,
it would seem, was fixed, in order to meet the birth
of her child on the 22d of the November following,
viz. nine months after, wanting two days.—The Jury
would recollect her cross-examination, they would
recollect her answer to the question of what occurred
at the third interview, in a room without a bed or a
sofa. That question was, 64 Will you, witness say,
that nothing material occurred at that interview?'
finding a dead pause he did not press her, but
in order to set her up again his Learned Friend
re-examined her, and extracted from her that she
admitted many indecencies before she finally sub-
mitted. What sort of a woman was that that in
twelve days, five weeks after the paramour had
lost his wife, submitted to those disgusting indecen-
cies, and allowed them to be repeated on her person?
If she was seduced on that third visit, the better for
her own sense of shame; if she were not seduced, but
still allowed the repetition of those disgusting inde-
cencies, and to be terminated in a seduction within
five or six weeks, she had little claim to considera•
tion. Were she virtuously inclined, she would have
at once dismissed him, complained to her father, or
took comfort from her brother. Every woman of a
virtuous disposition can defend her own virtue in
such circumstances, for there was no proof that any
force had been exerted. But even here the indelica-
cies were aggravated by the gross manner in which
they were carried into effect, for they need not be
told that even an indelicate act can at least be exe-
cuted in a less revolting manner. All the decencies
of life were here disregarded. Parlour or kitchen
were all equal—as were carpet, kitchen table, dresser,
or sanded floor. He did believe that the defendant
bad at one time entertained the wish to marry her,
but that disgusted by her levities of conduct, finding
her a true street gadder, he had abandoned his origi-
nal determination. As to the father, he would say,
that the bare bringing of such an action betokens no
great susceptibility of feelings ; but what could they
think of a father who appeared so little under the
sense of shame, and so little ruffled by that awful si-
tuation to men of other nerves, that he has actually
placed himself prominently forward in this Court to
listen to the tale of his daughter's ruin—that he was
seen by a crowded Court to laugh loudest at the vul-
gar joke of the paid' schoolmaster : and that at the
moment he was confronting the Advocate who was
obliged to comment on his conduct and that of his
daughter? He left him to the Jury, trusting that they
would not allow him to convert his daughter's shame
to his own profit, but defeat by their verdict, the base
and scandalous speculation. . -
The Jury retired, and brought in a verdict for the
plaintiff of 1:250 damages--. 405. costs.
. STAFFORD, JULY 19.
CLARKE V. WEBSTER AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by a farmer of Staf-
fordshire against Mr. Webster; a gentleman of the
same county, and his gamekeeper, for shooting the
dog of the plaintiff.
Mr. JERVIS, for the plaintiff, represented the act
of killing the dog in question as entirely needless, if
not wanton. The defendants had pleaded, besides
the general issue, that the dog " was accustomed to
attack and bite mankind," and also that he assailed
the defendants, who .shot him to rescue themselves
from his fangs. For these charges there was not the
slightest foundation : the dog, which was a yard-dog,
and employed to guaid the house, was of the gentlest
disposition, except when turned loose at night, suf-
fered children to ride on kiis back, and manifested a
degree of instinct which added greatly to his value.
In support of this case witnesses were called, who
deposed to the gentleness of the dog, and who stated
that on the day in question the defendants, without
provocation, shot at him and killed him.
Mr. PEARsoN, for the defendants, expressed his be-
lief that he should completely prove both parts of his
justification to the full satisfaction-of the Jury. He
called witnesses, who swore that the defendants were
out with pointers; that the dog, which was of the
bull-dog species,'first worried them ; and a gun being
fired merely for the purpose of alarm, he came deli-
berately towards Mr. Webster and his servant in
the attitude of attack, and was necessarily shot to
preserve them from his fury.. He also called several
person who who stated that the dog had run towards
people, especially some Irishmen, as if to bite them;
but no person proved that he, m any other persod,
was actually bitten.
Mr. JERVIS began to reply, but was stopped by

Mr. Justice PA K, who expressed his opinion that
the defence had wholly failed, and that the plaintiff
must have a verdict. He did not impute deliberate
cruelty to the defendants, but believed that they had
killed the dog under an impression of fear, for which
there was no adequate cause.
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages Z.
Paul Davis was indicted for manslaughter, in kill-
ing his son, Wm. Davis, by a stone, which he threw
at him, and which struck him on the head.
It appeared that the prisoner was a mason, carrying
on business at Wolverhampton, and that the deceased;,
a lad of 14 years of age, worked with him in his

NEWGATE A No LEADENHALL MARK ETS. JULY U.
Beef .., 2s Od to 5s 8d I Veal
Mutton.. ...... 2s 41 to 3s 8d Pork 2a 4(1 to 51 Ild
Lamb - 2s 84 to 48 Od.

. PRICES or HAY Awn STRAW YESTERDAY.
IT. TIMMS'S. WHITSCRAPSI..
Hay 41 Os Od to 51 10, Od 1 Hay 51 18s to 51 10, 04
Bfraw 21 21 Od to 21 141 Od Straw 11 18s to 21 103 04
I Clover 41 4s Od to 61 Os Od Clover 41 15s to 61 6s Od

PRICE or TALLOW,
Town Tallow 39s Od
Yellow Russia 37. 6d
White ditto
Soap ditto
Melting Stuff...

SOAP, &c. per 112 Th.
Ditto rough l9s
Yellow Soap
Mottled ...
Curd B9
Palm

IMir