York, Monday, Aug. 2.
The Times, 1824-08-05T00:00:00

UIVIL 6I1lE.-BeIbre Mr. Juttice R.AvT.F and a nmr.n.r,-. I. nthIS CaSe, of whiCh we yave a report in our paper of yesterday, the.iurv, after deliberating tor two hours, returned a verdict for thie plaintiff-Damages 201.1. TUE5flAY, AuGITeT 3. SCAIt5E V. JTACKSON~. ADir. R. ALEX'ANDER opened the pleadings. The declaration stated that this was ani action brought by tiie plaintiffli, Thomas Scaife and Thomas Caris, to reco',er the sum ofl.651. received by the defendant, Ralph Jacksont, on their account. The defendant plead- ed that lie was rot liable and that was the issute the jury hiail to try. IMr. SCARLETT stateA the ease to the Jury. Fromn his statement it appeared, that the plaintiffs, MNr. T. Scaifa awd Mlr. T. Caris, were trustee for the benefit of the creditors at large, under a deed of assRignment maile by Air. R. Carla on the 20thi of December, 82.Ifn consequience of that a ssinment, the plaintiff proceeded to sell hi,s various efFrcts on theIl8ih and 111th of March, 182. Thte prodluce of ts,at sale was 165!., wliich the plaintiff Sca;re deposited in the hiandls of the defendlant Jacksion, in consequeonce of hlis suig- gestng hatas t ws adar niht,theplaintiff mighit be robbed as he as oin hoe, nd f hs pomiing that he would leave the mone at he lainiffs hose te nxt dy. he defendaint, how- ever hr notkep hisproise,butretanedthe i-noaey placedi in his hano, alegng hattheinslvet Cris was indebted to him in a muchlarer utotha tht wichhadbeen p aid to himi out of the Produce of his effects. He had since stated tlhat, of this 1651., 441. was paid to hiim by one of the assigneaes, T. Caris, as the dividendi (1ue to himi on the debt which hie claimed Of R. Carls, and that the remaining 1211. hadl been paid by him to the samee person on behalf of the creditors at large for which hie was readly to produce Air. T. Caris's receipt. Now be (Mlr. Scarlett) was prepared eto prove, if such a receipt was put in, that it was a, mere colourable transaction thatthemony hd nt ben aidto r. T. Canis at the time he gav th reein; bt tat he efedat, who knew that T. Carns hadlus ben dichagcdfra. heKin'sBench prison under the ineoven ac, gve im 1. or t2 nd aidhis expienses, for leaving the ounry,If e mde ot tis asein vidence, he felt confident Alr. T. Mlaste-nuan, the auctioneer who conducted the sale, dec- Posed that he saw 1601. or lhls1. paid inito thje hands of the defend- ant, under the circumlstances stated by the learned c-ounsel. He heard nothiing said about 441. of it being' 1aid to defendant as a divi- dend upon hiis dlebt. Mr. T. Lancaster proved, that in a conversation which he had] had withi the diefendant, hie admnittedl that lie hadl receivedi 1211. from Dr. Scaife, and 441. as the Rividend dlue to himself ftoani the insol-. vent's estate. Defendant said that he mneant to keep the whiole as a counterpoise to a tlebt whichi R. Caria owed hiim. Mlr. BRnOUGHAM%, who, along withi Dir. STARKIE, was cou-nsel for the diefendant, called upon the jury to regard the staleness of the present demandl. The cause of actionl had accrued in Mlarch, 1822; buirthe action hiad not been hr ought till July, 1823, because the de- fendant had, dfuring that period, a inaterial witness in the county, who had now left it. His client was a respectable and opulent far- mer, totally incapable of committing any fraud, either to obtain a just debt. or to Obtain an undue preference for it from an insolvent debtor. He woul~d prove to them that 441. of the stum claimned by plaintiff' was -.aid to liis client as a dividend due to hiim out of R. Canis's estate' ansd that 1211. hiad been paidl by him to the other as- Bignee, TI. Caris, it, the presernce of a witness called Hearne wlao wns at present in th- WVest Indlies. He would prodluce Air. T. Carlas receipt for that. s%m, anti if lie dlid so, lie shiould put an end to the Present action. A brothier of Hea~rnc, whio 1-ad witnessed the receipt, p ovedl his brother's liand-writing. His b.-other left England in Decemrber, 18-23, for Jamaica. Me wvas wre~kcd on his voyage, Ile was ex- pected to return to England durini' the present monthi. R. Carla proved the signatuire 6~f hsi.