New-York daily tribune., 1858-03-04
THE CANADIAN SEDUCTION CASE.
OPINION or REC )RDER BARNARD.
The Peopl. .st Frederick LomsI.


SEDUCTION UsprR PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
The defendant was arrested under the PROVISIONS
of the act entitled an act 10 punish sedoc,Ion ss
crime, passed March - lstS, on the compiaIns ~
Jsnet Hamilton, charged with seduction under P'on-
The case was originally heard before Justice C,n.
nolly and the defendant ordered 10 lind bal Ia tne
fum Of $1,000 Wrts Of habeas corpus and csrnoran n
summation of the wneses for the people should Dc as ssc
uSss se WV" psnse q. Silent drcsd the pnts. With
proofs should before me- On snon %
hs'S. n. .e. we asrs eShsd That the ....
and the seventeen year. Of sse sn aey ,s
in ToTontc Canada sst the squ.i9,.ace thu, taysS
rpeu.d into intl~sy and e0nsneS @ "a. usss ,S C.asds
and came TO the city Of this. hs parties b.
Sa, AsP sSs ...sr y ;S S Ss S%s
nt ms: and place.. IN r. The & sSsD. e Ss the n Soa.s n
fame. that arriving at the city Of Newto they west e =
Hami.r no connection place between them h..
that the suing evening they went 20 soas s
cor took place the defendant promised 70 mary e
ranan which mise marry w.s eetrososso Sy ~, - ~
Mis- H.miion when he heard from h t.iser who lived in ns
chester England but denied :, the tms Of n. %slrs
All he material e,mGoy on, o. u. part vt. Of % M ,,ss
s:n and Tsr r.tpSS. object female: s'Ss rom '. sns mined W
f'l'e rof..9ns Of n ~ ,b w. 81 he sos
mupty that the Ls'sre felt compl.d - p'ses % ~.
,he 'e'ae book In o'dr hoTsvs sa % 's s. n. .asss
bould h, rHecsd l, Under the promise marriage a. Inst
the fen ale oud o previous cbsste charscter and a
no conviction shond ,sss place the testimony of the dcse
unsupported BY ether evdrnoe These three proportions weo
equed to be- proved BY the complainant and s" ~
csdenf Unless, therefore made To appear snnhsiry "
the part Of the People that be three p1p:on. are sss
no protection could In be- afforded 70.
where the dents Of hr female could noe D. urse
ont cross exaulir sou mizht assist in neeshyns ms
s,ertops but then II would he to ife nor hs ue""u
to avail hn.sIt successfully a ne hno-e t."' M
truc,n siyen 10 IN ltbe case OF Ine feops a'
tried this Court sinoe Ths
and The srVumepts advanced y tbeu are IN my
conclusive testimony IN favor of e soundbess OF the
taken here. There WAS held 10 be n-sessr ~ AL
either the sbducton seduction stut. @ the pops
prove ss part OF their that the female VI" Acos
good charscte" Although might In eases whiss ~nee
ss& committing magistrate, feel Justified IN hoid'ax
without any other proof point than that of the e.sS
s-sed ben se'uced yet could no, d' 90 -
swpcious circumstances surrounding nx eSs -
S.t. rsy. by mesn, Of On introduction fo~ . ls's-
tusl acquaintance; il the scqusptsnSe w. % imp,g"Z
sSf or If The statement Of the dtnfdi and
:.sh, = WA as :. to & dy me IN .syyS
but here, everything sots to show MS vM Ds ,nr
possible obtain conviction even us "u' 'is oeods
As the second point ed BY the def counsel steS
complainant BE- corroborsted eGth o. wree sFs0e
Of the statute ss hold as was tvd Mfhe MeSNTa
before referred TO- that The words OF The 'au,e nss
the testimoi OF the female scsd nltpPportsd oy ynl
testimony" do no, render nces.ay Ihat socn zee
male should be eorroborai"d svs1y natessL -
ton and rston Of the aw wous sed .sau
c.n scarcely any case proved rxoet the ~.'.mseH
Soye or ytrrett ey,nt. either ty the drfssAns
Acknowledgements, OF BY & names o. his tnatnsn e'oss
Entertanng these vsws hssebs o,er the d-shsrse ofs
Cancelled UEOBDE O BAhNAho' h"'"s~'