The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-26 00:00:00

Katy intelligence.

THE REV. EBENEZER DAVIF.B v. DANIEL
PRATT, PUBLISHER OF THE BRITISH
BANNER."-ARBITRATION.

Mr. Whateley, Q.C., the arbitrator in this ease, re-
lamed the proceedings yesterday.
Ms. Ballantise and Mr. Barnard appeared as orotund for
the plaintiff; Mr. Serjeast Wilkins and Mt. BTUs repro.
rented the defendant

Mr. Samuel Morley examined—Said he was a merebort
en the Ceti of London, and had been far some years a sub-
scriber to the London Missionary Society, and also a mem-
ber of the London Congregational Chapel Building Society.
In 1850, when it was proposed to erect a chapel for Mr.
Davies in the Caledonian-road, be pramired to nibs :Abe
2001. towards its erection. In December, 1850, he heard
of charges which were weds against Mr. Daviet's moral
character, and he, together a ith Mr. Smith, called on Dr.
Tidenan in reference to these charges, in consequence of •
conversation he bad with Mr. Eusebius Smith.
[On the suggestion of Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, the evidence
of this witnea., given on the trial of Tidmen and Ainslie,
was read from the learned arbitrator's notes. It was pub-
lished at length in our columns.)
Examination continued-1 did not appoint the ceminit
tea. I rather think Mr. Davies had the appointment. The
resolutions pawed by that committee on the Ber►iee charges
were a compromise, but by all the members signing them I
conceived them to have been adopted by the entire com-
mittee. There was but one cpinion about the Greenwich
letter.