- son to the receipt. At the time of the slofhseffects, he was indebted !o the defetidant more than 4001. On the day after- the sale, he wa-s present when his onn paid to the tdefendant 441. an a dividend. Dr. Scatife was present at that transaction. Mtr. T. Carts has become insolvent, anid quitted the countrv about Christmas last. In cross-examination he admit- ted that Mlr. T. Carls lied been in Yorksahire just about that time. tV. Jackson, ii-phew to the defendant, wasi present in ithe mnonth of October last, vihen lils uncle paid over to Mlr. T. Caris 1211. in provincial notes. Captain Hlearne was then presetit. Ills uncle saitd, that Dr. Scaife would, go to law with Ibun, if he did not deliver thle money up to the assignees, and thlat lie dezlivered it up to TI. Carls in consequence. The transaction did not take up much time. In his cross-examination, lie stated that lie (lid not knowv which of the parties had left the room firsL. Mr. T. Carla slept at his uncle's the night before it. AMr. T. Carla hadl gone to Jamtaica with Capt. Hearne to witness's father, because defendant's son, whio was his friend, liad written to him to go thiere. He had hieard that T. Carts had beeti in the King's Bench prison ; but did not kniow whlether lie had taken ithe benefit of the insolvent act or not. The receipt of Mlr. T. Carla for 1211., dated l0th of Oct. 1823, was, then put in. Dlr. Jusitice BAYLEY, in suimming up the evidence, observed that this receipt was written by a person who understood how to write such instruments, but it appeared to hiim titat a blank had been left for the date, and liad beeni afterwards filled up. Dir. SCART.ETT, having first provedI the hand-writing, pot in a letter written in thie present year by Messrs. Hlarker and Brigham.i who had actetl as the defendlant's attorneys at the commencement of the action. The letter stated that Mr. Scaife had put the money into the defendant's hands for safe custody, and that the defendaiti was dletermnined not to give it up until the whole amount of the insol- Vent's property was collected and was read-y to be divided among the credlitors. Mlr. BuROUGHAMI, in reply, contended that this letter made out his case". It compijletely cleated hiis.client from all imputations of fauid it showed that he kept tise money for the geneRal benefit or the cretlitors, until an equal tlivision of the property could be made. Mlr. SCAISLETT wondered how Mlr. Broughiaim could say that Ihis letter miade out his case, wheti that caue lhad been that the de- fendrlat had paid over this money to one of' the assignees ; and this letter, whichi was written since the commencement of this action, stated thiat lie hiad kept the money for safe custody. Safe custotly ! Wihat ! was paying it away to an insolvent assignee, whio was going out to Jamnaica, placing it in safe custody ? He dlenied, hiowever, that sthe defendant hadl so paid it, and conitended that the whole transection between Jacksoii anid T. Carls was niothiing mpore than a calourable transasction. Alr. Jusstice BAYLEY then summed up thie evidence to the jurY. Tlle first quezstion for themn to consider was, what sumn didi the de- fendlant receive fromi Scaife in the month of Al arch;, because, what.. ever sumn hie receivedi, that sum he was bouind to pay back. Tue next questo was, (lid the defendlant really pay back the sum of 1.to the et',her assignee, Carlsa? For if that payment Was not a reel transaction, but had only the appearance of a payment, then it was no payment atali, andl the plaintif was entitle(i to recover. If, however, the defendant did really pay it to Carns, then the plainitiff 'Was preclutded from lisa action, since a paym-ent to one assignee would deprive atiotlher assignee of the righit of recovering the sum so0 paid. A court of equity mighlt afterwards set the matter right, but a court of law covld not do so. With these observations lie should leave thetin to consider of their verdict. Thle Jury retired for about five minlutes, and then retuirned a ver. diet for the plaintiff-Damages, 1601]. T550MPs50 V. COVEaLEY. Mlr. D. F. Jolest.s opened the pleatlings. The plaintiff' was Alice Thiompson, widow, anti the defendant Francis (-OVeTle.Tlie declaration stated, that the defendant hiad seduced the daughter of thie plaintiff, whereby shie hiad lost lher services. The defendanthad pleaded "1not guilty," and upon that plea issue was joinedl. MIr. SCARLETT stated, that the plaintiff' in this acetion was tile widow of a person of great respectability, whio had originally been engaged in the merchant service., anid haa afterwardsf been Intrusted with the ca-re of thec Pogt-o$llce at Bridlington Qua.y0 in that county. On hiis death, the care Or thle Post-office hail beer continued to his widow, whlo had contrived to carry on