Star.
London, England, 1818-10-29 00:00:00

WEST KENT QUARTER SESSIONS.

John Curtis, who had been out on bail, appeared
on the floor of the Court, charged with offences of a
complexion too dark almost for conception. The
indictment contained several counts, severally charg-
ing him with an assault on Mary Olivia Turner, a
child, with an intent to commit a rape—with an as-
sault, with an intent to gratify his inordinate lust—
to defile her mir.d and injure her morals—with an
assault on her person—and with indecently exposing
his person to the said Mary Olivia Turner.
Mr. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury in this case, in
a speech replete with feeling and energy. Ile stated
the following facts :—Mr. Tut ner, who is a timber
master's assistant, in the Dock Yard of Woolwich
(which situation he has held for twenty years), had
long been in habits of the closest intimacy wig: the
defendant, who was overseer in the same yard. The
latter, about thtee years ago, went to. Mr. Turner
under very distressing circumstances—that is to say,
not with respect to pecuniary matters, but as regard-
ed his feelings as a husband and a father. He had
two children, and his wife was at the point of lying-
in, and he could procure no habitation in which he
might place his family. Mr. Turner, impelled by
friendship, took kim into his house, until Mrs. Cur
tis's accouchement had taken place. Instead of bei::g
grateful for this act of friendship, the defendant pur-
sued a line of conduct the most diabolical that can
be conceived. He had not beer. lo:Ig in the house
of his friend, before Mary Olivia, a child of Mr.
Turner's, under ten years of age, attracted his notice.
He began by taking liberties with her person, which
he continued with increased criminality for upwards
of two years. During that period, the conduct of
the defendant was such as we cannot pollute our
columns by describing, and the narration of which,
delivered by Mr. Adolphus with an evidently pain:ul
reluctance, caused involuntary exclamations of hor-
ror from many of his astonished and indignant
hearers : we say astonished, because the recital was
of that nature, that it was difficult to suppose the
man existed who could devise and perpetrate such
atrocities. The child, prevented by the defendant's
injunctions, at first mentioned the affair to no one
except Miss Maskett, a young female companion, a
little older than herself. That young Lady, at the
expiration cf two years, made inquiries of Mary
Olivia Turner as to whether the defendant continued
his abominable practices ; and being informed that
he did so, she, being by her own advanced age be-
come aware of the evil tendency of the defendant's
conduct, told the story to a woman, who comnauth-.

cated it to the pfrents: The father was at first ht-'
dined to hush up the matter, to prevent a public
exposure of his child ; but it being known to two 0:
three persons, the story soon became a ~seneral theme
of conversation. The Dock-yard was placarded, and
the defendant was universally execrated as the mon-
ster of the age. The father by this unfortunate pub-
licity, felt compelled to bring the matter into a Court
of Justice, though it was with the greatest pain he
did so. In the course of his narrative, the Learned
Gentleman made many observations on the several!
parts of the case as they arose. Ile said, that he was,
addressing an assembly of Christians ; he need not
tell them, that man is born in sin, but regenerated
by baptism. By that Holy Sacrament, a child is
rendered pure, and washed from the oliginal sin in
which it was conceived and born. The man who
could step forth to contaminate a child so regenerate
ed—to defile its pure mind—to break down the mo-
ral principle —was guilty of a crime of the most dia-
bolical nature that could be imagined. It was the
act of a demon. The defendant had been guilty of
that crime. In many other criminal cases, the re-
membrance of a man's guilt might die away, but the
wickedness of the defendant's conduct wa; such, that
nothing could obliterate it—even the flood of time
could not wash it away. His offence was attended
by every possible aggravation. Ile was a married'
man, and had two children of hi: own—he was in
the house of his.lsenefactor—the object of his bruta-
lity was the child of that benefactor—he had, by a
series of acts during a long period, done all in his
power to defile the mind of an infant, to undermine
every feeling of modesty, propriety, and morality,
which it is for the welfare and happiness of society
should be inculcated in the mind of a female. Ile
could not :ell v. hat defence would he set up for the
conduct of the defendant. It might be said that the
behaviour of the child was imoroper—that her keep-
ing the matter so long a secict implied consent on.
Ler part. It might be attempted to show that she
was guilty of levity. But suppose all that proved,
how could it extenuate the conduct of the defendant?,
If she had been guilty of improprieties, who was the,
,cause of those improprieties ?—The defendant ; he
Who had by his nauseous criminality poisoned her
mind, and led her into the paths of immorality. As
to her consent, what could be drawn from that in
favour of the defendant ? In law she could not con-
sent; she was an infant under ten years of age. She
knew not right from wrong, and could not. be sen-
sible of the evil tendency of the defendant's acts.—
Here was a man in years seducing a child to con:ent•
to acts, the criminality of which her tender years
prevented her from conceiving, The Leal lied Gen-
tleman said he remembered an observation made by
a late Judge, whom he always quoted with pleasure
and honour, not more on account of his legal know-
ledge than for his exquisite acquaintance with die
human heart, and human affairs—he meant the late
Chief Baron Macdonald. The observation he ann.'
ded to was made in a case of seduction, where the
defendant was an Officer, and the victim of his se-
duction a female about 14 years of age. It was at-
tempted to be set up as a defence, that the girl had
been guilty of great levity of conduct; and amongst
other things throwing stones at the defendant's win-
dow. His Lordship said, that such a defence was a
very unjustifiable one. The girl was but a child;
her acts ought to hare.been considered by a man as
those of a playful child; and he ought not, as a man,
to have condescended to stoop to her seduction. In
_ _

