[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 04 Sep 1824 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (21)

[petra.mitchinson at doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 04 Sep 1824   (p. 2, col. 6)
 
CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES. 
 
SEDUCTION.-JAMES v. WOOD. 
 
Mr. PATTESON opened the pleadings. 
 
This was an action by the plaintiff against the defendant, for the seduction
of the plaintiff's daughter per quod servitium amisit. The defendant pleaded
the general issue, whereupon issue was joined. 
 
Mr. BROUGHAM told the jury that they had heard from his learned friend the
nature of the issue which they had to try. The plaintiff was a butcher, and
the defendant was a farmer living in his neighbourhood. The action was
brought to recover a compensation in damages for one of the most serious
injuries that a father could sustain-namely,  the seduction and ruin of his
child. The law of England allowed such a compensation in a very singular
way; it said, that a father might recover damages for such an injury, not
merely in proportion of his child's services, but also, in proportion to the
loss he sustained in being deprived of her society and character, and for
the dishonour and misery which he sustained thereby. At the same time,
unless a loss of service could be shown, the law said that the father should
not recover for the loss of his daughter's character and society. On account
of the singularity of the present case, he thought it requisite to mention
this point in the first instance, in order that he might have the benefit of
his Lordship's opinion upon it. What he considered to be the greatest
aggravation of the defendant's guilt might in this case be set up as an
answer to the action. The plaintiff's daughter was the hired servant of the
defendant at the time when he completed her seduction. That circumstance
was, he maintained, the greatest possible aggravation of the defendant's
offence; for, to use the authority of the master to effect the ruin of the
servant, involved a breach of trust reposed in him, and evinced a want of
proper respect, not only to his servant, but also to himself. Yet, under
such circumstances, the law of England said that the action of seduction did
not lie. Without questioning the propriety of that rule at present, he would
simply observe, that the circumstances which he was about to mention were,
in his opinion, sufficient to take this case out of it. The hiring, as well
by the custom of the county as by express stipulation, was for the
half-year, a week being allowed her during that time to go where she liked.
During that week she was accustomed to go home to her father, and whilst
there performed such services- 
 
Mr. Baron HULLOCK.-That will not do, Mr. BROUGHAM. I recollect that some
time ago an action of this nature was tried at Newcastle, where the learned
judge who presided held, that, under such circumstances, the action of
seduction would not lie. The defendant in the case I allude to was a
clergyman, and the learned judge felt some anxiety to have it gone into. He
found, however, that under the circumstances it was impossible. 
 
Mr. SCARLETT.-In that case, my Lord, the plaintiff's daughter was in the
service of an aunt to the clergyman. 
 
Mr. Baron HULLOCK.-And here she is in the defendant's own service. 
 
Mr. BROUGHAM.-Not in his entire service, I contend, my Lord; she was at
liberty to tender her services to her father during any one week she chose
to select in the half year, and I can prove that she did so tender them. 
 
Mr. Baron HULLOCK was still of opinion that it would not do. There was
another case, tried at Lancaster, in which he had been employed as counsel,
in which he believed the same doctrine had been held. The trial, he knew,
was stopped at Lancaster; what became of it ultimately, he did not know, as
he was not in it when it came before the Court at Westminster. 
 
Mr. SCARLETT stated, that the case of "DEAN v. PEAL," 5 East's Reports, 45,
was a strong case in favour of the view which his Lordship had taken of this
point. 
 
Mr. Baron HULLOCK said that he did not exactly recollect that case at
present. 
 
Mr. SCARLETT said that he Court had determined in that case, that an action
on the case for debauching the plaintiff's daughter and servant, per quod
servitium amisit, is not maintained by evidence that the daughter though
under age, was living in any person's family in the capacity of a
housekeeper, and had no intention, at the time of her seduction, to return
to her father's house, though she afterwards did return there, while within
age, in consequence of the seduction, and was maintained by her father. 
 
Mr. BROUGHAM thought there was a wide distinction between that case and the
present. In that case there was no animus revertendi in the daughter; here
was a distinct animus revertendi. In that case the daughter said she would
not have returned to her father but for the seduction; here was an express
intention of returning to him once in every half year, at all events. 
 
Mr. Baron HULLOCK was of opinion, that in this case the daughter was not in
the service of her father so as to entitle him to maintain this action. He
was very sorry for it; but he thought the law was decidedly as the learned
counsel had stated it.-The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. 
 
DOE D. HUDDLESTONE v. JOHNSTONE. 
 
Mr. TINDAL addressed the Jury. for the plaintiff, whose agent, Mr. Peter
HODGSON, had let a farm to the defendant in 1821, intending to give him a
lease, but he was only a yearly tenant. The tenant gave up the farm, and
then refused to quit. 
 
Mr. Peter HODGSON called.-Is agent to the Rev. Wilfrid HUDDLESTON, and let a
farm to JOHNSTON in 
 
 
[This is the end of page 2 of the newspaper. Page 3, where the case
continues, and where presumably further assize cases are reported, is
missing on the BNA website.]
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20250311/8d87f82b/attachment-0001.htm>