the businiess of it with great satis,faction to the public, owing to the assis,tanice which she lied received f-rotn her two daughters. Of these tvk~ daughters, Elizabetli, whose seduction formed the basis of thle pretsent action, was about 23 Yeers ol'age., and was considered a person of un. impeachiable charactir previously to hier falling a victim to the, soil cttons of the defendlant in the presenitation. That individulal was a gentleman of consiuderable property residing in the neiglhbourboad of Eridingeon, andhal long been upon terms of considerable inti. macy wth theplainiff's famillY, withr'whicii lie believe(i he had for- mer l ititrmarred. hat increased the misfortuine of the plaintifi in tis ctio wa, tat the tlefenelant was a married aman, anld that his ifehadbee inthe habit of desiring All i!s Tlhompson to super. intend hier domestic affairs, whenever she was obliged to leave home in conzequence of ill-health, or any othier cause. The plaintiff, Mrs. Thompson, couild have no objection to allowing her daughter to re- side with the defendant, in consequnce of his excellent charactir fot piety and religion. Indeedl, the defeundant was one of those persons wvhc was iambitious to becon.sidered aman of eminently virtuous character- nottlhathereelly wasso,but that he tlought that thereputation of being so woultd enabele him the more easily to succeed in hisown objectsAand pursuits in life. He wrould prove to them in evidence the arts by which he hail succeeded in diverting this young woman's mind f rot the path of purity and v-irtue, and would shiow them that, after he balacmlsed his nefarious purpose by the possession of her per- son,be i eideaotied,but ini vain, to persuade her to father the eftildl of whieli lie bad matde her penant, not only upon other per- sons with whom site had never hrad any connexion, but even upon his own son. The learnetl counsel here entered into a detail of facts, which our readers will find in our report of the evidencee, and said, that as the defendant now, pretendedt that lie iead never had tels slightest connexion withi thie plaintiff's, dauighter, it would be neces- sary for him to call collateral evidence to prove that even upon that point the defendant was acting with the greatest insincerity. The learned counsel liere allu'ded to certain dliscoveries which had been mad bysrvants living in the hiouse at the time that the ermnael intercours was carried on between Alias Thomnpson and the dlefen.. dant ; and read certan letters in which the defendant celled her his "Dear Betsy," and told her that he wanted to see her to take tea, and alsO to talk with him on some Other tltirtgs Ifor whch he particularly wanted her. ~Ei alsD statedi that the bdefendan1t had1 sent her motley to remove ber from the country, but thast she hiad refuted to leave it, notwithstanding the~ vaeidus so. licd tations fie had made to her to prodnti that ffibet After con debininig iri-the ievere-st language thcehyoe=ijs'Wjth~*b1h tetle,d fdldnithne ad liteted, the legrned counsel-called.ukponthe,jsry to con. aider the irreparable injury which thei defensalat had. Infliteid'upo, the happiness of thie plaintiff, and to.ive hdr sueh. lariages as tlasir. own good sense andI abhiorrence of crimne w6uld dictate. The learned couinsel thien'called ElizabothlPThompson'as hi's IIigiW witness. Shie Rapretty-looleing woman, and gave her evIdenceiiaa submissive tone of voice but still'in a very calm andi collected mfan. ner. She deposed asi folows :_I ams the daughter of. the plaintiff', who resides at Bridlington Quaiy. Al y father was a c6aptain in the merchanit service. Sly mothier has beeni a wridow farli years. I have liveJ with her for that time. Myj mother had, and still hias, the post-office at Bridlingeon Qulay. I assist her in, the post-office. I hlave two sisters. One of thiem, the younigest, also assists her. Mvy othersisteria notat home. I have knownithe defe!ndantsomeyears.I ens 24 years of' age. Mlr. Coverley Is cornnected with my family by marriage. His present wife was a widow,2 and had been mar- ried to my mother's cousin. Mlr. Coverley has beeni particalarly in- timae wth m faily urig th fe las yers.He has 11i0ofesstd gret fienshi fr m moheran he chldrn.There was some dificuty n sttlngmy ranfaters aThis. r.Coverley has ad. vise usabot thm, ut as nt tkenany verY active part-in set.. flin the. InDeceber,of te ea 182, Mfr. Coverley was in Londn. Iwen to is huseon te lt of Janulary. M1y mothier knew of this tisit. Whlilst