|
Liverpool Mercury
Friday March 18 1825
Seduction
Sutcliffe v. Taylor
Mr Scarlett said this was an action brought by the plaintiff, a widow lady, residing on a small farm near Burnley, against the defendant, a farmer in her neighbourhood, to recover compensation of damages for the seduction of her daughter, an interesting young gilr aged about 22 years. The defendant saw the young lady at Burnley chuch, and professed himself so smitten with her, that he procured an introduction to her, and finally proposed marriage to the young lady. His proposals were accepted. But, as he said he had some famiy matters to arrange, the celebration of the marriage was postponed. He continued to visit in the family, and took advantage of his intimacy to effect the seduction of the object of his pretended affections. After she had become enciente, he absented himself, and the poor deluded girl and her sister were obliged to go to him and disclose her situation, in the hope that he would fulfil his promise of marriage.-That, however, he ultimately declined to do; telling her in the coarsest manner "she might, if she pleased, go to a justice, and he would father her child: marry her he would not." Under these circumstances the mother was compelled to seek that reparation which the law allowed her for so grevious a calamity.
Hannah Sutcliffe proved that her sister was only twenty-two years of age when the defendant met her, three years ago. He soon after proposed marriage; and her sister afterwards became pregnant. She accompanied her to his house, when the prisoner refused to fulfil his promise, as stated by Mr. Scarlett.
Rose Ann Sutcliffe, who was well dressed, and did not appear embarrassed, stated that the prisoner had declined fulfilling his promise, after which she had a child by him, but had not seen him since he refused to perfrm his engagement.
Mr. Meanly, a surgeon, who knew the family and circumstances of the parties, stated the plaintiff was in fair circumstances, and the defendant heir to a considerable property left by his father.
Mr. Brougham, in his reply, commented on the gaudy manner in which the young lady appeared dressed to give her testimony. He thought she was dressed up for an occasion, to give her an appearance of respectability which her station did not warrant, and strongly concluded, that the circumstances of the parties ought to prevent the jury from entertaining an action of this kind: it was altogether so trumpery a case that it should be left merely for justices to order a maintenance of the child; for if actions of this kind were encouraged, the cause list at the assizes would be increased beyond all calculation. The defendant was merely a shoemaker, working at his mother's house, and the property his father had might be deeply encumbered. It would be a waste of time and of common sense to make any observations on it.
Verdict for the plaintiff-damages Sixty Pounds
_________________
Mel
Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
