Law Report.
Mr. latE s opened the pleadings. Mlr. Comaco2ir -SrGEAkristated the case to the juiy. The plaintlff Elizabeth Irving, brought this action for one of the raost serious evils which could befaI a young woman. Both parties were still young. She was. a young woman ofescellentcharacter, which enabled her .o move in a higher, sphere than her situ:;tion could have othenwise entitled her to: he was in a stee oF greater p X._ lenoe. She haa bcen living with her mother who crried on the bu. sinm of a fruiterer, &c., in WslLngford, herkr. The defesdant was the son offs gentleman farmer. He pai d.is addresser to her with the utmost earnestness and assiduity. In 1818 he came to town with her tSf he married, but she being under age, and a licene being threfbore neeessary,ehe eremony was delayed. Is 1819 sheAd the smaU.pox,whll only calld forth wranner expressrions. of affecton fremhim .Theconsequxeesdidno2ernderherlessattractive,and made nlo change in his attentions. She came to thii county, and set up fi the sme business at Twicleenhans. There he visited her, and wagn an the eve of marriage, drees, & t, being bought; bat his father. In-law tbat now is, and his eider broher, took h2tn away. His attentions were continued up to Jahusy, 1822, when, bnder promise of marrisgee he triumphed over her virrue. In Novembr she waS delivered of a dhiid. The defendant then neglected her, and hai since married another lady of greater opulence than the plaintff. k these circumstances the jury were called upon to give damages. Whatever objection c3idd be made by another party, it did not lie with the defendant to found an objecdon on the success of his owS promies, and the confhenee rhe repeaed ita his vows. They would consider the afiction of her mind, the reproaches of the woeld, azd the ruin of her prospeets in life, all occasioned by the misconduct of the defendant, snd they woulff give such damages aS the case called for. Elizabeth Irving was queetioned by Mr. -SCAa?ETT ag tO in. terest in the costs, which she negatived. She was thief examined byDMr. BnouTs }Aax.-1 live at WElling. ford; my daughter Is 24 years oF age; she lived always with noet except for about four motfs. i knowA r. Greenwood well. Re is agentleman; Ihaveknownbp for 12years. ldydaughterandhe began to be well acquainted in 1Is. They knew one aother when children. I was acquainted with the a4mily in respect afdealiag; they always treated me with respect and -u.l1tion. in conseuerice of their increased inrimacy, 1 had conversat3e`;s with MSr Greens. wood; he made propsals for my daughter ith him to Lon- don to be married. I sai " Why go to a ay b married at home." He sawd," No, he would rather a o t adoa, as his family were against their marriage." Se eontnued to >- it, and to urge me to make up my mind for her going with him tr London. He tnentioned frienfds of his in Londoc. iy deughter made no objection; and I ma de up my mind for her to go They were to go to Mr. and Mrs. Cowdryl these were friends of me She went. He went afterwards. He was prevented five or isa days, by theilI-hca]thDfhiafather, who was to accompanyhim. Theycame back eight or ten days after. When i saw him he wiahed fr a post- chaise to fetch my daughter home from Reading. He sid the reason why the marriage had not taken place was, that he had not a consent in writing from me. 1 cannot write. My daughter came home, and be came in immediatelyafter. liesseemedoverjoyed to see her. and they seemed very comfortable together. This was in February, 1818. The same intercourse continued till 1822. Hesaid his father wasabout a farm for him, and they shoulddbemarriedassoonas it was ta-en. MIy daughter was alxways present. My daughter went in 1819 tolwicken.; ham. I put her in businessthatofselling poulrrvand egg& She was there for about four or five months, le asked what sized bouse my daughter's was ? He said it would be more convenient to have a larger house, vthen they were married. They were to go to Rich. mona to be married; I consented. They left Wallingford toge- therin a one-horse chaise. A gentleman went with.theunqebut. cher. He caine back without my daughter, and said he was very sorry they had