I was upon it, I went from time to time to iny mother's and helped hier at th post-office. I rememnber, on the evening of? the Ist of January, being desired to go to MJr. Coverley's bed-rGoM to warm hiis beil I Wient thecre for that purpose. He had never before that timne paid me any Particul2r attentions, though he was always kind to me. W~hilst I wyas in his bedt-room Mir. Coverley came up. He attemptedI to give ine a kiss. I pushed him away. I (lid not immediately leave thte room : he saidI I must stop and wvarm his nightcap andI pillow. I did so. He did not attempt any thing further at that time, for I left the room. I then ran down stAirs withbthe pan. I saw nothiing maore of him that night. Next morning,when I went down to break. fa-st, I toltIlhimi that I felt very unhappy. I had been alarmed at his proceedings last night. He madle a jost of them, and said that it was all nonsense. I said that I ought to go home, but that I felt afraid that, if I did, Mlrs. Coverley would suspect. I do not recol- lect what answer lie maderme. He did not mtn'e any promiise about his behaviour in future. That same night we had further conver- sation oii the subject in the parlouir. He pulled me on his knee. I attempted to get off' Ile pulled out his watch, and said that mustt sit till it wantedl a quarter to sevfen. He kept me on hiis 'knee till that time ; that was about 20 mintutes. H~e gaid that it wanted a quarter to seven, and I must sit till it was time for chapel, as he did nottintetnd meany harmi. He told methiat lie felt agreAt respect for me,, as I was very like his ftat, wife. He did noi say any tiling at this time about his second wife. We then went taethe to chiapel. Hie s06oke to me about othier ladies whilst Iwas sitting on his ktnees, lie said that other ladies had done the sam11e with him, and he would tell mie thxeir names at another time. W~?e remained at chapel an hour and a quarter. When we camne back, we had supper. I had a glass of gin and water after it. I had not been accustomed to take it. I sat withi him till ten o'clock, and then went to my bed-room. After I had been in bed a shor't time he came into the room undressed. Hlesaid that he had come to tell me the na'mes of' the othier ladies he had referredI to before. He then woiild get into bed to nme. He accomplished his purpose. I returned back to my mother's in March, whien Airs.Covcrley came hiome. I paid a second visit to Air. Coverley on the 81st o, July following. He came to my mother to ask me. I cannot say whe- ther he came more than once. When I was at his; house ;in Auguist last, lie hinted tli?t if any thiing happened to Sirs. Coverley of whom he spoke very highly, he shoula make me his wvife. Mirs. Coverley was at that time at flarrowgm.te; he told me that shie was in a poor state of health. At this visit my bed-roons was adjoining to Sir. Coverley; it was so on my first visit. I slept in hisg room oni my, second visit. I recollect leaving ahair. p nwin his bed-room by accident. I aferwrdsgotit.I d no reollct ow,but I think I fountl it on thefirasog-abl i Mr Coerey' rom.In the mniddle of Au- gust Mr.Coveleylefthous tovsitrs. CJoverley. I did not return home I wnt terein te da, bu slpt at Mr. ('overley's at night. In the last weeko in Ags eundt y mother's house On gettng ome I fundtha I ws wth hild. Mr. Coverley after that ttsed oftnt to call on me at my mother's on a Friday evening. He sometimes wrote to me. Those are twroof the notes8lrecived from himi. Wihen he was withimeat my mother's; since Christmnas,hle has called mec into the dining-room- apart from my family, when he wished to speak with me. I first told him of my'situation a month or two after Iisis wife first camne from Harrowgate. He sm.id that he watsin hope it was not thlcase. I had been ill the year before,and lie thought that it might be the satie complaint. I soon found that it was not. He then said, "1I mnust be sure to go front home, as if I stopped at hom-e niy chatacter wiould be ruined." He wanted me first to go to Londlon withi my sister, as her husband was a captain of a ship there. Afterwvards he proposed that I should go to Newark. One day when I was dining at his hiouse, he said hie was afraid the matter had gone too far to preyent it coming to liFht. I was confined on the 2,l of May, at hiome. The enild is still alive. When we wvere talking about concealing it, he said thatlI mustnotatopatBridlington. 