[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 28 Aug 1824 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (3)

Thu Feb 6 12:12:44 UTC 2025

Saturday 28 Aug 1824   (p. 2, col. 3 – p. 4, col. 5)

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES, 1824. 

NISI-PRIUS: MR. BARON HULLOCK. 

[continued] 

SEDUCTION.—KNIGHT v. WALKER. 

Mr. ALDERSON briefly stated the case. 

Mr. BROUGHAM addressed the jury. He said this was an action for seduction.
The plaintiff was a farmer in the parish of Whitley, and had brought up a
family of 11 children, who were all respectable, and comfortably settled in
life, with the exception of this daughter, who in this instance had only
been unfortunate. The defendant was a wealthy farmer, and a neighbour; and
known to the plaintiff's family by being intimate with the son, by which
means he became acquainted with the daughter, over whose virtue he had
prevailed; and he mentioned this in aggravation. Now when a man had done all
the injury in his power—when he had wounded the father's feelings—when he
had refused all compensation—was it not an aggravation for the father to be
compelled to come into court, and have his own and his daughter's feelings
harrowed up, by asking redress from the hands of a jury? and as that was the
only mode of redress, he who had done wrong was answerable for the misery
which he had caused. If any attempt were made to injure the plaintiff's
character, it would only turn out an aggravation of the offence; but he (Mr.
B.) believed no such attempt would be made. He only asked from the jury what
they considered a compensation. 

Ellen KNIGHT (the young woman seduced) sworn.—She stated that she was the
daughter of Richard KNIGHT, and that she had lived all her life with her
father: she performed general service for him. Witness had known John WALKER
ten years; he was the friend of her brother. WALKER lives upon his own
estate, about two miles from the place where her father resides. Witness's
father was a farmer; he had nine children living, and two dead. She had only
one sister living, who was married. Defendant courted witness when he first
came to her father's house, ten years ago; and they were acquainted about
nine years before any thing took place. Witness's father saw WALKER when he
came; he talked of marrying her, and she had a child by him about twelve
months ago; her father offered £200 in marriage with her, before she was
brought to bed. Defendant wanted £200 at Candlemas, and £800 to be laid upon
his land, as mortgage; but he would give no security to her father for it.
Witness's father said he would rather be at half the expence of the writings
to have it done, as it might be the ruin of his family; but they could not
agree, and defendant then said he had a living for himself, and she
(witness) might do as she chose. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Witness was 28 years of age: her father
farmed about 115 acres. The money was to pay off mortgages. Witness had
heard that the defendant's estate was 160 acres; but it was mortgaged for
£1500, witness had heard. Defendant's father had been dead several years.
Witness had known the defendant above ten years; he used to come to her
father's house when he was a boy: he had often sat up with witness at night
till 11 or 12 o'clock: her father and mother sometimes went to bed and left
them sitting together. Witness was not so old as her married sister. WALKER
lives about two miles from witness, and had wrought at her father's farm;
but witness never wrought in the fields with him. 

By Mr. ALDERSON.—Witness had known him ten years—she meant she had been
acquainted with him ten years—but had no improper intercourse with him till
about two years ago. 

Edward KNIGHT, son of the plaintiff, knew the defendant—his father and
brothers knew him too. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Would swear he did not employ the attorney,
nor pay the costs of this action. 

By Mr. BROUGHAM.—Defendant told witness in April, 1823, that he had been
very outward in the world, but said he would reform: defendant also said
that he was worth £2000, and that he would make my sister, whom he intended
to marry, very comfortable; he asked witness, who is a currier and lives at
Ulverston, to get him the license. 

By Mr. SCARLETT.—Defendant has two sisters, but no brother; his property was
mortgaged for £800. Witness had heard, but not from his father, that there
were £1500 upon it. Defendant had no other property that witness knew of. 

Mr. SCARLETT addressed the jury for the defendant. He said Mr. BROUGHAM had
observed that it was an aggravation of the offence that the defendant had
refused to make compensation. Let them look at the case, and see the
defendant's situation; he has a small estate for the maintenance of him and
his sisters; he works on it daily; and was not in circumstances to make
great compensation, without ruin to himself and his sisters. Look at the
conduct of the other party. Miss KNIGHT had arrived at a mature age; but had
frequently sat up with the defendant when her father and mother were in bed;
no doubt, they thought she could take care of herself. The plaintiff never
asked the defendant to marry his daughter, nor to discontinue his visits,
during a ten years' courtship. Edward KNIGHT said he had conversed with the
plaintiff about his sister's marriage, in April, 1823; this was when she was
pregnant; but no neighbour was called to prove that defendant was courting
for the purpose of marrying her. Put yourselves, gentlemen, in the situation
of the plaintiff, and ask your own minds whether you would allow a man to
come and sit with your daughter late at nights, for ten years together,
without ever once asking him if he intended to marry her. Did not the father
contribute to the loss of service? Did not the father know that this was
improper? The defendant had done nothing by treachery; the plaintiff was not
watching the virtue of his daughter with all that vigilance which a good
father ought to have bestowed upon it. Indeed, the father, as it were,
handed his daughter to the defendant; and it was audacious to admit a lover
in this way, and then ask for damages at the hands of a jury. 

The Judge went through the evidence very minutely. His Lordship observed,
that if a father gave opportunities for the ruin of his daughter, he had no
legal right to complain. The jury ought to consider how far the
opportunities afforded to the defendant led to the result, and give damages
accordingly. 

The Jury, in a short time, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages
£20, costs 40s. 

[to be continued] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20250206/fc90ed93/attachment-0001.htm>