Star.
London, England, 1819-05-29 00:00:00

LAW `INTELLIGENCE.
. . •
i
COURT OP KTNO*B EACH, MAY se.
JiCROMY V. MAXTON.

This was a Special Jury case, being an action by
the assignees of a bankrupt, to compel his sister to
give up to the use of the creditors, £1,900 which he
had advanced her upon a fictitious debt. The defen-
dant was proved to have been a person in a very
humble station in life, and not likely to be a creditor
of her brother's to this amount. It being proved that
the transfer was made immediately before lie com-
mitted the act of bankruptcy, the Jury found a ver-
dict, without hesitation, for the assignees.
The Court was occupied the remainder of the day
upon common Jury Causes, none of which were of
public importance.

SEDUCTION.-SPIGHT OLIVERA.

This was an action brought on Tuesday by the
plaintiff, a carpenter, resi...lent at Chelsea, against the
defendant, for the seduction of plaintiff's daughter. •
Mr. Hour opened the pleadings, and Mr. Sc4r-
LETT stated the case, which was briefly as follows :
The daughter of the plaintiff, a very pretty young
girl, put an advertisement in a Morning. Paper for a
situation as Lady's-maid. The advertisement was
answered in a very short time by a note, desiring the
advertiser to call at the house of Mr. Olivera, near
Russell-square, where she would hear of a place.
Upon going to the }reuse she saw Mr. Olivera, who
said his sister wished to hire a girl resembling her,
and had concluded, from the advertisement, that the
young applicant would suit her. He desired her to
call again, and he should let her know his sister's de-
terniination. She saw the defendant upon her second
visit to the house, but was told by him, it being his
sister's intention to go abroad, he apprehended the
applicant's aversion to leave this country (for the girl
had expressed unwillingness to leave her friends at a
great distance) would prevent an event which he was
very desirous of witnessing, in consequence of the
deep interest he felt in the girl's situation. He, how-
ever, for the purpose of making amends for any dis-
appointment, would look about for a place as advan-
tageous as that which his sister was about to have
supplied, and during the interval, proposed to the
poor girl to take care of a house of which he was
proprietor. She consented to take upon her this
charge, and was,net at the new habitation long, when
Mr. Olivera called, and told her :he was by no means
to consider herself as precluded from looking out for
a more suitable place by being then in his service. He
repeated to her that he felt greatly inclined to serve
bee, and declared, after some conversation, that he
would rather see her in some profitable and respect-
able business than in service, and would advance
£2OO to her for the purpose of setting her up. Her
expectations were raised to a high pitch by those fine
promises. The defendant called again, and was still
wore kind in his declaration of intended benefits. He
took her to walk with him, and conducted her to a
house which she soon found was laid out for evil pur-
poses. She expressed an anxious wish to leave it,,
but he prevailed upon her to stay by his professions
of love and friendship, and succeeded in accomplish-
ing her ruin. She became pregnant, was delivered of
a child, and had now returned to her father's house.
This was the account given by the plaintiff's
daughter, viho had been seduced. It was given with
great coolness, and it was confirmed in those parts
where the professions of the defendant, and the offer
to advance £2OO were mentioned, by the evidence of
her sister.

Mr, SCARLET? stated, that probably the defendant
would- endezvour to get throtizh .the business by
shewing that the girl was in his service, and not in
her.father's at the time of her seduction. The Jury
view, .however, to consider, that though is point of
fact she was in his service, the hiring had been made
in order to trick her into his possession, and could not
therefore be made subservient to his views.

Mr. Guns:Ev, for the defendant, said, the virtue of
a girl who had resigned it without reluctance, and
even gone into a brothel for the purpose of doing so,
could not be the property of a character of much
value to her father. lie also stated, that his client
would shrink from the idea of deliberately seducing
a. girl,.and observed, that the most convincing argu-
ment of his being free from any such vicious propen-
sity, Wai,he was a most excellent husband and father.
UfIII34USTICE, in summing up, said, if the
diary were of opinion that the plaintiff's daughter
liad. not been bbna.fide hired, but that the hiring had
liqcs i mere deception upon the part of the defendant,
for the purpose of accomplishing those views in which
hebad succeeded, they were bound to find a verdict
the Jury returned a verdict for- the plaintiff—
Damages Two Hundred Pounds. -
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
MORTLOCK V. bfACDONALD.

This was an action brought. in order to recover
the sum of £44, due for the hire of saddle horses,
for the keeping of a mare one week at livery stables,
and for straw, oats, and other articles furnished to
the defendant's servant, for the use, as it was stated,
and with the consent of his master. The plaintiff is

the keeper of livery stables at Kennington; the de-
fendant is a Gentleman of fortune, living at Ken-
nington-common.
The question for the Jury was merely as to the
liability of the defendant, it having been agreed by
the Counsel on each side, that if a verdict should be

—.-
found in favour of the plaintiff's right to recover, the
amount of ite.debt should be settled by arbitration.
'William Goring, the plaintiff's groom, stated in
evidence, that in December, 1811, the defendant
bought a mare from his master, and left her at his
stables for a week. Witness sevetal times delivered
saddle-horses on hire to the servant of the defendant,
and for his use ; he Eso gave oats and straw for the

defendant.
Being cross-examined, witness admitted that he
had heard the defendant say, that his servant and
'the plaintiff were colluding together.
Joseph Willis, another witness, attended at a meet-
ing of the defendant's creditors, held in consequence
of his servant (a black matt by the name of Reuben)
having absconded without paying his master's ,:tebti,
after having received mone, from him so to do.—
Defendant at that meeting said to the plaintiff, "I am
surprised to see your bill. Mortlock, did not you get
£lO from my servant?" To which plaintiff replied,
that he had never seen the colour of his mosey.
On the part of the defendant it was contended,
that he was not liable to the debt, as he had givta