Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1833-04-11

!slen.et SUI A case Of SANDER was tried last
week IN Troy, IN Y in Which Miss Achasah
J.. cnrk Aas plaintiff, and John o Maullng do
;,nda1i Inc ifal lasted two whole days md re-
suited T. tet1ict of : 1900 damages. II appeared
in evidence that Mr.. Elijah " Id a very respect a.
bIc youns man OF Troy, had become intimate with
tho plaintiff, Miss Clark, while residing nj defen-
dlnl'e honse, which intimacy was continued after
changing hs residence and finally resulted IN
u marriage contract between them that was 10
haye been contaminated ON the fiji st Of May next
Nartng the defendant, wishing to retain N.s
Cl0rk N Is employ, vino vas a ycty perfect and
competent hind IN the mannfac turo Of toys, @hieh
WINS carried on by him aud knowing Le could not
unosS he could break up her intended marriage
WITH Mr. Wild--saw Nj Wild, advised HIN no,
to marry Miss Clark, telling Inn at the same time
h,r character was bad. very bad, and related Ger
taueireanstanccs TO prove II. Before this SANDER
VA, communicated to Mr. Wild he " as put un.
der an injunction Of Secrecy the defendant thInk.
ing thereby 10 induce HIM desert Miss Clark lth
out an explanation. Mr. Wild resolved however, 10
communicate tho 1atement TO Miss Clark and
called upon her brother aud related 10 him What III.
defendant Ind told him.
llor brother Immediately called on defendant
who took him INTO n back room and told him that
all he had stated 10 Mr. Wild IN relation to his
sister was true. Mr. w I'D then called upon NJ ISIS
| Ciuk, aud told her the defendant, Mar,Ilng, had
| made statements in relation TO her which had IN
duced hun to decline marrying her, and all further
intimacy and that her brother would inform her OF
tho nature of the statement made by ''ic defendant
Aud IL was directly communicated 10 her at defend
aat's house-whch she Immediately left. Thus
, he contemplated marriage was broken up and a
prosecution about 10 be commenced the defendant
| Al 4 Ii =
Mss Clark, and to get her again into his nploy-
THIS he attempted through his wife and Miss HIlzu
CLARK, the sister ofthc plaintiff He stated to hen
brother, md gave out, that all he had said in rea
ton 10 her was false mere fabIicotor 10y him
sell, and offered her SIG per month, exclusive o
/ her board, 10 return to his employ which was h,
her Indignantly refused, and she persisted IN he
determination to appeal 10 the laws for Justice u
! geinst the murderer Of her reputation.
When Mr.. Hunt, counsel 70, plaintiff, rose I,
speuk, the house was instantly silcut--a BRENT
could have been heard--snd by him the testimony
was most ably canvassed aud perfec, Justice wa,
done 10 his causc-and the feelings ofinjurcd in
noccncc Mr. Bucl then rose and took a genera
view Of the case. lie portrayed III all the coors a
/ language the principles aud objects which aotua
ted the defendant in his attempt 10 destroy the rep
utation Gall she possessed of Il poor unprotectee
orphan glrl And by nm eloquent flow Of argu-
mcn', IN HIGH he severely and justly cast gate,
the eyeefable and odious creature before him, tn,
excitement Of the audience WAS raised to the high
est pitch of indignation Aud being followed b,
an able and proper charge delivered to to the jury
hy Judge Vanderpoo plaudit, that could not h,
suppressed, made the very ediice itself temble
and when the miserable defendant rose to - oat
so great vas the feeling of indignation, every per
son nenr whom he passed shrunk back from BIZ
touch AS II he had been lep r