fetched him back; he was fetched back by two gen- tlemen, his elder brother and his uncle, now bis father-in.law. lie said he had objected to being brought back. He called afterwards several times to rmake me comfortable. He said, as soon as he had an opportunity to marry my daughter nothing should prevent him. Mfy daughter came back from Twicilenham and gave up her buti. ness there, because it was Mr. Greenwood's wish they should live 1 nearer. She was very ill with the small pox. Mr. Greenwood said I the smal pox could make no sort of difference in his affection; she was for some time not expected to live. le used to say he never should be happy if she died; she recovered in the year 180. After her recovery he paid her more attention. In 1822 I perceived a. change in defendanes conduct. In Miay he did not pay his visits so, often. He di8continued his visits till August. 'They walked toge. ther in August in theafternoon. My daughter was confined in No- vember, about the beginning of that month. The child is living. He has since married Miss Ann Elizabeth Sbee2e. He lives now in Wallingford, in a very fine house. The Sbeenes are rich. lIfy daugbter was in very had health long before. She was very de- preSSed in her spirits. She became much worse after Mr. Green- wood discontinued his visits, about May. She never fully recovered. She is in very bad health stihl; very uncomfertable in her mind. Her health was seriously affected by bearing of Mr. Greenwood's rarriage. During the whole time I rather discouraged his atten- tion to my daughter. Cross.examined-My business is poultry, egrgs, fruit, &c. His father knew 6f his Yisits. 1 used to buy poultry and fruit of hie mother, I nerer mentioned to his father or mother that their son visited my daughter three timn a week. She took the house herself at Twickenham. I sent goods to her. I know a person of the name of Aldrigbt. He took the house for rry daugter at Twickenham. He lived in the house with her. }He is an eld nan. i had a good opinion of him then. 1 puthirm into gaol since. He broke my win. dow. He wisbed me to marrv him, impudent fellow! 1 have seen Mist (or Mrs.) Le Comnte in mny shop; my daughter has seen her there, but never had been with her elsewhere. Reexanmined._IlMrs. Ie Comte is the wife of a Frenchmuan who has been killed. James Irving, brother of the plaintiff, said Greenwood told him hi' ;.tc -an -v mnuch ditappointed at not being married, and that if he did not receive a parelt he expectc-, he would nextday be no more. H e would tel no one but witness where his body was to be found. The little property he had he would leave with a friend for witness's sister. This was after their return from London in 1818. During the time she was at Twickenham he often spoke of her very highly, and expressed his determination to marry her. On her re- turn to VW'allingford on a yisit, the defendant came and said he in- tended to go back with her to Twickenham. and to be married to her. He went with her, together with another person, bir. Wood. ward, to whom the gig beonged. Mlrs. Cowdry.-I am the wife of a shopkeeper in the Strand. Plaintif came to town to be married to defendant. She came by his desire. She was at my house. Defendant had written a very- serious letter on the subject of the marriage. Bewas anxious thrt we should get a licence. I told him, after inquiry, thatit could not be got without her mother's consent. He beemed much disap. pointed. AMiss rvingremiained with us a weekorten days. When he returned to WValhngbrd she returned wo Reading. I went to Reading for her, and br-oght her to Wallingford. I recollect Mr. Greenwcod conitig to brs. lIrving's, and he seemed very mucli dis- tressed. Cros-examined by Mr. TAcNTOW.-Mr. Greenwood came to Landon with his father. i was be himself proposed the licence. 3 am quite sure I did not propose it mysdf. Plaintiff was not in the hiouse then. She was in St. Jates's-park. She told ine herself that sbe was walking witha a gentlemnan of the name of Sak-ey. I do nat know that Mr. Sankev is a musician living at Twickenham. liss Irving never said so ini ry hearing. Mr. Cowdry examined by Mr. DEwMAy.