The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-05-21 00:00:00

THE CASE OF THE REV. MR. HATCH.

Directly after the terthination of the trial of
Eugenie Plummer steps were talien 15y the friends
of Mr. Hitch to presentU memorial to flit queen,
through the Secretary of State, praying.for Ms
pardon. The memorial has been forwarded to
Mr. Baron Channel!, who tried the case, and is
now staying at Brighton for his opinion, but
at the time of writing no answer has been
returned, and Mr. Hatch still remains a prisoner
in Newgate. . _

Much has been said of Mr. Hatch absenting
himself from home; but it is not generally known
that at that time an attachment had been issued
against him in respect of calls upon 200 shares
held by him in the General Indemnity Insurance
Company, which is being wound up under a
decree of the Court of Chancery. A detainer was
lodged at the prison, but by the aid of a number
of laymen, the sum of £5O was raised and paid
by Mr. Holt, of Bucklersbury, by way of com-
promise, so that when the Queen's pardon arrives
he will be free.
LIBERATION OF THE REV. MR. HATCH.

The Secretary of State has advised Her Majestj,
to grant a free, pardon to the Rev. Mr. Hatch,
which will be immediately prepared. In the
meantime an order for the immediate release of
the prisoner was despatched from the Home-office
on Saturday afternoon.
The following letters have appeared in the
Times :

2, Tanfleld-court, Temple, May 17.
the Times, after. the report of the
sentence of Eugenia Plummer, your reporter
makes the observation that the child exhibited no
emotion on the passing of her sentence by the
judge. This appears to me to be an unintentional
error. I stood very near the child during the
delivery of the sentence, and I observed she was
in tears nearly from the'commencement. Child
as she is, she can neither know nor feel the extent
of the calamity which has fallen upon her ; but
that she has felt it I can answer for, and ask that
by the publication of this letter you will in some
measure remove the misconstruction to which the
observation in your very • influential paper has
given rise. It may, perhaps, here not be out of
place for me to express my full belief that the
child is innocent of the charge upon which she
has been convicted.—l am. ITCH obedient ser-
vant, W.. 4, HOCK,
Agent for the Attorney for the Defence.

.
Athenaeum, May 15.
SlR,—The indictment of Eugenie Plummer for
perjury, which has just terminated in her convic-
tion, has been rightly c htracterised by Mr. Baron
Channell as one of the most extraordinary cases
ever heard in an' English court of justice. With
the general merits of this trial I do not propose
to deal ; but as the case, when duly considered,
affords a striking illustration of a serious defect
in our criminal jurisprudence, I am anxious, in
the language of the Clapham school of divines, to
"improve the occasion."
The defect to which I allude is the rule of law
which prohibits every person, and the wife of
every
_person,
.who stands as a defendant at a
'criminal bar from giving evidence on oath. Let
us see how that rule has operated in the case in
question. In December last the Rev. Henry
Hatch was indicted at the Old Bailey for the
very serious offence of indecently assaulting Miss
Plummer, a little girl twelve years of age, who
was one of his pupils. Such deeds are deeds
of darkness; and the very nature of the charge
almost precluded the _possibility of any disin-
terested eyewitness being present to confirm
or 'contradict the statement made by - the
prosecutrix. One would imagine that in
such a case, if in no other; the proper course to
pursue would be to hear all that could be said,
first.by the accuser, and next by the accused, and
then to decide from . the conflict of testimony on
which side the truth lay. This seems to be the
natural mode of procedure which common. sense
would suggest, and which justice would sanction.
But the law of England takes' a different view of
the subject ; and while pretending b reverence the
maxim, aildi alterant parteni, it doggedly compels
the jury. -to hear only one side. It
.opens the
mouth of the prosecutor, but it closes the mouth of
the defendant. Nay, it does mere, for it closes. also
the mouth 'of the defendant's wife. However
material facts may be to which the defendant or
his wife can depose, they will not be permitted;
under any circumstances, to divulge what they
know. In the case of Mr. Hatch this rule ope-
rated with twofold injustice. Eugenie Plummer,
in describing the assaults _which she alleged had
been committed upon her, laid the scene of one of
them—cOntrary to all that might have bean
expected—in the very room occupied by Mrs.
Hatch. Here was an opportunity for testing
the truth of her story.' Let the jury hear what
the husband and wife have to say on tins part
of the . case. Examine them separately, cross-
examine them astutely, and compare their state-
ments with each other, and with the child's. 0
dear no—that will never do ! They may state
what is not true—they may mislead the weak
jury. They must not be examined at all. The
two best witnesses, next to the prosecutrix her-
self, are inadmissable to testify. The result was
what might have been anticipated in such a state
of the law. The uncontradicted testimony of Miss
Plummer was believed, and the rev. defendant was
a ruined man. One only course was open to him,
as affording
,a possible chance of re-establishing
his innocence. He resolves to indict his accuser for
perjury. Here the tables are turned. He and his
wife can state what they know, and the girl's evi-
dencee annot be heard. The trial comes on, and the
verdict of the second j ury is diametrically opposed
to that pronounced by the first. No man can
blame either of the juries, but every man must
feel that both of them have been placed in an
unfair position. Each has been forced by law to
decide on what was practically an ex parte state-
ment. There have been two trials, and at
neither
.has an opportunity been afforded for
hearing "the whole truth." I do not intaii 'to
suggest for one moment that the last verdict may
have been erroneous. I believe that verdict to
have been a righteous judgment, but Still I cannot
disguise the fact that it would have been more
satisfactory both to.the public and to the jurors
themselves had the law permitted, as I venture
to contend that it ought to have permitted, ,the
examination 'and cross-examination of Eugenie
Plummer.. It was a grave defect in the law
which made the second trial necessary ; the same
defect iu, the law has made the second trial
inconclusive.--I remain, yours faithfully,
J. PITT TAYLOR.

s)porttug

LATEST BETTING.

