The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-11-02 00:00:00

hat he had con-

M M

arned friend
but be had

,dente to

but he should

w that it Was lin-

ill they found

stated he apprehended
,n the rest of her evi-

.s very sorry

:en dragged into a court of

an imputation upon his

iry, before coming to a
given on the part of the
iether it was consistent

:iff. The learned
,t till the plaintiff

was about going to France ti
made to him, and he conch
have discharged his dot
he had to call.
Mr. William Darlington, wine merchant, of Liverpool
was then called as a witness on the part of the defendant
He said he recollected going to the plaintiff's house in June
or July, at the request of the del
torney, was with him. Mrs. Con
door, had brought Margaret Tit
and that she was in the family ws
that about two or three months
Mr. Morinaud called to take her away, at which time he pro-
mised to pay for her board. She did not pretend to say that
be had ever promised to pay before. Nothing was said about
her returning into his service. Mrs. Conolly did not say
upon what pretence Mr. Morinaud wanted to take the girl
away. Witness did not hear the word " France" used. Mrs.
Connolly did not pretend to know who was the father of Mar-
garet's child; but there was some talk of Mr. Morinaud be-
ing so. Witness thought that such was the plaintiff's im-

i application for money was
.1 by saying that he should
had examined the witnesses

fr. Snowball, at-
- id a neighbour, next
i to lodge in her house,
)y some gentleman, and
fter she had been there,

are, or has Mr. Mori-
at he went to Shrewsbury, to which
ton belongs, and that he there agreed to
.1 believe that they compelled him to do
one of the witnesses.

pression
Cross-examined.—At
naud never told you
parish Margaret Tit
support the child?—
so, and that Mrs. Connolly w

Mr. Snowball, attorney, exantined by Mr. YEN ADLES.—I
believe you have been in the habit of visiting Mr. and Mrs.
Morinaud ? I have.—Do you recollect this girl, Margaret
Tipton, being there ?—I saw her once there in the year be-
fore last, in the summer. She was waiting at table : myself
and Mr. and Mrs
dinner.—Was she
indeed, in the family wa
Have you bee
there several times

Niorinat

It was a privai

n the habit of visiting tiler

AS very large

Do you remember them g
Mr. Nlorinaud going to Franc
went with him.

—I have visited

•ance?—l remember
link Mrs. Morinaud

Did you not go to

Cross-examined by Air. _
Shrewsbury ?—I did not.
What year was it when she was so large in the family way
I think it was in June tw-'
I suppose, Mr. Snowball,
way? (Laughter.) Do you n
some quarrels between Mr.
of this matter? I be.:
naun spoke to me upon the

a little knowledge that
now that there hare been

e month
you hay

id Mrs. Morinaud on account
ve quite the reverse ; for Mrs. Mori-
t when the parish made

him pay
Mr. Morinaud had address enough to satisfy his wife that
he was innocent of the charge ?—Mrs. Morinaud gave me
instructions in fact : 1 was attorney in the matter, but I did
not go to Shrewsbury.
What is the allowance, do you know
paper : it is half-a-crown a-week. (Laughter.)
Re-examined by Mr. VEN ABLUS.—Then I understand
Mrs. Morinaud was perfectly cognisant of the situation of
this girl ?—Perfectly.
Did she ever express in
was the father Of the chi
doubted it very much indee
With these witnesses the defendant's case closed.—Mr
MURPHY in his reply commented strongly upon Mrs. Mori-
naud's name having been introduced, observing that it would
have been better for the defendant's respectability if he had
not instructed his learned friend to mention it ; also upon
the attempt to blacken the character of the plaintiff and her
daughter; and on the statement made by the counsel for the
defendant that he should prove the defendant was not the
father of Margaret Tipton 's child, by naming the man who
had seduced her.

They gave me a

picions that Mr. Morinaud
No ; on the contrary, she

The ASSESSOR in summing up, told the jury that the
only question for their consideration was not whether the
defendant was the father of the child or not, but whether
the charges of the plaintiff for the board and attendance of
Margaret Tipton were incurred upon his credit.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff: damages
£l9 10s.

SATURDAY