The Express.
London, England, 1855-08-11 00:00:00

" 23,

" Sir,—ln the event of Mary Hill Galling upon you, or
referring to you, I think it right, in common justice to my-
self, and to prevent any imposition on her pert, to inform
you why she left my mother's service—namely, the abstrac-
tion of money, breaking open drawers, sod the contents
missing. It is molt palatal to me to make this statement,
but if you will call en me I will substantiate i t, ate.,
" C. E. Strzvexs."
This wu the libel for which the action wu brought. He
(the learned counsel) understood that it would be con-
tended that the letters were not written by Mrs. tterens
but by her son Mr. Charles Edward Stevens, but it mat-
tered not by whose hand the letter was written. If the
jury were of opinion that in fulfilment of her threat Mrs.
Stevens had been a party to their publication the plaintiff
would be equally entitled to recover reasonable compensa-
tion for the injury so maliciously dose to her character.
The plaintiff was then called, and deposed to the tuts as
opened by Mr. Stone. She expressed her belief that the
letter was in the handwriting of the defendant's son Charles; ,
the signature of it she believed to be in Mn. Stevens's
ewn handwriting. Witnesses were also called.
Mr. Collier submitted that the plaintiff mat be nonsulted,
as no case for the jury had been made out.
Mr. Stone, contra, said the plelutiff had expressed her
belief that the signature to the letter was in the handwriting
of the defendant.

The learned Judge said he did net think that he could
stop the ease, but he would give Mr. Collier leave to move,
if he chose, to abandon his right to call evidence.
Mr. Collier said be would prefer taking a verdict, and he
then mended to address the jury for the defeadant, who
he said was a lady of the highest respectability, and who,
to her great mtefortaae, had hired the plaintiff as a minute.
There was no justification plead on the record, and he (Mr.
Collier) was not there to contend that the plaintiff bad eont-
milted the theft alleged against her; nay, he was willing
to hope and trait that she was innocent of that charm. Bat
rs this be would say, that M. Stevens had acted en bona
fide empictioe that she had done so. So far from ever
having entertained any vindictive feeling towards the
plaintiff, she bad always treated her with the greatest kind.
sees, cad he should distinctly prove to the jury not only that
the did act write the letters, but that she had ao kaowledge
whatever of their having been written until some days
afterwards. The Muth was, that the defendant had a ens,
Mr. Charles Edward Stevenr, whe happened to have lest
some Nockerehiefs. Now, young Mr. Stevens could have

endured the loss of mosey sr goods, but whirs he loud
that his wardrobe had been invaded, and his favourite ties
abstracted, he could restrain himself no longer, and, in an
irritable moment, he eat down down and employed a clerk
is his brother's Aloe to write the very foolish, and, he would
admit, improper letter, which formed the subject of the
action.

Mrs. Steven, and her eon were then called, and both of
them swore distlactly that the letter was written at the dic-
tation of the latter, at his brother's counting-house in White
Hart.court, and that it, and the other copies of it, were
signed by himself, and sent without the cognisanoe of the
mother to the parties to whom they were addressed. This
evidence was further supported by that of the brother's
clerk, who deposed to booing written the letters at Mr.
Charles Stevens's dictation, and to baring directed them and
posted them from White Hart-eourt.
Mr. Collier then proceeded to sum up the evidence for the
defence, pointing out how completely it had borne out the
statement made by him to the jury.
Mr. Stone replied at much length, elonementing upon the
testimoay of the defendant and her son, and asking the jury
to come to the conclusion that Mrs. Stevens had fulfilled the
threat which she held out to the unfortunate plaintiff on the
24th of June, and had been privy to the publication, if not
to the absolute writing, of the letters.
The learned judge having summed up the evidence, the
jury, after some consultation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.