'When we were conversing in my mother's parlour, and my sister Isabella came in, Mlr. Coverley jum-ped up, and told her that he had been talking with Mir. Ward about her grandfather's affaira. That was not the case He hinited to meat tinles, that I might let any youitg men take any liberties with me, if they wished it: I suppose,that I might have an oportunity of laying the child upon them. Hle saidi this vflien I tel ked to him of being withi child. H-e mentioned the name of one young man, in, particular.I evrtlmysuainoay ofmy'amii. Aybroher-n-laRichie first found it out inApril. Wshen the defendant wished nie to gofrom hou)ehegavemne 81.10s. in notes and sovereigns. H e gave me two guineas whn I was at hiis house in August, andl four guineas when I was there in January. He also cave me somne bottles of wine, whichi lie said I was to take hiome. IThave got the 181. l0s. still. Here the witness produced it.) MIr. Coverley,proposed tome togo to Newark. I refused. He said I mnust go ; if I stopped at home, I should lose the good clharacter I hadt so long borne. He implored me never to tell who the father of my childl was. He desired moe to say that it was by a young man whomlIhoped would marry ne ata future day. Bei-Ldes the letters I have this day identified, lfreceived others-. lburnt themr. I was afraid they should fall into stranige hands. Here two of the letters whiieib Mr. SCARtLETT had read in hila openiing speech were put its ansi read. After they had been read, the examiination of the witness proceeded. She continuedasitfollows. In consequence of those notes, whiich were written in February, 1823, I went to him at Bessionby. That was before I was with child. Mliss, C. alluded to in the note was a friend staying at my mother's. Airs. Coverley was then his London. I had been home fom his house a few days thien. I recollect his going to Muston lie returned back to his house because lie felt, unwell. When I got in hin house, he said that lie was better. The servant told me that he had a fire in his bedroom, and wished to see mc there. I objected to go there at first ; but I afterwards consented, and wre spent the evening together. Another letter was here put in by Mlr. SCA.RLET T, and read by the cle~rk of the Court. Cress examined by AMr. WILLsAsls..Be-ssonhy Is the residlence of Sir. Huidson, the member, to whose house I was to go for a frank. The defendant has oredaughter living with him now atthe beginniing of last year slie was at school. My mother knew it. Mly mother keeps my sister and me. We dlo not keep) her. WVe assist in the post.office. Slr. Coverley had never been particularly intimate with me before January. I never supposed till he spoke to me in his bedroom that he wished to be improperly inutimate with inc. There were two fernale servants in the h~ouse at that time . but they had gone to bed early, because it was wishing, day, Mly mno- ther's house is abouta millefromAMr.Coverley's. ty metherwas at homne on the Int of January, also on the 2d. On the 2d I went to [bed aboutl10o'clock; thieervants went about thesamie tin-e. Their bed-room was opposite mine. I had beent half an hour in bedI whlen Sir. Coverley came in. l do not recollect whether my door was open or shut. Between the 2d of January and the mnonth of Slarceb, the slefendant came to me nearly every nighit. I saw my mothier in that interval f time nearly every day. During it I went frequently to Chapel. Of believe there was a servant boy, about i5 years old, and Mr. Coverley's son, about 19, in tie house at that time. The house coilists of three stories. Mlr. Coverley h father,silept on one floor his son above hiim, and the bob' above=oh They wvere gone to bed when Si r. Coverley first came to me. AMy mother was generally at hiome in February last, whien Mr. Coverley used to take me into anothier room to speak to mne. Re-examined by SIr. BR1OUGHAM.-MVY mother is 60 years of age. She is getting old and infirm, but is 'not in illzhealth. Before thi,stransiactionshne had no servant exceptin the stimmerstinles Slty sister and Iused to serve inthiesliop aswell as in thehouse. Sir. Covericy is between 40 and 50 years of age. Wlien Mfrs. Coverley returned from London, I used to go to his house and sle2p there sometimes. Isabella Thiompson, examined,by Mr. D, F. loi{Es.