• TATTERSALL'S •
DM'? : 3 to 1 agst Wizard. taken ; 9 to 2 'agst Umpire,
taken t• 11 to 2 agst Thornianby, taken, 12 to lagst Nntbourne,
offeeed; TOO to6-agst Buccaneer, taken; 29 to 1 aist Horror,
taken; 20 to I.agst High Treazon, take 2.5 to 1; 25 to 1 agst
Tom Bowline, taken, 40 to 1 agst Sutton; taken; 40 to 1 agSt
Laneheiter, taken ; 1,000 to 10 agst Largesse, taken ; 1,000 to
10 agst Tiger, taken ; 1,000 to 6 agst Man-atlArms, taliett;-
1,000 to 5 agst Ebony, taken'; 1,000 to 5 agstlTpperhand, taken.
OAKS : 7to 2 agetSeelusion; taken and Offered; 5 to 1 agst
Viatka; taken; 100 to 15 agst Rupee, taken; 8 to 1 agst
Sagitta, taken; 8 to 1 agst Emily, taken.. ..
MANCHESTER.
Dram.: 6 to 2 agst The Wizard, takon ; 4 to 1 agst Umpire,
taken and offered ; 6 to 1 agst ThormartbY, ' taken ; 12 to 1
agat Nutbourne, taken ; 16 to 1 agst High Treason offered,
take 20 to 1 ; 16 to 1 agst Buccaneer, take 20 to 1 ; 16 to 1 apt
Horror, taken and offered; 25 to 1 apt Torn Bowline, taken
arm offered ; 40 to 1 agst Sutton, taken; 50-to 1 agst Lanebes
ter, taken ; 100 to 1 agst The Drone, offered ; 100 to 1 aFst
Tiger, taken.

• RACING FIXTURES FOR 1860.
MAY.
Epsom Summer Meeting.... 22 Hungerford....,
Manchester
"JUNE.
5 Tilbury C1ub..........
8 Stoekbridge
13 Winehefter
13 Newcastle.
15 Chelmsford

Ascot
Hulick
Hampton
Newton
Southampton
Odiharu

, • ..-
i• JULY.
•
Nentmarket July Meeting' 3 Nett i n gham. l7
Carlisle
Worcester Summer Meeting -5 '- Stamford ' l9
'Liverpool 9 Knutsford
Bridgend
Cambridge
Abingdon • l2 Hartlepool. ..................... 30
Pontefract
AU GST.
1 Oxford . . ......................... 16
3 PI yrnOtith ........................ 21
- '........................... 22
„
8 Lichfield. . . ............. ...,..... 17
13 Stockton.. . ..... . ..... . ... .., 2B

Brighton
Brighton Club
Wolverhampton
Reading.
Radcliffe
Egham

SEPTEMBER.
4 -Leicester..
6 -Monmouth .. ......
6 _Richmond . ... . .....
11 Msnehes+or Autumn ....
17 Newmarket 1.0. M.
OCTOBER.
• 3 .'Newmnrket Houghton 22
R WOrcester Autumn...—. , 30
NOVEMBER.
Hertford 1 Shrewsbury Autumn M lb
Liverpool Autumn Meeting 7 _ '

Warwick
DerhT
Kelso
Doncaster
Chesterfield

19
20
IE
21
25

Bedford
Newm,rket S.O.M

COURSING FIXTURES FOR 18b0.
OCTQBER. -
Place. CountY. Judge Meeting..
Wiltshire (Amesbury) Wilts .. .................................. 15, &c
S. Lane. (Southport) Lancashirel'i, &c
Baldock Club Hertfordshire. Mr. Warrick ....• 17, &c
County Louth Club lreland 17, IS
Broigham & W. Open Westrinreland. 23, &c
Brough &Catter'k 0.0 Yorkshire, 23, &c
Carplington Club ......... Beds ......... ~... Mr. Warwick 29, &c
l'i OVF,M BE r .

. 6, &a
.13, &a
.13, Bce

Scaiorourch ............. Yorkshire
Newparket Champion Suffolk'
Coquetdale (Open) ...... Northumberl
Maltc,n Union Club ...• Yorkshire
Hanipton Court Chain. Middl4ge`x
Altear Club .. Lancashire
Marham Club ............ Norfolk
West Herefordshire.... Herefordshire .
DECEMBER.
Bricl6irk .................. Cumberland—. Mr. A. Dalzell .......
'-
4
Balcinck Open Champ. Retifordshire . Mr. Warwick ...
Ridgway C (Southport) Lancashire ............ • ..... ... 5,
6, tte
Mountainstown Club— Ireland'
................ 7
JANtARY, 1861. ................ 12, 13
I,ancashire
Bgds

Altettr Club .......
Cardlngton Club..

nO, 21
21, 22, 23
.21, 22, 23
..... 29, 30

......... .............. 23, 24
Mr. Warwick... 29, &c.

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, 1862.--At the weekly
meetingoftaheeturCoexisn, cill6otfithxeay,Society of Arts, commerce,
and Manufactures, the
secretary reported
that the guarantee fund was steadily progressing, aid
and now AUHAIitS tO £239,950.