Norfolk Gazette And Publick Ledger

From a Scotch paper.

LAW REPORT EXTRAORDINARY.

COURT OF PIE POUDRE, SEPT 6.—CIVIL SIDE.

Baker, v. am Seduction.

We purposely omit the name of the defendant, as the publication of it might be detrimental to him at the ensuing Edmonton statute, and it appeared that he was more unfortunate than guilty.

Fortuna crimen in illo

Non scelus invenies.

It was an action brought by a very respectable shop keeper against the manager of one of the principal Theatres, for enticing away and seducing his only daughter, Miss Honoria Baker, and engaging her, without his consent, as one of the performers in his company of tragedians. It appeared by the evidence of the father, that the young lady had received a good education, but was passionately fond of the dramatic art; in fact, another Hyppolite Clairon. She frequented private theatres, but so far was he from indulging this propensity, that he served her precisely as that celebrated actress had been treated—he locked her up—his precautions were in vain—she contrived her escape, but by what means he was at a loss to conjecture. He sought after her for several weeks and beginning to despair of recovering her, when he accidentally heard she was playing a principal character in the defendant's company at Bartholomew Fair. He went and found her arrayed in the gorgeous costume of Clytemnestra, and upon his insisting on taking her home, the defendant interposed, and declared he had engaged her at a liberal salary, and should compel her to fulfil her engagement. The plaintiff attempted to use force, but he was soon overpowered, and he had no means of redress but an appeal to the court of Pie Poudre. The complaint having been fully stated, the defendant said the young woman came to him in company with a young man, who professed himself her husband. He had no reason to doubt the fact, particularly as the lady's appearance evidenced her cognizance of the comforts of matrimony. He engaged them both, and this, he said, was the sum and substance of his offence. It turned out that the soi-disant husband had been long a performer in the defendant's company, and had a wife before; and it was inferred that the defendant could not have been ignorant of this, and consequently must have been participant in the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter.

The Steward of the court addressed the Homage in a very sensible speech: he observed, that offences of this kind struck at the root of society, and that it was the duty of the defendant to have made an enquiry concerning so young a girl, before he presumed to engage her, and however he might be excusable in a moral point of view, for his attention to his own interest in obtaining a valuable actress, yet the parent who had lost the service of his child was justly entitled to a reasonable compensation.

The Homage were of the same opinion; they awarded the plaintiff 5l. damages, and ordered the defendant to restore the girl. The defendant was obliged to comply with the conditions before he could be permitted to recommence his performances.