The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-03-11 00:00:00

THE LIBEL ON THE HON. MISS
SANDYS.

At the Worcester Assizes, the case of " i ti v. Waters"
came on fur hearing In the form of a criminal Information
against Mrs. Mary Ann Waters, for a libel Cu the Mon. Ctell
Sandys, sister of Lord Sandys:—
- - - -

_
The libel complained of was contained in a letter
dropped in the neighbourhood of Onitiereley court, the
seat of Lord Sandys, and in the publication of a notice
in a Birmingham paper, to the effect that the Hon.
Cecil Sandy& had been delivered of a stillborn infant.
The circumstances will doubtless be in the recollection
of our readers.
Mr. Powell, Q.C., who was for the prosecutior,
stated that the information wag obtained chiefly non
the till lavit uf an expert, who had compared the docu-
ments containing the libels complaioed of with letters
admitted to have been written by the defendant, and
deposed that in Ilia opinion all were written by the
blame person. On the ether hand, the defendant had
made an affidavit, in which she swore that she did not
write the libele and had no knowledge of them. Upon this
the Court of Queen's Bench had wade the rule absolute
for the information to hour, and the cage was entered fur
trial and would have been tried ha ordinary course, but un-
fortunately Mrs. Waters leas taken no ill ehortly afterthe
rule wan obtained that her life bad been despaired of, and
elle had contiuued very ill ever since. It therefore be.
Caine the duty of counsel to consider what COW GM they
would adviee should be taken under the circumstances.
The libel wag one of a very painful character, and it
WWI net desirable that proceedings respecting it should
be kept pending longer than could be poseibly avoided;
and therefore, Lady Sandys, who had no vindictive
fethisg on the subject, and had only wished to protect
her daughter from such strecioue aspersions, had left
it to them to act upon their own sewn of duty and res.
pousibility. Accepting this poeition, they had con-
sidereal the nature of the case and the evidence by
which they sought to establish the charge against the
defendant, and they could not conceal from them-
selves that, in asking the jory to de c:de between
evidence of opinion as to handwriting on the one
hand and the punitive oath of Mrs. Waterson the other,
they would be placing them in a very difficult and
',fed poeition. They had, therefore, thought it their
to advise Lady Sandys not to proceed farther with
the case ; and her ladyship, acting upon that advice,
had consented not to do no. At the same time, he un.
derstood that his learned friend WAS iLIStrIt teal by the
defendant to repeat the declare ion she had uniformly
made since the.: pr,ceedings were commenced, of her
disgust at the label, and of her utter disbelief of there
being any foundation for it. With his lordship's con-
sent, therefore, he would not offer any evidence, but
consent to a verdict of "Not Guilty" being given by
the jimmy.
Mr. ttuddleston, Q. C., said that be was cone eel bottle
defendant, and that his learned friend Was quite rielt
in stating that Mrs. Water's positively and dietinetly
denied all knowledge of the libels complained of, and
although it was true that she had been unwell, she
was not unable to take her trial, and was prepared to
meet and anxious to answer any accusation which
neight be made against her. She and her husband
desired him to repeat in the fullest manner her dried,
and to repudiate the notion that she had anything to
do with the writing, composition, or circulation of the
libel. No persons in this country could lo k with
more abhorrence on the character of this libel than
they dial. They did not believe that there was any
foundation for the imputation made upon the
character of the 3 oung lady. Mrs. Waters therefore
was prepared to accede to the suggestion made by his
learned friend.
Mr. Justice Smith bait fly addreesed the jury, saying
there could be no doubt that toruebody had published
a cruel and baseless calumny in this country upon the
caaracter of the young lady, the daughter of the prose-
cutrix. The Man mation alleged that Mrs. Wa:tra was
the author «no or publiffier of the libel ; but it war a
question whether the proeecutioa were able to bring
home the charge to the defendant, and the protecution
abandened. As no evidence was offered the jury
would find a verdict of Not Guilty.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict of Not
Goat!,

patufT
duty