-I know the plaintiE and the defendant. When the defendant learned that he could not be married to the plaintiffin i.ondon without a few lines from her mother (the plaintiff being a tinor), he etpressed great regret, and said that if he had known as much, he could have brought the written consent of her motlier. I know a Mr. Sankey in the Custom-house, ban never heard, and don't know, that he is tie saute who rebided at Twickenham. Aliss tunt, eXamined by Ir. BR0ouoHASt.-I live at WallitIg_ ford. I know the plaintiffand defendant. I remember when al4n. tiffwa ill of the small-pox, in 1l8. Defendant came and iqatrir- ed for her. He asked me how she was? l said she was much bet- ter. He replied, " Thank God; I arr. glad of it, for I intend to make her mv wife." Cross.examined by Mir. SCARL.ETT.-The plaintiff frequeri?l visited at my uncle's houlse. She was never told to discontinue t ser visits. She7was never turned out of muy uncles house. I s a , ret turned out for keeping late hours. I never was out after ni.ne n ' .ck at night without leave. Aiary Wilder lived at 'Valgford; knew the defendant and plaintiT. Saw the plaintiff whern se was ill of the small.pox Zt teaded her afterwards when in her coninement. In answer to a question as to what society AMiss Irving keps, . L witness answered that " sbe was in the poultr lin Thomas Hunt.-lhiy father keeps an inn at Richmond. Ile wave known the lainDiff and her faumily for several years- they usd to visit at our nouse frequtentlv. Uruss.examineo -.iarignt usea to come to our hoase, bu so frequently as the plaintiff It Mms l outng-I live near WVallingford. L.knew the defe:4)t nt havebeen very particular in his attentions to the phti. Cross.eicamined-I have two daugh=rs: they zsa d ,th Aliss Irving. Mrts. hlunt.-l know the plain fftnddefendaat. I have f, UeDt. ly seen themu together. The fathterin.law of the 41efendant is. Sevetal other inhab'tants of Wallingford were then caled ,who spoke as to their knowledge of plaiotiffand defendant. This was the plaintff's case. Mlr. SCALnETT addressed the iury fot the defendant. s e' by observing that had the plaintiftbeen tisfied with the ver y and reasonable oferwhich had been rmade by the defendant, t; Prer- sent exposure mtight have been avoided, and the Court jury saved from furthertrouble inrthecase Therewer rK is some expectations so unreasonable, tha: it ws neceasariS . ich them on such occasions as the present. After the cvi;fbr his to thejt hd beard, it woald, he feared, a e impossibly the defend deny that some romie of rriage be of 'he ant; yet he could not but express hia sutprsse, tht produced in numerous letters s len of in thecte am Dt g tat theretas court. However, letting that pass, and admit lintj unleta he such evidenee as would justify a verdict for theatcirctaaices had could show (which he would undertake to do) i' ttOD to fulfi occurred which relersed the defendant fom t es coud be etpe:eh his promise. He would ask what sortof da'{u in the situat?n ii for a young woman who came before tb ' ayoug w Oadesler wehich theyWantiff appeared ? Here w~ietheateiosfth in eggs= Dty,WDia e ecie a- sou t af gentleman oferraspoterjye_.ev this ac-e quintnc, and ofeaecabiy. onfo sfome wr.ndner quantace,andallows it to be cre thdfndaEt. The toother mentions 'e word of it to the father oU pes old, to go up to. Lo0. then allows tier, a youtg woma of iIeh- don alone, and afterwards sets her in bues mness at w'ckelihax, with no person in the same houe W thswoman. have been WhLt very nice notions of prp n t But-whatwould reared in, who could have been loede de- the ury say, ifhe should provi s that thearesn whih induced thate fen an tts break offhis acquaintanc.t his youn woan wh s w been the child which she had was not his ? dLsovered her coss mis- attached to her, and it was 3Qt until ta?rschment. His friends, conduct with other met that hcga-cup -e off to Twickenha, who suspected the objeot fi which be 1i'; ne of te snduct follwedl him thLither, aid then be Of of the plaintlff. He thea did what elv' ts of a oneelieg. would have don-ete upaU1 th Hsofa o anh proved herself evry waY u'nworthYa hin e M.crlt would be able to est,iit bhenfcs a h. ougdr5 wade ofe loose habits...tbzt she haLd mmpalrset yohrme eie h dfefendant, and thst-ahe wa #terte by hoe men in c fst ae of her cGnduct. wt as o ati- f Iwomnan of the tow,nwhscmay i W5 o tan teca- ei oas. He knw-wUhti~ aIdo~ bii2.0SI it would be an aggra vation of the defendant's he justice of his cause, the defendant would etn. If' the jury should be satisfied of the ,the,y would show by their verdict ta the to fulfil a promise made toa woman whios ne Ull Called the f6lIoving evidence :_ I f b; kHenry Castle, exmined by Alr. MAUItYA:T.