BRIDPORT COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS.

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE FROM NETHERBURY

Wllliam Hawkins Walbridge, late baker and shopkeeper, of Netherbury, was summoned by Jemima Newberry, single woman, and sister-in-law of defendant, to show cause, &c. Mr. Macaskie (from Mr. R. Tucker, jun's, office) prosecuted and Mr. H.A. Huxtable, Dorchester. defended. Mr. Macaskie, in opening the case, said complainant was at present an inmate of the Beaminster Union and was a sister of defendant's first wife. In the year 1885 the defendant came from London to live with her sister and she lived in the house till February last. The first wife of defendant —complainant's sister— died In March, 1889, leaving a young family, and at the defendant's request complainant remained In the house to look after the children and assist him in his business. In March 1890 defendant first began to annoy her; he used to come home the worse for liquor and endeavour to have intercourse with her. She resisted, but ultimately defendant seduced her. He had rather an uphill fight in this case, as complainant was a woman of somewhat weak intellect. She was not insane, and was able to perform the household duties at Walbridge's property. The complainant was called, and stated that a child was born on March 20th and the defendant was the father. Before she came to Netherbury she had been in service and had saved £31 in thirteen years. She lent this money to defendant's first wife to help carry on the business. She was promised interest for this money. She never went out alone at Netherbury, but only with the children. In February her brother came down to Netberbury, and at his request she saw a doctor. Her brother asked Walbridge if he had anything to say and he replied that he had better not say anything. She succeeded resisting defendant except on two occasions. Cross-examined by Mr. Huxtable: She did not make any complaint to anyone at the time about defendant's conduct towards her. She knew men named Chard and Warren. Chard had not seen her in Mr. Walbridge's private room with Warren. Defendant had not spoken to her about Warren, neither had her sister. She remembered Netherbury club night last year; but defendant did not come home and find Warren In the kitchen with her. She was an inmate of the Beaminster Union, and the authorities would have taken up the case if her brother had not. Mr. Huxtable: I am instructed that is not the case. Amos Newberry, a brother of complainant, said his sister was of weak intellect and was nearly 40 years of age. In February he took his sister to a doctor at Beaminster and on going back to Netherbery, he told Mrs. Walbridge her husband was accused and she cried and said "It is no more than I expected." His sister accused Walbridge in his presence, and he said be had nothing better to say. The second wife of defendant (subpoenaed) stated that she had never seen complainant out alone and never knew that she had gone out alone except to church. She remembered the last witness coming to Netherbury and accusing her husband. She might have shed tears on that occasion. She said to him "If you are guilty or not you had better say little." He had repeatedly denied the paternity of the child to her. She had heard the reports and had written to Mrs. Warren. She might have told her if she only knew a quarter of her husband's going on she would not have married him. Cross-examined by Mr. Huxtable: When she wrote to Mrs Warren she did not know if she alluded to money matters or this charge. Mr. Huxtable then called the defendant, who stated that on the night of Netherbury Club in May, 1888, about 10.30 p.m., he saw Daniel Warren leave the premises from the back kitchen where he afterwards found complainant. Had seen Warren there a great many times. He taxed her with improper conduct with Warren, but this she denied but implicated a great many others. He told her sister of her conduct, and she came to remonstrate with her. In September 1889, he again saw Warren and complainant in the back kitchen. He had never been on intimate terms with complainant. Cross-examined he could reckon up eight or nine names of persons complainant had implicated in the case (Laughter.) Had known her to go out alone. He did not tell her brother about the eight or nine others as he was not going to tell other people his business.  (Laughter.) He never instructed his wife to borrow £31 from complainant. She did borrow itand he daresay it went into the business. Had never paid any of the money back to complainant, but was of opion his wife had in kind. He had never paid a sum of money to girl called Smith to settle a similar case. John Chard said in accordance with instructions he ordered Warren off when he found him in defendant's private road with complainant. Cross-examined : Warren might be silly but he knew what he was doing. He was a farmer's son. Ellen Holt said she had joked the complainant about her sweetheart and she said he gave her presents of cake and white turnips, and she should be married before William (the defendant) Amos Newberry on Saturday accused her of having been bribed to "run out against his sister. Cross-examined : Did not know who complainant meant to claim as her sweetheart. Had never seen complainant out alone. Annie Newberry (subpoenaed) said she was sister of complainant. Had never had any reason to speak to her sister about her oonduct. Walbridge had never asked her to do so. Cross-examined : Walbridge told her that Warren had seen her home on club night. Mr. Macaskie, with the consent of the Bench, called Daniel Warren, who was in court. Witness being deaf and dumb the oath was administered to him In writing. A question was put to him in writing by Mr. Macaskie, but, although an interpreter was sworn, witness could not be made to understand what was required of him. Mr. Huxtable addressed the Bench at some length. He contended that an amount of prejudice had been drawn into the case. As to asking about the girl Smith he never heard a more cowardly way of conducting a case. He hoped be should never see a case conducted on such lines again. There was no corroborative evidence of the complainant's allegation, but there was overwhelming evidence against it. The Bench dismissed the case The proceedings lasted several hours