A Disgraceful Fellow

All I wanted to do today was pin down the whereabouts of some Bugden and Mitchell family members in Maidstone, so I was pleased to find an article in the Maidstone Telegraph wherein the wife of an ancestor's first cousin gave her street address as part of her testimony into a paternity suit.

The article itself I thought worthy of reproduction. From the attention given to setting up the characters of the two parties in the title and opening paragraphs ("A Disgraceful Fellow" and "a respectably dressed young woman") to the insistence of the reputed father that they had parted as friends, it could be found in any newspaper today.

If you've a fatherless ancestor in Maidstone, Wateringbury or Bearsted, the following might be of interest, especially when the reputed father testifies that this is likely the sixth illegitimate child attributed to him - that he knows of! 

Maidstone Telegraph 5 March 1870, Page 8

MAIDSTONE PETTY SESSIONS.

(Saturday).

Before D.S. White, Esq. (in the chair), and G. Edmett, Esq.

A DISGRACEFUL FELLOW.

     William Randall, coachman to Mr Kipping, Bearsted, was summoned by Mary Grayland, of Perryfields, Maidstone, charged with being the father of her illegitimate child.

     Mr Goodwin appeared for the complainant, and Mr Stephenson for the defendant.

     Complainant, a respectably dressed young woman, deposed – I live with my parents in Perryfields, and defendant is coachman to Mr Kipping, Bearsted. I first became acquainted with him in Sept., 1868, and I was then living at Mrs Hart’s, King-street. An intimacy sprung up between us, and he generally took me out three times a week, and promised me marriage. Improper intercourse took place between us in Sept., 1868, and continued, ending in my being pregnant. I was delivered of a child on the 15^th of January last, and defendant is the father. He often came to the house for me, and once I went in the carriage with him to Bearsted. We kept company till a month before last Christmas, and he, never to me, denied being the father of the child, but promised to support it. Last Michaelmas, an interview took place between my mother, defendant, and myself. He said it was a bad job, and hoped that the young d--- would die. He promised to help me when the time came, but he never paid me anything.

     Cross-examined – I did not try and get him in the house. Did not speak to him about the matter till Michaelmas. I did not tell my mother I was in the family way till Michaelmas. I know a person of the name of Kidney. I have walked with the defendant about two years, and have been in the habit of attending the Bearsted clubs. I never danced on the Green. On one occasion, while we were there, a woman came up to Randall, owned him as her husband, and said she had had two children by him. I then left him, and came home with Kidney and my mother.

     Mrs Ellen Bugden, wife of George Robert Bugden, deposed that she lived in Randall-street. On the 28^th of June, she saw the complainant and defendant together at Bearsted, and Kidney, warehouseman to Mr Roper, with witness and several others, walked home with complainant.

     Cross-examined – There was nothing extraordinary, or wrong upon the road.

     William Sprange, clerk to Mr Ottway, solicitor, King-street, stated that the office was next door to Mrs Hart’s, where the complainant lived. Witness frequently saw the defendant go to the house, and observed them going out together.

     Cross-examined – He had been a lawyers’ clerk about two years. It was not part of his duty to look after people going to the house. He had not watched anyone except defendant.

     Re-examined – It is part of my duty to keep my eyes open.

     Mrs Ann Grayland, mother of complainant stated that she lived in Perryfields. Last Michaelmas, she knew her daughter was pregnant, and was told who was the father of the child. She saw the defendant upon the subject, and he said if witness would let him know when the young woman was confined, he would pay all expenses. Defendant did not deny being the father of the child. After complainant was confined, defendant was written to but took no notice of the letter. The next time he was spoken to, he said he did not intend to pay till he was made.

     Cross-examined – I can’t write. I don’t know the letter produced as I can’t read. Don’t know anything of the letter. My daughter cannot write. The nurse wrote a letter to defendant.

     Mr Stephenson wished to put in two letters, and Mr Goodwin objected.

     Mr Stephenson said it was a most dishonest attempt to put the child upon defendant. He admitted the parties were courting for a long time, but denied defendant’s paternity. The question of marriage had been done away with, and defendant had not seen complainant for some months till the last June Flower Show at Maidstone.

     Defendant, being sworn, deposed – I am coachman to Mr Kipping. I courted complainant for some time, but the intercourse was broken off in January, 1869, because I had a letter from her saying she thought she was in the family way. A short time before she said she was all right, and I thought everything was not proper when I received the letter. On my oath I had no improper intercourse with her after January, 1869, but saw her at the show in June. Her mother came to me at Bearsted, and asked me what I intended doing. I told her I should not trouble about it. When we parted I was courting someone else. We parted friendly.

     Mr Goodwin consented to one letter being read, which stated that complainant had left her situation, in consequence of the state she was in, and unless she heard from defendant, proceedings would be taken.

     Defendant, cross-examined – We parted on friendly terms. I did not seduce the girl. I had improper intercourse with her and then abandoned her. Never saw her from January to June. I used to go out with her once or twice a week.

     Mr Goodwin – Is this the first girl you have seduced?

     Mr Stephenson objected to the question, and the Bench ruled in his favour.

     Mr Goodwin – Is this the first child attributed to you?

     The question was objected to, but the Bench ruled it was proper.

     Defendant – I don’t know how many children have been put upon me, there might be half-a-dozen or less. A young woman had two children but not by me. A young lady residing in Maidstone, told me I was the father of her child. I courted her and left her. I did not leave a situation at Wateringbury for getting the cook and housemaid in the family way. I might have been discharged for immoral conduct. I have not married either of the girls. I have great doubt about complainant’s child being mine. I did not promise to pay the expences of the confinement, and never paid a penny, and don’t mean to if I can help it. I should pay if the child belonged to me.

     Mr Goodwin addressed the Bench, and contended that there was no defence. He felt sure the statement of defendant, who admitted that he was the father of six bastard children, and had abandoned all the young women, would not be believed, in preference to the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses.

     The Bench decided that the defendant was the father of the child, and designated his character as being most disgraceful, in seducing young women and deserting them. They should enforce the highest payment the law allowed.

     To pay 5s per week for the first six weeks, and 2s 6d per week afterwards, with all costs.

(For the curious, the National Archives currency converter says that 5s in 1870 was equivalent to £11.43 in 2005, and 2s 6d to £5.71)