-~I ami a fishMOnger. I keew the plainjtim at wk fordL I used to be in her cormpany ther kour tunes a week f is was three or four years ago. Her motherb knew thi-. I intended to make her my wife, but I was pie- vented by the many reports in circulation respecting her character. (This .78 obJectd to as not evdence, but was admitted as evidence cf Witness s teason for not marrying plaintiff.) Cressexambned by MIr. DFxNS..N..- am a writer in an attor- tey's Office, and a fishmonger too. I am 23 years of age. We live lbout 60 Yards from -irs. Irving's hmose. My father and mother me tobeon nmy guard lest I shouldbethedupe of Mr. Green- 'good. - 3. Grheethe dupeofefr.nGreen 153d. Id not knwoodeitmyself was paying his addresses, as I mother t t itn o mylva? Iican't say whether I told my that lbtaketfls in consequence of Mr. Greenwood's attention tha I ece ol~I won't swear that I did not say so. If I did say 8o, it 5115 have been when I broke offI This was about tiree years tf I Used to visit Miss Irving three or four times a week for a ot tht togethet. I never told Miss Irving the canse whv I broke i inOn. I walked out with Miss Irving three or four tmee.- Soi etimes Miss Munt was with us. It was aftcr ehurch- ,pi,me in thr evening, ifn the close of the summer. I was in the habit Of clirng at plaintifl's aiouse. Her mother was mostly present. R'e2---ined.-NVhen I visited theplaintiff, sbe always treated me mAkne TllaVder$xamined by Mr. TAUniOw.-I am a dress- maker living at WaUingford. I knew a Mliss Le Comt. I.was at the me scool with her, Ihavenoacquaintance with her new. I orv3 seen h It Walkingyith the p waintiff two or three times, about 2 ct the atersoon, but in broad daylight. I wasOnce vallking with Mtiss Le Comt, and saw her go and speak to famo charyer. It nevr ake to her since, in consequenee of her in. ~itis Irving wanting It w; h known all over the tow,; I neyar saw gete In neither kcnow ha2nm or good Cross eyatninted by l.Botk Crs s.exa xn~ by o M r. Byse l O, I U~ eAdM ;-I ;,kaa often in company with Miss Le Con1t, ImYself,1-Iworked f~, her. lingford, tbe carreer-a anip tdie daughter of Mr. NVallace, at Wtal- anlodoften sath w itave seen Aliss Irvjng with Aliss Le Comt, 'wYoman of bad -15% Le Comt at Bliiss Irying's. AEiss Le Comt is a wross of ban character. Cross-e,.- }ie- have heard every body say so. b;o' Be atC_ am clerk ro thte defendant's attorney. I went to PsjahAlobn is Le ott and met her in a brothd at Reading, same description. ord knnDkew exarmined by Ar. SCARLErTT.-I live at lalling- ih ktewt liss Irving thre or fouryears ago ; I often met her mt ;an then she allowed me to take liberties with her w hich no0 mrodest v;olnuan-oild allow; I have put my hands routna hewaist, and often walkced with her: I heard that Greenwood was PSying attention to her. From what I have seen of Mliss Irving, I should say that most certainly she was not a woman of good cha- CroSS-examired by Mr. BROUGHA3.....V father is a farlmer. I am of no profession. I sometimes follow the houinds. Mr. Greenwood is afriend of mine. I neyer saw him with Miss Irving. He often wenV her house; but I never saw him with her in the street. I ofi~.tntet Aliss Irvisg in the street. There were others va6ni53eS*.- t made no secret of whathad passed between us. Re_e,sV iilid.-I am an unwilling witness here. Mr. F'todyer....I live at Wallingford. I once made an appoint. ment along w ith a Ir. Lovegrove, to meet two young women in the Castle walk. BIrL ovegrove walked with liss Irving. [Here wstnes stated the circumstances which passed, and which left no doubt on his mind that an improper connexton had taken place be- tween Mr. Lovegrove and plaintiff.] Cross-examined by Mr. DENasrAN.