--T am sister to the last witness. I know the defendatit well; he was in the habit of coming to my mother's house. Latterly, whien he came, hie uged to inqa%ire for miy sister Betsy. He came more frequently, of latte than lie used to do, thoughi lie had 'always been rathier imttiirmate with us. is intimiacy increased much about last Christmas. I reimei-n herhiscomng n te eenig o lat Vlentine's day. lie asked for niy istr Besy.She as et i. Isaw them together alone that dayin he ostoffce.Sir Coerly ten aId to me "1 I have been talkng wth M. Wrd aout our ranfathier's ai&irs.'" He ap. peard vry uchagiate. Ididnet then ksow mny sister's Cross.examnined by Sir. T1{rmAtt.-It Was in the post-office thecy were theh sitting. Ann Guthries, examnined by Mr. SCARILETT..-! livedt as seranti wvithi Sr. Cov"rley. I lived there in Januaryv, 1823, and up~ to Mlartimas, 1823. 1 recollect Aliss Thompson cotrling oni a visit. Airs. Coverley was at home when slie first came. Wheni Aliss Thompson was desired to waim SIr; Coverley's bed, Mfrs. Coverley was ndt at hbme; Mist ThoTmpstn rfthised ft first to o.bt I told bet that she needl not be afraid of Mlr. Covericy, he wdiild fid her nou harm, as he was more of an old woman than a man. She Imade some stay during that visit at MVr. Coverley's. I oh- :tUIVQ m uponone occasion lay i arm round her neck in the kitchen. He inust have seen me if lie had eyes. This took phacr In the winter, when my mistress was in London. I recol ect Miss Thompson coming in July, when AMrs. Coverleywas at Harrowgate. I observed that she never slept in her own bed- room I found a hlair-pini of hers in my master s bed-room by the bed-side. I gave it to Alis SThompson. I thought that she slept in MYy master's room. After my mistress returned, Mliss Thompson caine to the house; whilst she was there, my master used to tise earlier than usual : he used to go into the parlour. Miss Thompson was there with hlin. One evening when l went suddenly into the parlour, I found my master with his feet on Mliss Themnpson's lap. As soon as I came in he took them oil. I recollect my master tell- ing the scrvants in April last, when he lost a child, to go and see the vault in whichitwasburied. Wre went accordingly. Alp. Cover, ley and MUiss Thompson were thep lett alonc together. Irs. Go- verley was in bed. Croas.examlned by 'ir. WILxAMSs.-Mliss Thompson went up and down the house, to look after the work in my mistress's absence. By the JUrDGE..I only suppose that Miss Thompson did not sleep} in her bed from finting her bed damp. Aliss Thom n used to open my master's windows over' morning, and throw thCedoshes off, particularli the sheets. I nan,r no marks as if two peraons had slept In my master's bed. deorge Robinson, examined by lr. BROUGUAM.-I know the defendant: he is a mnan of good property. He got progerey by botlh wives. He has two estates of his own : one at Burl ngton worth about 3001. a-year, and another at Harborough worth 2001. a-year. This is independent of the nropertv he got by his wives. Slr. WVss.nsAax3 then adidressed the jury for the defendant in a speech pf great ability and eloquence, haich we are sorry that wvt of time disables us from reporting. He remarkged in the Jfirt ptce, that the fact of any crimina'l in tercourse hvrgtknpaah{or tdnreste entely upom the evi- dence of that young lady, who, to say the lea$ q her, wq a~ WS cdoll witness, and that her cildence was not corroborated by any of the collateral clrcuinstaneces to whicht his learned frien(d had referred. The letters, .Whieh were the most extraordinarv love-letters that had ever been wtitten since the days of Ovid, proved nothing in the case; t jyg,gnt4ined rio vows of afreetion-no protestations of love-no in. liamnmatofy declarations of liasion, but only contained a respectful invitation from the defendant to Come arid take tea with him And to', tl3k about momething particular for which he wanretd her. Then her. hsir-pin, which had beeafouand by the deferi- dant'e bed-side, by no. means proved-that she had been the partner of his bed. She was a superintendent of bis house- hold, had a right to 'elter into all his anartments, and in all probability had dropped it in his bed-clamber in the dav-time. when she went to see whether the servants had arranged nl' things right in it Besides, It was proved that the defendant was more of an old wom-an than a man; and under sucli circumstances, it was only a natural presulmption, that th.e child of which she had proved the mother, had had a younger arid more vlgorous father than his client. In thte next place, lie contended that, supposing the Jury were convinced that his client had sednced this young woman, wlhich he denied, the case was not such as to require heavy tamages. It was