Star.
London, England, 1819-07-26 00:00:00

Assixilk

bitPORD, JULY 4.
iiitoncrtow—oooxe v. nercuatAii.
This was an action to recover a conipensattOn in
damages for the injury which the plaintiff had sus-
tained by being deprived of the services of his dauglr
ter, whom, it was itlledged, the defendant had se-
duced. The defendant pleaded Not Heil
,y, whete✓
upon issue was joined.
Mr. TAIINTOSI stated the eat., to the Jury. lid
said, that the plaintiff was a respectable farmer living
at llanwell, near Banbury, in the county of Oxford"
where he rented an-estate under the Duchess of Dora
set; and, on the present occasion, he had to Complain
of one of the most serious injuries that could possibly
affect a person in pia situation. The cause of action
was for no less an injury than that of debauching
and ruining his daughter. He had been for a long
series of years a husband and a father—a father of a
niost numerous family whom he had brought up
%skit tenderness and care; and he had nv.er, except
in the single instance now bkore the Court, had rea-
son to complain, that ally of them had swerved front
the paths of virtue, or given him cause for uneasia
ne,s. The defendant was also a fanner; be resided
at Fullready. , in the county of Warwick, and came
of age on the ISth of January last. He was a young
man of considerable expectations in point of property:
he was the son of a father who had left a landed
' estate of £2OO a-year, to be divided between him and
his brother, when he attained the age of SI, and
who had left considerable personal property on that
estate. In the month of January, 1815, the 3C-
quaintance commenced between the daughter of the
plaintiff and the defendant. They were both then
extremely young, he being only 17, and she not
having exceeded her 16th year. They were intro:
duced to each other by Mr. Clark Middletea, a ne-
phew of the plaintiff, and brother-in-law of the de
Pendant. The acquaintance went on for some length
of time, grew, perhapsf into intimacy, but not, as
would be given in evidence, ripened into love or af-
fection between them. In the month of- Decetnbee
in that year, another of the plaintiff's daughters was
married to a Mr. John Rose, a farmer of Blackwell,
in Worcestershire. The marriage took place at Han-
well, where the plaintiff resided. Upon that occa-
sion, the defendant, as the particular and intimate
friend of Mr. Rose, accompanied him to the wedding,
and acted as father ; and Miss Cooke, the young lady
who was the subject of this. action, was bridemaiJ.
After the marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Rose, accompanied
by Miss Cooke and the defendant, paid a visit to the
father of Mr. Rose, at Oxhill, in Warwickshire. It
was then that the attentions of the defendant to the
daughter of the plaintiff became more particular.--
The regularity of his visits to her father's horse
alarmed the latter, whose conduct, from the com-
mencement of the acquaintance'to the completion of
his daughter's ruin, had been most proper and cor-
rect. When he found the defendant so constant in
his attentions, he waited on him for an explanation
of his motives, and recelvedfor answer that he came
on honourable terms. The plaintiff only rented a
farm, and therefore .laid.. " Perhaps you may think
my daughter's expectations are not equal to your
own, and if you think so, you had better discontinue
your visits." The defendant repeated his assurances
of honourable intentions, and inspired the plaintiff
ith security. In consequence of this, the families
acquainted with each other: there had been
•

lir !airbag, between them till this period ; but as it
became notorious that the defendant was the be,
trothed husband of thit young woman, the families
visited each other on the most friendly terms. In
the month of August, 1817, the defendant requested
Miss Cooke to meet him at a neighbouring wake. at
Oshill: :but her mother advised her not to go, as it
might be said that- she was going express-ly to see
him. She did not go, and the defendant being.
offended, discontinued his visits for some time. He
then renewed them, and at length triumphed over
her virtue ; she became pregnant, and was delivered.
of a child. It was in the month of May, 1818, that
this young woman was thus ruined, a period of three
years from the time of their fit st acquaintance. The
Learned Counsel said, he had been given to under-
stand, but he hoped that the proceedings of this day
would prove that it was a misunderstanding, that
his Learned Friend on the other side would endea-
vour to show that this young woman had behaved
with great levity of conduct ; nay, that she had be-
fore been guilty of a criminal intercourse with ano-
ther person. He publicly dared the defendant to
prove that fact to-day. if she had been a person of.
this cbaratter and conduct, would he have been
three years in triumphing over her innocence? He
dared him to bring that matter forward—he chal-
lenged him to bring Mary Taylor, the discarded
servant of Mrs. Middleton, into Court: but Le
would, by anticipation from the defendant's own
letters, and his own declarations, so refute the
possibility of any improper behaviour in this young
woman, that he should prevent his Learned Friend
from making any imputation of that kind, if his
instructions really were at present to make

When this unhappr_young woman became pregnant,
she concealed it. from her family, 'an& went to the
house of her sister, Mrs. Rose. At that time she had
not discloved it to the defendant himself; the then

told Mrs. Rose, who desired her to communicate her
unfortunate situation to him, and having done so, he
renewed his promises of marriage. Those promises
were repeated over and over again, as often as the
subject was mentioned. He accompanied her home
to her lather's, and, on the following morning walked
with her in the garden, when he named a Tuesday
in December as the day on which he would marry
her, as it was the anniversary of that very day on
which her sister was married. He then returneg
home, having first promised to visit her again en
the Sunday week. Sunday came, but the defendant
did not! A few days alter she wrote him a letter, in
which .she informed him how distressed she was by
his conduct, and urged him to perfoun his promise
of marriage. To that letter he sent the following reply 3
"13438. Fullready, Dec.
" Dear Elizabeth—This tomes with my kind love to. you,
and I am very glad to receive the letter ut yours, which I have
read with much grille lam very sorry for your situation, a
gloat deal more than for my own, although. you icy in your
letter that 1 have hardly any regard fur you; but if I had not
I should not have met with the tro..ble and untangles" of mind
which I now labour under for your sake alone. But I hope
Nese few lines will find you Is a much more comfortable situ.t-
tion, and a mare contested mind on our misfortune nor the
word of alt a br. u heart witich you montianad iu y.tur letter. I