Carlisle Patriot, 19 Aug 1820 - Cumberland Assizes (10)
Petra Mitchinson
Saturday 19 Aug 1820 (p. 2, col. 3 – p. 3, col. 6)
CUMBERLAND ASSIZES.
----------
NISI-PRIUS.—MR. JUSTICE PARK.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
LAWSON v. FAULDER.
[continued]
Thomas TAYLOR, of Burnfoot, swore, that having occasion to go to Great Orton, he slept at old Mr. GILKERSON's house one night, with his son William. Mr. FAULDER and witness had been drinking at the ale-house, and then went to GILKERSON's, where they saw Mrs. LAWSON—FAULDER was drunk. They joined for three quarts of ale, and FAULDER made Mrs. LAWSON bring about a gill of rum down stairs to put in it. When that was drank, he desired her to fetch more, but she refused, and ran up stairs, FAULDER following her. When witness went through Mrs. L's room to go to bed, FAULDER was there, and he did not see either again that night. He got up in the morning, near five o'clock, and on going out Mrs. LAWSON asked him if he would not stop to breakfast; the two sisters, one of them married, were in bed, but he could not see them, it being dark. As he went on, FAULDER cried out, "D—n thee Tom, come and see how we are lying." The voice appeared to come from the same bed in which Mrs. LAWSON was. When down stairs, he could not find his shoes in the dark. Mrs. L. came down to let him out, with all her clothes on, the same as the evening before. She observed, "This FAULDER is a sad one, there's no getting shot of him."
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT, this witness admitted that he did not see any one, and that he did not know whether they were in bed together or not. FAULDER was drunk. Mr. NORMAN, the brother-in-law of FAULDER, took witness to Mr. ROBINSON's, defendant's attorney.
Geo. BELL, of Beaumont, swore that FAULDER was not addicted to liquor before he became acquainted with Mrs. LAWSON.
Mr. SCARLETT.—His learned friend's case was of such a nature as made it unnecessary to trouble the Jury with any further evidence for the plaintiff. The defendant would suffer that fate which he had seen come upon many, even in that very court, who disregarded principle, honour, and conscience, and consulted interested or vindictive motives. Neither the witnesses would swear up to the mark, nor the judge or jury believe what was actually sworn. His learned friend (Mr. RAINE) had proposed to prove a case to them, pregnant with such abomination, so obscene, so abandoned, and so profligate, that even in the worst book that was ever written no parallel could be found to it. He (Mr. SCARLETT) had suspected what the case would turn out. And what was the case for the defendant before them? What did the first witness, Mrs. CARTNER prove? They must have seen from the nature of his cross-examination, that he entertained a strong suspicion of the family of the CARTNERs. But his friend, Serjeant HULLOCK, had not been able to screw out from that woman one circumstance to the real prejudice of Mrs. LAWSON. Yet, his learned friend had opened a case, either stated by his client, or furnished by his attorney, which the honest Mrs. CARTNER either had not stated, or had not the courage to swear before them. Was this the way to destroy the character of Mrs. LAWSON? Was this the way to reduce the amount of damages? Was this the way that an injured female was to be answered before a court of justice and a jury of her countrymen? This first witness swore that she knew nothing of the vile transaction which it appeared she was expected to prove: but to something she did swear, and that fortified Mrs. LAWSON's case. In the month of October last, FAULDER takes Mrs. LAWSON to the house of CARTNER. Mrs. LAWSON is unwilling to be seen in his company by strangers. Was that the conduct of an abandoned woman, so hardened in vice that she cared not who saw her disgrace? With a feeling natural to modest women in her situation, she would not be seen but by friends. Mrs. CARTNER therefore opens the parlour window for her, and sends her daughter to sit with her. Was not this the strongest proof of natural female reluctance to expose herself? And FAULDER had not then made up his mind to abandon her, and was himself unwilling to expose her to others. Another part of the defendant's case was, that FAULDER had been excited to drunkenness by the family of the plaintiff—by this respectable family, as they appeared by the evidence adduced. On occasion of this visit to CARTNER's, FAULDER goes into the kitchen and drinks with two men: he sends some ale and spirit to her in the parlour;—the evidence shewed that this was not tasted. Was this like the conduct imputed to Mrs. LAWSON? FAULDER was drunk, and behaved like a drunken man. He was represented to have said to CARTNER, "Stand up, Jane; you shall see what state she is in; I never intended to leave her till I brought her into that situation." If FAULDER actually said so, what must be the sentiments of the jury respecting so base, so wicked, so unfeeling a man? What did he deserve who could avow such a purpose, if he did avow it?—but he, Mr. SCARLETT, did not believe he did avow it. And what must they think of CARTNER? Would they believe that CARTNER could witness such a scene as he had represented to them, in the presence of his wife, of his two daughters, one a maiden of 25, the other a girl of 14 years of age? The story was false on the face of it. But, if it could be true, was such a man to believed [sic] even on his oath?
Mr. Justice PARK.—And his wife?