-This appointment took place about 11 or 12 years ago. Mlr. Lovegrove is since married, and he has been mnarried 10 vears at least. The girls were grown up. Miss Irving might have been 12 or 13 years old at the time. It was not dark on this evening. I could see what passed a few yards off. I will not sweat that lIr. Lovegrove has not been married 17 years; I believe he has not been married more than 10 or ll years; he told me so himself. I never knew anv thing against Bliss Irving but this circumstance. Thomas Sheene.-The defendant is my son-in-law, and also mv nephew. I knew of miy nephew's attachment to Nliss Irving, and I tdisapproved of it on account of the character Aliss Irving bore. I my8elf saw her walk out with different young men. This occurred two or three times. I have rmade inquiries respecting her character. It was upon the result of these I formed my opinion. I made no settlement on my daughter at her marriage. Iefendant has no pro- perty except what I and his father may give him. Crasssexamined.-Plaintiffonce came to my house with my ser- vant, anld I was very angry with the servant for bringing her. ,M31r. Greenwood. the defendant's father, waa called to prove that his son had no fortune but what he allowed him half-yearly. Wit- ness employed the attorney for the defence. This was the defend. ant's case. AKr. DENMAN now replied, and commented at sorne length on the gross conduct which he said the defendant had pursued with respect to the plaintiff. It was, he contended, an in- famous aggravation of the defendant's conduct, that he should now turn round upon the unfortunate victim of his seduction, and ma2ting the disgrace which he had brought upon her the grounds why she should be sent wvith infarny from the Court. He then went on to comment on the evidence of each of the wit- nesses for the defence. The story told bv ir. Fludyer was in itselt highly improbable, and altogether inconsistent with the other mat- ters given in evidence by the defendant. Whly what was the fact ? Here a young woman, who, according to FluAyer's own account, could not be more than 12 years old. set out in life by giving herself up to prsstitution; and what does he say ?-that except that circum- stance, he never knew any thing against her character. Now was it consistent to imagine that a woman, who at 12 years old was sol wicked, would be improved at 13 years ? It was weLl known by un- fortunate exp-,cience, that the-girl who setetd as this young woman was said to have acted at 12 years, would have gone on increasing in wickedness,and be much worse by the time she arrived at 20: hut here Sbe was living in a small town,where every little scandal wouldbe im- mediately buzzed about,and yetup to the presentmoment,this witness, Mlr. Fludyer never heard a word againSt her character. But was it likely, that it this poor young woman was consciousthatsuch charges could have been brought against her here toeday, she would not have closed with the offer that had been made to her, to take a certain sum and have all her costs paid ? lVhy was such an offer made, if the defendant was, conscious that he had acted honestly ? Why ;should it have been refuised, if the plaintiff was not certain that her -oniduct would bear the strictest investigation ? The learned gentle- man then adverted to thse other parts of the cmse, and contended that tbere was no answer given to the plaintiff's witnesses; and that she was fully entitled to fair damages, for the injuries which bad been heaped upon her by the conduct of the defetdant, in first basely de- serung her after his promise, and then aggravating his baseness by the impudent attempt made here to-day. The LORD CHIEF JUST ICE summned up the evidence very mi- nutely, and the jury retired from the Court, aud after an absence of 25 minutes, returned, bringing a verdict for the plaintiff-Da- niages, 3001. and costs. e The trial lasted from the ditting of the Court until past three 4V ARE PORT. COURT OF KINGS BENCH, WxSTXIXsTEW JULY 14. Sfttiitgs before t?KLoio CHIm Jusrc3Z anid A Conmm Jur BREACH OF PZO)?ISg OF WARRXhGE-IRVfG V-.GREEXWOEdi3'W