Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-10-27
Correspondence of the virginian
FRANKLlS Co, Oct. -, 1854.

FRANKLIN Co, Oct ~ 1904.
Trat for Seduction in Franklin-H edry
Damages -AeqUittaf Of anderson charged rith
the Murdtr Of his UYe.
franklin Circuit Court-Juge Gilmer presid-
ing Hodges VS. Lee.
This cause. one of unusual interest which has
deeply agiiaied the public mind of this county
for the last twelve months, came on for trial on
the 9th day of court. This WIS an action
brought by the father. Elijah Hodges, for the Sc
duction of his daughter. Julia Eliza Hodges by
the defendant, Charles {. Lee. The hearing OF
the cause occupied nearly two day, much the
greater part Of which was consumed in the argu-
ment of counsel,as only few Witnesses were
examined The court room was the whole time
denscly crowded with anxious spectators. The
counsel 5r the plaintiff were Mcssrs. Flournoy,
Martin and Early. For the defendant, Messrs.
Wootton, johnson and White. Nearly the
whole of the first day was taken up in the dis
cussion of point of law raised by defendants
counsel upon the construction of statute. The
position taken by Mr. Wootton, aud sustained
with his usual clcarness and pcrspcuity of reas-
onng, would have been fatal to the plaintiff )
action, If it had not been oyerruled by the court.
The objection urged was, that the plaintiff cannot
bring his action where the daughter is over u
years Of age and does not live in the house of
the father. 1t was proved thai the daughter was
over 81 years of age, aud did not, for the most
part I'VE WITH UtT 1HtDfT. AI Tue tpHllllbil Jaw
the loss of service by the father constituted the
gist of the action. The ground taken by defend
ants counsel was, that the statute which recltes
that the loss of the service of the female need
not be alleged or proved did not allow any one
to bring an action who could not maintain it Mt
the common law. This point, presented in the
form of instructions 10 the jury, was elaborated
at great length, but the objection over ruled
by the court and the taking of the evidence pro-
ran1a1 with nd nnnoInIa1 AN tba first la
On the second day, the argument was com
menced by Mr.. Martin, who made effective
speech on the side Of the plaintiff. He was fol
lowed by MIR. White, in a strong speech for the
defendant, and Mr.. johnson, on the same side
who made speech Of characteristic ability and
beauty. Mr.. Flournoy concluded the argument
OF the cause in powerful appeal to the sympa-
these of the jury. Though Mr.. Flournoy has
been practitioner at our bar for several years, it
has never been our fortune to hear him address
jury before. We have often heard him before
the populace and powerful as he is admitted to
be rs a popular speaker, his speech in this cause
induces the opinion that the bar is the arena in
which the powers of his mind show to the best
advantage. 1t was in evidence before the jury
that the defendant worth Sl5,O0O.OO After
retiring short time, the jury found for the
plaintiff and assessed the damages at 81 100000 ;
that sum being within fraction of one third of
the defendants estate. The plaintiff is a man in
very INDECENT circumstances, poor, industrious
and respectable /; though of humble name and
from the lower walks Of life. The counsel for
the defendant subnitteda motion for new hear
ing The court intmatcd that the damages were
probably higher than they ought to be, but did
not then decide upon the motion--has the matter
under consideration and will give an answer be-
fore adjournment. SPECTATOR.
l.. ). At same term of the court j. b. Ander-
son, charged with the murder of his wife, was
acquitted easily. He was sentenced at the
Spring term 10 | years confinement in the PEN
1tcntiary, but the court granted new trial in the
cause. The acquital was in accordance with the
public sentiments of the community, as the evil
dence on which he was convicted was only cir
cuinstantial, aud far from conclusive of his guilt.