Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1829-12-14
Total

S1aefion An action brought by Samuel De
Matt for the seduction of his daug liter Jane,
,eain,t Oliver 5. Denton was tried yesterday
in the Circuit Court in This city. A case OF an
aggravated nature was made out agains, the
attendant. II appeared that the daughter,
uow ia her twentieih year, was of a respecta-
bile family ia the county OF Queens, Long Is
land that she had always lived with her father,
WIN was now very aged, and had sustained an
;r,eprnachable character. The defendant resi-
ded in the same neig hborhood, they were near
" of the same age and had known each other
from childhood For two years he had paid
her hi, addresses in the character Ola sutton
for her hand and havig accomplished her Sc
ductien. deserted her. Several witnesses test.
fed to the excellence of the young wonan's
prevaoss character, and IL appeared thai the
Defendants father was man OF substance,
worth from thirty TO forty thousand dollars
II appeared also that the defendant had told the
brother of Jane that tbev might. go on with
lco.,,icatIe ~ IN =ert ii N ths report. = her
i -, the Court refusing new tial on
e.t,s was wards set aside al" 'oe /
-, .,itb I've assem- OF the prisoner, re'et- |
- ,ho General Court he following q'ts'
tons: .y ,ho ,ris.
one, aod the verdict OF the Jury set aslae upon
the statement of facts set ior'h
o,obt the court o re examine he witnesses
of,er the verdict rendered, SO as to state fer9a
Tim what thew said and having declined 10 u"
mi. ouebt new trial to be awarded f9r 'od'
cause ~, 49,,
A,an,iher, and sabsequrrt day of'he term
the missioner moved the cont to SET aslV "'e
yard,c because Of objections IN three Oh WV ~
ro,s sworn for hi; tr,ai, to VII: X heri VII
lin, Chas NJ Gillian and AID Angic, VINO
had hsa, called az hy stan!ers Each ot taese
nersoos had been impanneled to answer qnps-
tons before he was mp'nneiled. Nllk'"s sa'h
,hn, he had heard part of the evidence at the
called court had expressed some opinion as 70
The public result thonyat nevertheless hr cou'a
gye the prisoner Us fair trial a ne IL"
heard nothing was Gousci9o5 oi ." o'as OF VI
nlice 10 prevent II. AGt,r hissiatemeht the pfa'
sonnr elected TO he tired b INN. lhe p. Oh
upon the morton ior n W trial was ny ohHr"S
{ | Jones, tina, he bad heard Wilkins say sope'
I tine before the trial, tha be was at thP caled
cour, and heard part IT the evidence, and II he
was on his i1ry should hang i'm; that Whkin;
| isa man oil good charac er, and did not SPEAK
lasifh. had any personal prejudice against
\ J mes. lw as il he was speaking in relation 10
who i.~=LL- hoo ~
winch terminated in the present proposition for
damages. The Plaintiff possessed cnnsidera.
Die property in her own right.
The trial commenced in the morning and
continued till halt past nine in the evedng
when the jury retired, with directions 10 seal up
'neIr verdict when agreed on, and hand il TO
'ne Court the following Monday morning.
In the course Of the trial Amassa Cook was
called the former hui ban of the plaintiff,
Ind hoo
rent meekness seemed to make him a fitting
SUBJECT to bear I" The stings and arrows of out.
,aseous" ma,rimony. though "the,e was a
lurking" pleasure in his eye," at the opportu-
my ne now had OF paying off old scores. He
'es'ned That his former wife was a woman of
Ipus,oerab'e property. besides /" those movea-
'es winch she had carried ofi'from his house
"nen he got divorced from her
ihe aefendants counsel here asked what the
t"a'acter OF the plaintiff was for chastity be-
''e' ouf'ng and after WITNESSES marriage with
80" Inc plaintiffs counsel objected to the
iu"y ana question was made to The Court,
"e 10 witness who had been diyoT ced
; "oh, us wiie iestfying as to her conduct dur
"e 'he lime Of marriage. The Court were of.
sr'"'"h 'hatthe witness was not 10 ed 10 dis
,;. any thing that happened during the mar
a. oo' might any thing before or after.
,s.,. examination OF the witness, Cook, was
b,d "eu' lie testified that after defendant
hs, "opped gong 10 see plaintiff, ne heards
sbo "'a' defendant was the biggest liar
moot Ever heard She did not appear to be
"ucn In passion when she said H. but used
'0% ne profane language.
ug :; counsel then inquired whether the plain
w. "a her disposition and conduct was such a
il ,p' as was calculated TO make man happy
sci NJ, married state. To this the opposite coun-
onss,; J'c'ed and the Court decided that the
f'g Vs.. could not be put.
.o.l Jury agreed upon verdict at five O
The vs. w thursday morning On the 3oth ult.
p,;,'.m was opened, which gave for the
"'n fyty Dollars, damages, and her costs.