Mr. SCARLETT.—That witness met from his Lordship with the reprobation which he deserved; and which every honest man must have felt. The third witness was TAYLOR. He (Mr. SCARLETT) had thought for a moment he should call back Wm. GILKERSON to contradict this person, but he became satisfied that it was completely unnecessary. Suppose his evidence true, it only added one instance to many, which shewed that a woman once seduced under promise of marriage, the act with which she charged FAULDER, regarded her seducer as her husband. "She is not blameless, indeed," said the learned counsel, "but I think she is also to be pitied if she is to be blamed on the subject." Was there a witness who intimated a suspicion of her conduct in regard to any other man? FAULDER, with all his activity, and all his zeal, had not been able to give them even an insinuation of one loose gesture, one loose expression, but towards himself. Any thing better than this negative evidence could not be given to a Jury. Could he not ask them, whether her conduct was impeached with regard to any human being but FAULDER, the chief sinner in the only impeachment against her? He would now abandon his learned friend (Mr. RAINE's) case, and call their attention back to that of the injured plaintiff. He put it to them, if ever witnesses gave evidence with more candour, more moderation, than the three brothers of the plaintiff had done? They had left an impression and conviction upon his mind, that the family which produced such children must be respectable and virtuous in the true sense of the terms. In a large family, the best regulated and conducted, some one might be found to go astray. If a sister of the plaintiff had misconducted herself, he who led her astray, married her, and made reparation for her wrongs. (Mr. SCARLETT here repeated the evidence of the various promises of marriage made by defendant.) But FAULDER had found a luckier and higher hit—he directed his attention to Miss HODGSON. Would it be allowed, that the defendant should contend he had a right to break faith with one woman after he had seduced her, and to marry another because she was richer? What damages were adequate to such insult and injury? This was not a trifling case. The plaintiff was a widow, and therefore was not entitled to the same indulgence as if she never had been married; but under a promise of wedlock she had been ruined, and she did call upon them to give compensation—the only compensation which human laws could give,—she called upon them to give ample damages, and to oblige the defendant to make the only reparation which could now be made. Could it be endured that a man should get possession of a woman's person under a pledge of marriage, and then abandon her, a mark for the finger of scorn to be pointed at? Could it be endured that he should put the last seal to the injury, by bringing witnesses to swear that she was an abandoned and loose wanton, and that she had seduced him? This was the last injury that could be offered by man to woman. At least, he might have been expected to say, "I am sorry for it, I wish to make all the reparation I can—let the damages only be moderate, but don't add to the injury I have done by casting any slur upon her reputation." The very reverse was the defendant's conduct. What then was due at their hands—what was due to her hands—for her seduction, her exposure in the public Courts of Carlisle, for her defamation by witnesses brought forward, he fearlessly said it, to perjure themselves? The Jury owed it to the character of their county, to the female character, to the conduct of man towards woman, to give the plaintiff ample reparation in damages for the multitude of wrongs which she had sustained at the instance of Mr. FAULDER.
Mr. JUSTICE PARK summed up the evidence with great care. The action was clearly maintainable. Even if the plaintiff had been proved to have misconducted herself towards other men after the defendant had seduced her, he should still have thought the action maintainable, though the damages must have been thereby reduced. But that was far from being the present case. The promise of marriage was proved to have been repeatedly and distinctly made by the defendant when perfectly sober. Their damages would be, not what he was able to pay, but what she was entitled to receive. It was 33 years since he had first attended the proceedings of courts of justice in this county, and he had never before heard stated any thing like the most horrid profligacy which had been opened by the defendant's counsel. He was most happy that he had ordered all females out of court. But what was the case upon the evidence? No insinuation of misconduct went further back than October last. The courtship began in April last year. The plaintiff's child was born three months ago. Therefore, if the plaintiff had misconducted herself in October, it was extremely important for the Jury to consider whether the defendant was not answerable for it? If he were not answerable in damages, he was clearly answerable in moral guilt. Was the seducer to be allowed to drop the hypocrite's mask when he had effected his brutal purpose, and to say that no damages were due because he had succeeded in his unprincipled design? This woman might have been, for any thing that appeared, a model of purity and spotless chastity, till the defendant courted her and promised her marriage. Nothing was proved to her discredit on the part of the defendant with any other man. Circumstances had been stated which, considering the rank in life, were not all improper. He did not mean to say, that the one rank was not as chaste as the other;—but what would be considered as the height of impudence in a higher rank—such as sitting on a plighted lover's knee—was not at all indecorous in this rank. The counsel, instructed by the attorney, who probably was instructed by his client (and his instructions would perhaps at last recoil upon his own head) had connected with this circumstance the grossest representations. His Lordship had allowed questions to be put to Mrs. CARTNER by Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK which he would at once have refused if they had been objected to on the other side. The conduct of CARTNER, as sworn by himself, he had treated with the reprobation which he would always express while he acted as judge, and which he hoped he should always feel and express as a man also. They would not give excessive or vindictive damages; but they would measure their damages, if they found their verdict for the plaintiff, by the injury which she had sustained, which was certainly aggravated in the most serious manner by the case set up for the defence.
The Jury retired, and in a short time returned with a Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages Five Hundred and Fifty Pounds.
This decision gave great satisfaction to a crowded court.
Among the civil trials, which we shall report at full length in our next, will be the interesting cases of "SMITH v. PICKUP," and "HUNTER v. NICHOL."