_....examined—l em quite certain the retolotione were
signed in the cemenittecroom, and agreed upon at tbe
time. lam of opinion that the resolutions were written i y
a member of the committee, and adopted by the entire
body.
Mr. Edwin Stacey examined—l am a clerk in thcMission-
, house, where I have been employed upwards of 20 years.
I have been married between 12 and 13 years. lam he-
tween 35 and 36 years of age. I have known Mr. Davits
since his embarkation in 1839, at which time I held the
office of shipping clerk, in which office I remained till
Christmas, 1814. I had never the slightest difference
with Mr. Davies ; neither was my conduct rein-
sured is consequent, of any complaint of his. As
fir as I know, he has never complained of me. I re-
member Mr. and Mrs. Davies coming home in the month of
March, 1845. I also recollect his going to Northampton-
shire. Mr. Davies had received Instructions from Mr.
Arundel, giving him particulars of his engagements in that
irdinty. It was not my duty to give Mr. Davies instruc-
tions. I don't believe Mr. Davies, previous to going on
those journeys, consulted me about the time. of starting of
the trains. I have not the slightest recollection of having
named to Mr. Davies the time he would return. I had no
knowledge of the hour or time he would return to London.
I did not know the day on which he would return. Hotted
no minionary engagements in London on the Monday, and
as far as I know had nothing requiring his presence. I had
no knowledge that he and his wife were going to the infant
school. (Letter put in) This is in my handwriting. I
first saw the letter of which this is a copy in the waiting-
room of the Misson-house. on Tuesday morning, the 4th
of Nov., 1845, between 10 and 11 o'clock. The original
letter was in tne handwriting of Mr. Ebenezer Davies. I
hage no doubt of that. I found the letter lying open on
thither. I read it from a certain part which in the first
instance struck my eye. I had not a moment's hesitation
almost coming to the conclusion that it was Mr. Davies.
writing. Until I got to the conclusion of the !attn. I did
not know it was addressed to Mee. Davies. Mr. Harley
was at that time in the establishment. I took the Ittter
immediately and showed it to Mr. Morley, who had bad
frequent opportunities of arcing Mr. Davies's handwriting.
After that I took a copy of the letter. (Letter produced )
This is the copy. Of that letter I took another copy by a
machine on tisane paper. I took my copy home and kept
it. Mr. Morley retained the tissue paper copy. 7 men-
tioned the circumstance that evening to Mrs. Stacey. On
the following morning I saw Mr. Morley. In coincidence
of that interview I retained the copy in my possession. Mr.
Arundel at this time was away—being ill. He died in
1847. He did not attend to his duties in 184 d.
I cut eff the posteript of and attestation to the letter
when I gave the copy of it to Mr. Prow. The letter
was kept in a cash-box at my house. I gave the letter to
Mr. Prout at the latter end of the year 18.50 in the Mission-
hours. I gave it to him in consequence of rumours I had
heard with respect to Mr. Davies about the Berbice White,
and my having been given the Greenwich letter to copy. I
deemed it my duty to show the letter to Mr. Front. The
reason 1 cut off the attestation and postscript was because
Mr. Morley objec.ed to have his name wield up in this
affair. He had left the establishment at that time. Mr.
Prout was then home secretary. After I had copied the
letter I put it into as envelope, and in a lat.r part of the
day I placed the letter in Mrs. Davies'e hand. That was
in the Mission house. She was sitting before the fire is
the waiting-room.
Cross-examined—l cut my former evidence out of a news-
paper this morning, and have read part of it for the perigee
of refreshing my memory—about two or three dates. in
noel netance I made a mistake about a date in giving my
former evidence. I em still a clerk in the elission-house.
I have an increased salary. I will not swear that it was
not increased since I gave Mr. Prout the letter. I cut toil
the weststion and postscript in 1860, as Hr. Henley had
said in 1845 be would have nothing to io with it.
Mr. Benetton—Five years afterwards! Why did you
cut off the postcript
Witness—Because it might have been said that the
attestation was subsequently added.
Examination coatinued —People would have been more
suspicious if I had only cut off the attestation. It did not
occur to me that Mr. Beale's name app, ared in the post-
script. It was not Mr. Beale of Wellingberough Beale
was a messenger in the Mission-house. The letter I found
was not in an envelope; it mast have been taken out of the
envelope. I began by reading the middle of the letter, but
did not know it was intended for Mrs. Darin. I knew it
was not for me. I swear I gave the original knee to Mrs.
Davies. My impression is that I gave the letter to Mrs.
Davies between twelve and one o'clock. I mi„thrherre
stated to tae Congregation.' Board that it was four o'clock.
When I was called before that committee I had a greet
many questions to answer. I was eatremsly unwell, and
hardly knew what I did answer, but I was firm upon the
tae's I believe I stated it was four o'clock a hen I yews
the letter to Mrs. Davis,, as you are so positive
about it. I believe I also stated that Mr. Davis hid
come in an hour afterwards. I at that time, said,
"she opened it sad read a few lines of it with a smile,
on her countenance." Very likely I said " she reed it with
• eagle on her countenance." When I give the letter to
Mrs. Davies I said, " Here is a letter for you, Mrs. Davies,
which I picked up." She opened it and read it "'with a
smile on her countenance." The general post letters ego
delivered about nine o'clock in London. I generally went to
the Mission-hose about half-past nine. My office was at
the back of the Mission-house. I had no view of the wall-
ing room from my office. I was going to the bookcase to
get some books when I picked up the letter. There was no
one present at the time. There were one or two gentlemen
in the room when 1 gave the letter to Mrs. Davies. I will
swear I have sot stated that Beale saw me give the letter ;
he was in the room, and might have seen me do so. I have
not sines asked Beale about the matter, nor suggested that
any one els . should do so. I know tee postscript to that
letter referred to Beale. I know the day on which I found
the letter was Tuesday, as it was the day after the financial
Committee sat, which was on a Monday. I will swear inc-
tively that Mr. Davies did not consult me abort the trains
to Wellingborough. It was my duty to copy Mr. Arun-
del's letters. I made the copy of the Wellingborough
letter in the presence of Henley. The ebbreviatioos
and lines in the copy are the same se is the
original. "My very dear Py." is the mime as in the origi-
nal. I have no doubt that the termination of the word
Py." was spelled with a "y." There was • box at the
Minion-hoes for the reception of letters to go by post. I
made the copy in my own room. Mr. Morley read over the
original, and compared it with the copy. This was between
10 and 11 o'clock on the Tuesday. I dined in the City that
<ley, at about 2 o'clock. My impression now is, that I give
the letter before I went to dinner. When I stated it was
4 o'clock, I did net attach much importance as to the hour.
I have since thought the matter over a great deal. I think
I gave the letter to Mrs. Davies before my dinner hour,
and I dined between 1 and 2 o'clock. I cannot soy the
exact hour Mr. Davies called at the Mission.house. I
think it was between 4 and 6. I stated at the Congrega-
tional Library that I had given the letter to Mrs. Davies
about an hour before I saw Mr. Davies. I sow
Davies leave the Mission-house with Mr. Davin. He did
not remain long. I think Mrs. Davies was in the messen-
ger's room. They left the Mission-house together. Mr.
Davies met me in his " tuned similicer way." I
did not mention shoat the letter to Mr. Davies.
lam not at all ashamed of having copied that letter. I am
sorry for it. Socha letter was never seen, I never with to
see its like again—it wee most horrible. I remainel on
friendly terms with Mr. Davies. I consider the letter to be
filthy and loathsome. The marks in the copy were in the
origins). I began to read where the letter was underlined.
When I came to the latter end of the litter—" Your lo.iog
husbead, nurser Davies," I discovered that it was for
Mts. Davies. Morley was younger than,) was at the time.
I showed the letter to him in order that be might confirm
my statement that the letter was in Ur. Dniea's hand-
writing. I was not afraid that my statement would act be
believed.
Ite-examined—My veracity bas not been questioned since
I have been in the 'employment of the Moirowhouse. My
present salary is 1601. a year—it was 1301. It was iocrened
in contequence of having to perform more onerous duties.
It was in 185! the meeting of the Congregational Board
Committee took place. I was called before that committee
'at a moment's notice. This was seven years after the trans-
action on which I was examined took place. My attention
the ist-- • Alter h"-.

i