The Press.
London, England, 1858-12-18 00:00:00

Examination resumed : I knew nothing of Mr.
Guernsey, and therefore I wrote him a note, to
which I received an answer to this effect, stating that
it was all correct; that he had sent the documents
for the use of the editor, adding that, of course, he
did not wish his name to appear. In consequence
of this reply, the despatches were published in the
Daily News of the 12th of November. In the week
after I wrote to him, requesting to see him ; he
called and introduced himself as the person who had
sent the documents. I am confident I had no pre-
vious knowledge of him. I said I sent for some
explanation with respect to the documents. I said
he must give me some information as to how he
became possessed of them. The prisoner said they
had been left with him, but said be could not give
any further information then. Saw nothing more of
the prisoner until he attended the summons at the
Police•court.

Sergeant Parry then proceeded to take several
technical objections to the indictment, which
Mr. Baron Martin, without calling upon the Attor-
ney-General to reply, overruled, and said it was a
question for the jury with what intent the prisoner
had taken these despatches.
Serjeant Parry then proceeded to address the jury
for the defence. Before (said he) the jury could
come to this conclusion they must be satisfied of two
facts—first, that the prisoner's was the hand that re-
moved the despatches from the Colonial office ; and,
secondly, that when he (lid so he had the intention to
deprive the Colonial-office of the property, such as it
was, that it possessed in those documents. He could
not deny that Mr. Guernsey had committed a most
imprudent and unjustifiable act in taking away these
despatches—an act that he would regret all his life,
and which had placed him in his present disgraceful
position, and the full consequences of which were
still in suspense. He could not deny that, actuated
either by a feeling of anger and disappointment, ur a
silly desire to bring before the public the information
be had obtained possession of, at a time when con-
siderable exoitement prevailed upon the subject, the
prisoner had banded these despatches to the editor of
the Daily News fur insertion ; but he (Sergeant
Parr)) said be very much overrated his own powers
if he did not satisfy the jury that this act was as far
removed from the offence of felony as could possibly
be imagined. It was not necessary to be a lawyer to
understand what was meant by the term " stealing ;"
the common sense of every one told him that to steal
was to take away the property of another without his
consent, and afterwards apply it to his own use. If Mr.
Gcernsey he d required payment for these despatches
it might have been a very different thing, but there
was nothing of the sort ; he merely required that
they should be published, and he did not derive the
slightest benefit whatever from the transaction. He
was quite sure that the prisoner bad long ago bitterly
repented that he bad been led by anger, or by folly
into the commission of such an act, and he sincerely
hoped that the jury would not come to the conclusion
that it was an act that amounted to the serious crime
of felony, for which the unfortunate gentleman at
the bar might be punished, and deprived of his
liberty.
The Attorney General replied, contending that the
act was that of the prisoner, and amounted to a
larceny. The prosecution was instituted by his
advice to show to the public that no one connected
with the Colonial office had, either directly or sur.
reptitionsly, obtained a copy, and were the cause of
the publication of the despatches.
Mr. Baron Martin summed up very briefly, and
after calling the attention of the jury to the form of
the charge against the prisoner, he said that the
question they bad to decide was, whether the pri•
scoer, in taking these despatches in the manner it
appeared to be admitted he had done, was guilty of
the offence of larceny. The learned judge then said
that according to his definition of that offence it con-
sisted in the taking away the property of another
without his consent, and with the intention at the
time to convert that property to the use of the taker.
A good deal had been said about the nature of the
article that had been taken in the present instance,
bet it appeared to him that such documents as these
were clearly the subject of larceny, and that inas-
much as the stealing of the paper itself would have
been a felony, the fact of the paper being printed on
made no difference, and that this fact might in a
great many instances materially increase its value.
His lordship then referred to the facts, and said it
appeared to him that Mr. Walker had acted very
properly in the matter, and that he had done nothing
whatever to be ashamed of, and he concluded by
stating that the only question the jury had to decide
was, whether the evidence established to their sans.
faction that at the time the prisoner took the docu-
ments away from the Colonial office he intended to
deprive that office of all property in them and to
convert them to his own use.

The Jury, after ten minutes' consideration, at a
quarter past three, returned a verdict of " Not
Guilty."
blziprisoner seemed rather startled, but rousing
I smiled complacently around the court.