{"character_count": 2400, "word_count": 441, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9950000047683716], "ccnet_perplexity": [1563.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
endeavOred to get her to return home, but Rogers refused to allow her. Subsequently, they both went to her mothers, where he introduced her to the family and bOarders as his wife. They remained there some time, and 1t was ascertained that he was reporting about that they were not married.

 1t was proved on the trial that Miss Vandle was prior to her acquaintance with the de- fendant very useful in the service of her mother. It also appeared that her father was living at the time of the commencement of this suit. hut that her mother had supported the family, and been separate from him for the last ten years. The defendant moved for a nonsuit on ;he ground that the action should have been brought in the name of the father, and produced release from him. The plaintiff replied by saying that this was an ac- tiOn technically for the loss of service, that Miss Vandle was in the service of the moth- CT, and that the defendant not having taken advantage of it by plea could not now inter- pose ihe objection. The court would not ex- press an opinion on this question. but ruled for the purposes of this trial that the action could be maintained in the name of the moth- CT. The defendant produced Miss Vandle to prove that she had not heen seduced by his arts to leave her mothers service, and that it was voluntary. In answer to question put by the plaintiffs counsel what conversation he had held with her on tho subject of her leaving, she replied that it twas her business It was proved by several of the boarders, and by Mr. Stephen Holt, her former landlord, for five years that Mrs. VandIe was an indus trious woman, of good character, and that her boarding house sustained good reputa- tiOn.

 Mr. Sherwood summed up the cause for the plaintiff, The Judge, in the course of his charge to the Jury, remarked, that in the whole course of his practice at the bar, and as long as he had been on the bench, he had never seen cause in which the defendant brought forward the woman he had seduced to testify to her own disgrace, and shield him from verdict against him. He said it was an aggravation rather than defence. and that if the defendant had heen proved to be a man of wealth, he should advise exemplary damages-but as no proof had been given of bis circumstances, he advised them not to give large damages.

 The Jury this morning brought in a sealed verdict for $l8oo.-N. Y. paper.