the case he had just alluded to, the girl was 14 years
of age; in the present instance, the child was under
ten years of age; she could not consent in the eyes
of the law, and her silence could be no palliation of
the defendants offence. Mr. Adolphus having con-
cluded his address by same animated observations on
the criminality of the defendant, called
Maria Olivia Turner, the obj Pct of the defendant's
brutality. She was an interesting child, about 13
years of age, and gave her testimony with great pre-
cision, and from her answers, evinced a considerable
degree of intelligeuce. Her evidence went to fully'
prove the facts stated by Mr. Adolphus: they wet::
so inconceivably disgusting, that, ac we before ob-
served, a repetition of them is impossible. it appeared
that the defendant did not perpetrate the actual crime
for which so many men have suffered the extreme
punishment of the law, but his conduct towards her
from the age of ten years, up to July last, was per-
haps more demoralizing—more pernicious to the,
mind of the child, than an act, the repetition of
which, by its speedy detection, would have been pre-
vented by the punishment of the offender. To add:
to the guilt of Curtis, it appeared that he haz! not
confined his criminality to Miss Turner, but had on
one occasion scandalously exposed himself to her, in'
company with his own children.
Mr. ANDREW'S cross-examined her, but could elicit
from her nothing to shake the credit of her testimony.
In one part of the examination she burst into tears,
and appeared much distressed by the questions of
the Learned Counsel.

Miss Muskett, a young Lady of 17 years of age,
was next called, and deposed to the communication
of Curtis's conduct being made to her by 3liss Tur-
ner, two years ago ; and of her informing the child's
parents of the circumstance in July latt.
Mr. Turner, a very respectable looking man, the
father cf the child, was next called. He deposed that
previous to this horrible discovery, he and the de-
fendant were on terms of the closest friendship,. titey
having formerly been on service together. lle was
informed of the defendant's vile conduct on the even-
ing of the 9th of July. The next day he went to his
house, and charged him with his criminali:y.
defendant acknowledged that he had acted impro-
perly, and expressed great contrition for what had
passed. offering to make any reparation in his power.
Witness told him, that the injury heltad done to him
by the destruction of his child's purity and innocence
was beyond the reach of reparation. After loading
him with reproaches he left the house, :Ind had not
spoken to the defendant since that day. Witness, in
the first instance, resolved to bring the offender to
justice, but his wife prevailed on him to abandon his
intention, she being at the time in a state cif great
nervous debility (to which she was occasionally-sub-
jut), and declared, tkat to Lave her child exposed in
a Court of Justice in such a case, world deprive. her
of reason. The matter Cad since btcome !AI public,
that he was induced to Like the urcc-:sary steps for tlic
punishment of the offel.der.
Ile case for the prosecution .1)6%; 7.11.