in evidence that the first time the defendant bad spoken to her upon love was on the evening of the Ist of lantt- ary, and yet it was else in evidence th'at she had surrendered her morlesty to him at discretloa on the evening of the 2d of Januarv. WVhere, ther,, had been that virtue, that moral, and he might add that personal, chastity, for theloss of whlich the jury were called upon tO give heavv damages ? An action of seduction was peculiarly a nother's aetdon; and therefore,as she complained of a loss which she ad sustained,it became the jury to consider whether she had watched Pithl propervigilance and caution over her daughter's welfare; or whether she had evinced negligence and inattention regarding it. Now it appeared from the evidence of the daughter, not only that the notberhad permitted thedefendant tosee herdaughterat her own house In a prtvate rgom apart from the rest of the family, but that she had Iso permitted her tovisithim at bis own house for more than a month whilathis wife wasabsent fromit, and to spend notonlv theday,but also :he night under his roof yWas that consistent with the conduct of a :areful and prudent mother ? He thought not, and bc trusted :hat the jury would not forget that circumstance in their estimation f the damages. The learned Counsel then proceeded to defend 'is client against the censure which Mr. Searlett had cast upon him br perpetrating this offence against the peace of the plaintiff's fa- nilv, under the odious mask of hypocrisy. His learned friend had maid that the defendant bhld used the semblance of religion in order ;he more easily to accomplish his irreligious purpose, borrowing his tentiment from one of the most lhumorous of our poets, who in a onversation between the devil and one of his servants upon earth, tad made the devil ask the following question:- "What made you choose that odious sin Hypocrisy to set up in ? "Bemuse it is a thriving calling, "The only saint's bell that rings all in." But where was the evidence which was to support his learned friend's ussertion ? No-where to be found in the case. The only evidence s'hich they had upon the subject was, that these two parties, before :he eonsummation of their offience, had gonie together to chapel one rvening. He trusted, that if they determined to give a verdict for Ihe plaintifF, they would, in their estinmation of aamages, take into 'ornsideration the mijury which must have been inflicted that day apon the defendant by the indignant sarcasms and positive allegations Jf his learned friend, all of wliich would have zreat weight in this -ounty, from the eminent rank which his learned friend held upon :hc circuit, but many of which were totaUy without foundation. The learned JuIJGE then summed up the evidence to the Jury, telling them that the first question for their consideration was, had the defendant seduced the plaintiff's daughter ? and next, if he had, what damages ought the plaintiff to recover ? In estimating the amount of damages, if they thought the plaintiff entitled to a ver- dict. they would consider two points-.had the mother shown any negligence with regard to her daughter ? and bad the daughter been guilty of any previous levity of conduct ? With regard to the latter lit these points, lie would bserve, that there wsas no evidence of le- mty offered by the dlefendantagainst Miss Thompson, though it had been inlnluarted that the defendant WaS not the father of her child. On such-a point, the want of evidence was very material. since it wvould have seen1 a great point in mitigation in dainages, if the de- fendant could haye shown that she had allowed ethers to take liberties with her person, or that she had misconducted her- self in any manner before her acquaintance with him. As to the iegligence whichi had been urged against the mother in allowing her daughter to live in the house with the defendant in the absence of Dther female society, he would leave it to them to consider whether It was or was not allowrable, considering the religious character which the plaintiff bore, his near connexion with her family, and the tlif- terence which existerd between him and her daughter in point of aze. After taking a short review of the evidence, and commenting on the lendingfeatutres of it, the learned Judige cft the jury to consider of The Jury retired from the jury-box at four o'clock, and at half- past four returned a verdict for the plaintiff-'Damages 1001.- Costs 40s. YORK, MIONDAY, AuG. 2. MANSELL V. GOTWFTT.