Star.
London, England, 1819-08-02 00:00:00

SETTLE -V. CRUM BLEU/LNIE.

Mr. WILLIAMS stated the pleadings.
Mr. SCARLETT opened the Case to the Jury. Mrs.,'
Settle was a most respectable widow lady, at Burton
in Lonsiale. The only mi,fortune in her situation
was, that the defendant, Mr. Crumbleholtne, was her
neighbour. The families had always been in habits
of familiar intercourse. The sisters of the defendant
and Miss Settle, the plaintiff's daughter, had been
most intimate. No party was entertained at the de-
fendant's but Miss Settle was there. The defendant
had repeatedly promised her marriage. He had
gained her affections, and in such circumstances had
a power over her which no honourable man would
exert ise, but which could scarcely be'resisted. On
this account marriage ought nev?r to be long delayed,
when such a strong attachment was once formed
Miss Settle had unfortunately been seduced by the
defendant, and had borne a child to him. After that
he promised marriage, but since the orece.tt action
had been brought he married another person. It had
nothing to do with this action brought by the mother.
But he would not. disguise it—the daughter had
brought an action for breach of promise of marriage,
in Lancaster (ride STAR of August 24, 1818) The
cause was tried before the Learned Judge who now
presided in the other Court, and the Jury thought
proper to reduce the damages, because Miss Settle
had yielded her person to the defendant. He could
not now enter into any discussion here upon this cir-
cumstance; he only mentioned that the Learlied
Judge had been of opinion, that her having placed
too much faith in a faithless lover, had impaired her
right to damages in vindication of her character.
lie would further state, that this action would not
now have been brought, but that the adviser of the
defendant had provoked it by calling for the expenses
already incurred. Notice had been given that the
caste would be called in Court, and to prevent a non-
suit, it was now before them : but now that the case
was brought before them, he did confidently call
upon them to give the plaintiff suitable damages for,
the comfort and reputation of which she was deprived.
Every master, whether merely a master, nr also a
father, had, by the Law of England, a species of pro-
perty in, his servant, and was entitled to damages, if
deprived of the services of that servant by seduction.
If, in the ordinary case of a master, his claim for da-
mages cannot be affected by damages given for
breach of promise of marriage, how much stronger
must remain the claim of a parent to damages for the
loss of all those endearments which the one owed to
' the other? A parent has an interest which no money
can purchase, or conjure up in the breast of a mere
servant. The action here was by a parent for the
loss of the service of a child ; but the Jury would
take into consideration that her honour too was
stained by the artifices of the seducer of her daughter,
and that her daughter, instead of being the object
of her pride and satisfaction, was rendered a source
of reproach and drigrace. The Jury would therefore
give suitable damages to the plaintiff.
Mr. RAI. here entered into proposals of accom

mndation, and it was at last agteed to take £2OO of
damages, and £25 expenses.

BIGAMY.
Charles Leaver, otherwise Bottom, aged 30, was
convicted of marrying Mary Breigton, his lawful
wife, Mary Collings, being alive. His defence was,
that he had been forced by the parish officers to marry
Mary Collings.