The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1885-04-07 00:00:00

9 OT LAX.
The Ottley Case.

The hearing of this suit WAS concluded on NVeolnes-
da;tr. A. Charles, Q.C., and Mr. Deane appeared fen
the Bishop of Salisbury; Sir H. Giffard. Q.C., and
Mr. Jenne for Mr. Ottley; and Sir Walter Phillimore
Q. 0., and Mr. Newton watched the case on behalf of
Mist Raper.
In the course of some discussion in regard to a pre-
paid of Mr. Charles, to call evidence to whom the
suggestion that Mn.. Ottley, the principal witness,
was in the habit of drinking, the learned judge said
there was noevidence to warrant him in coming to such
a conclusion.
Mr. Inglis and Mr. Nethcrelift. experts in hand-
writing, consulted upon the ooide the poomoter and
for the defames', loth said it WAA their opinion that the
handwriting of the documents which purported to be
copies lov Mr. Ottley of a diary kept by Miss Raper
was neither that of Mr. Ottley nor that of Miss Raper.
The conclusion they arrived at pointed rather to Mrs.
Ottley having been the writer.
Sir H. Catarrh Q.C., on behalf of Mr. Ottley,
observed that this WA:, the first time in his experience
that he had seen the spectacle of two experts in hand.
writing consulted upon opposite sifti's concurringlin
the jocinnient they had arrived at. He contended that
the documents were yredteed by Mrs. Ottley, who
put them forward as the iodusitiodi upssu which, if she
could succeed, she would accomplish her husbaects
ruin. If Mrs. Ottley forged these letters it was char
she was the source of all the calumny which had been
spread with regard to Mr. Ottley. He contended
that the charge of drunkennewo had nnt been isitah.
lished, and said the charge of indecent conduct had
h,,,eu met by one of the moot conclusive efilia he had
I ever ht. 144 ef There was, he said, no evidence of the
I respondent harms taw b4y words to his wife cal-
-1 colated to prodnee scandal, noir • it any persoto,l
I violence. The charges against his client' had been
I completely answered.
Mr. Charles, Q.C., in reply. molunitted that the in.
emeinatei letters were in Mr. Ottley'.. handwriting.
'the minds of the •xperts had been directed too the
wrong point. 30. Ottley had three opportunities of
taking up his peesent line of defence, but had neg-
lected them all. Besides that, he contended that
there was material evidence which showed that the
originals of thole documents were written by Miss
Raper. He could not see how it could he contended
that Mn. Ottley wished to drive her husband fmn, his
Isoneflow, as she had no means of her own. No doubt
she warn a jealous woman, but he submitted she had
good ground for her jealousy. He contended that on
the occasion slimed Mr. Ottley was intoxicated, and
that he had used language towards his wife an as to
cause scandal. In reference to the slimed indecent
conduct, the alibi sought to be established wax not, he
thought., at all conclusive, and did not outweigh the
tePtimon7 they had upon the subject.
lOs Lordslup, in oving jt,e(rtrent, said the CAM' was
meat extraordinary 11110, and Le (+mkt hot a,q, that
he had formed a conclusion 'aittsfactdry to be, own
u,iods t" What did happen in regard to the incriiiii•
nated Paters, tit Which there wax • Mat dell of in..c,nt matter and a great deal ot • tasaiviout.. kind. He
thought, however, he Maal in a peition to pronounce
an opinion upon the whole case. In ca.es of this kind
there was nothing more important than to try and

aacertain the quarter from which the cluuge had come.
The first face he met .m enquiring in that direction
WAN that of Mrs. Ottley, who aly.eare.l to have si.rewl
reports against her Impact:A. He thought the anewer
to the charge of indecent exposure was complete, and
acquitted. in the fullest manner, both Mr. Ottley and
Miss Raper of any misconduct in their relation,.
There warn not a tittle of evidence against them. He
was aatiofied that neither Mr. Ottley nor Mies Raper
wrote the incriminated papers, but he could not may
who wrote them. It WWI to him a dark mystery. As
to the charge of drunkenness he also completely
Acquitted Mr. Ottley, mud considered the charge of
violenoe to his wife a trumpery one. In the result he
held that the article,. in this case were not proved,
and tni charge had hen substantiated against Mr.
Ottley which could form the subject of ecclesiastical
censure. lie gave amt. against the Bishop.