Attempt to ruin a young person's character

Stak v. Scammel. - Mr. Sergeant Pell stated this to be an action brought to recover damages for a most base and unjustifiable libel.

The plaintiff, Sophia Stak, was a young woman only 22 or 23 years of age, of the most irreproachable character; and though reduced by necessity to the situation of a domestic in the family of the defendant, she was descended from a most respectable family, and her connexions were still of a grade in life much superior to that which she had been compelled to fill. The defendant was a professional man residing at Plymouth.

Without the slighest reason, the defendant had dared to publish of the plaintiff the following false and scandalous hand-bill, which he circulated most extensively:—

«Plymouth, May 20.— 5l. Reward. Whereas Sophia Stak, my servant, absconded from my house yesterday evening, and is supposed to have stolen some of my plate; whoever shall apprehend the said Sophia Stak shall, upon her conviction, receive the above sum of 5l. She is about 25 years of age, stout and fresh coloured; whoever harbours her shall be prosecuted according to law."

The first witness was an officer in the mayor's court, Plymouth. He remembered the plaintiff and defendant being both present before the mayor on the 29th May last. The former had been charged by the latter with stealing his spoons. The hand-bill in question was shown to the defendant on that occasion, by his attorney: defendant said it was printed at his request. It had been stuck about the town of Plymouth. Plaintiff gave herself up: she was not in the custody of a constable. Scammel said he had lost 2 spoons. Plaintiff denied having taken them. Witness searched her lodgings, but could not find them. He accused her of absconding from his service: she replied, that he had had intercourse with another woman in the absence of his wife, and that she left his service solely on that account. On his cross-examination witness said, that he must have known if any one had taken her in custody; that he did not recollect the plaintiff's charging her with taking away her trunk through a window, or of his reminding her that he had forbidden her to go that evening.

A young lady, of a very respectable appearance, remembered plaintiff's applying to be taken into her service on the 22nd May last. She had declined her offer on account of her being accused of theft.

Another witness, Southerlands, said that the plaintiff slept at his house when she quitted Scammel's service, but that he had ordered her to leave it for several reasons. One was, that he was liable to a prosecution for keeping her; another was, that he did not choose to harbour a thief, and that he had reason to fear he should offend Scammel.

Caroline Fryer resided in the defendant's house at the time plaintiff was there. In point of fact, knew the cause of her going, but does not think that her intention was known to the defendant. The latter ordered her not to go; he told her that as she had endeavoured to ruin him and Mrs. Wright, he would give her a character. The witness said, she went away at the same time and did not return. The plaintiff often complained to her of the defendant's cruelty in attempting to take away her character by saying she had stolen plate. Witness left her place on account of a circumstance which had happened on the Sunday, the same which was the cause of the plaintiff's going away.

The apprentice girl was called, who proved that the plaintiff's box was given her out of a window; that her master told witness he missed two small spoons and some salt-spoons immediately afterwards. She said, she had not seen them for a long time before; that he was not in the habit of using them; that she told her master 3 out of the 5 spoons in use were in the cupboard, and that she had washed the other two in the morning for the use of the family. She was present when plaintiff packed up her box: there was then no shadow of suspicion that she had stolen any thing.

Mr. Baron Graham ably summed up the evidence to the jury.

He observed, that absconding seemed to insinuate a flying from justice - an attempt to escape from its' reach. Was this the case here, where the plaintiff was seen to have voluntarily surrendered herself? The learned judge very strongly alluded to the presence of the defendant when the plaintiff was present before the mayor, and his suffering her to be discharged without following up his accusation with a prosecution. There was not a tittle of evidence to prove any thing lost even. The whole appeared to him an inexcusable attempt to ruin a young person's character, and thereby to cover the infamy of one crime by the commission of another.

The jury returned their verdict immediately. - Damages 200l.