The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-02 00:00:00

try last gamma ; he said no. She asked him If Hall did.
She then look out her parse and turned out two or three
sovereigns, and said she had still money enough. She then
said M'Cormick, are you sure you did not look into the
vestry? lam sorry you are not a witness for me, as I
have only the old clerk, and he is not of muck use. She was
sorry she was not friendly with Braithwaite, as she could
de anything with him ; the servant-maid was of use as she
only knew Mr. Ramsey by taking letters to him. She gave
him 2a. for his lost time ; said that he must keep it, he
was a poor man with a family, and his situation in the church
would not support him, that he had better make a friend
when he could, and take the sovereigns and be her witness,
and she would see him well rewarded; that she was deter-
mined to go on, and bad employed two City lawyers, Mr.
Bodkin and Mr. Holder; and she would never be satisfied
' till she made Mr. Ramsey a vagrant.
W. Hall, bellringer of the church: Saw Mrs. Emerson at
her request in January last at her house, when she asked
him if he saw Mr. Ramsey taking liberties with her in the
vestry ? he said he did not. He said she had a witness who
saw him do so at her house.
James Joshua Wright, cash-taker and acting-manager at
Tivoli Gardens,Margate: Knew Mrs. Emerson singing there
in 1843. She was discharged by Mr. Reeves, the manager,
not on account of the death of the proprietor, but for other
reasons. (He was not allowed to state them by the decision
of the court.)—Richard Reeves was acting man for Mr.
Astley, proprietor of Tivoli Gardens in 1843. Mrs. Emerson
sang there under the name of Miss Sugden. He discharged
her in September for something else than the death of Mr.
Astley. The gardens were closed and re-opened, for the
purpose of getting rid of three of the performers, Mrs.
Emerson being one.—Walter Walton, master of the cere-
monies at Tivoli Gardens in 1843, knew Mrs. Emerson. She
offered him a remuneration on everything she should receive
from gentlemen to whom he should introduce her, and that
rich old gentlemen would be the best, while he himself was
to be received gratis. This was within a week after he
knew her. He never made any such proposal to her.
Another singer, Miss Harrington, heard her. She never
spurned him, or told him never to speak to her. He never
offered to introduce her to gentlemen if she would submit
to him. Mr. Emerson never threatened to horsewhip him
for his conduct to his wife, and he never begged his perks.
John Ricks, organist of Belgrave chapel—Knew Msa.
Emerson in the choir there ; she told him that she was vary
fond of a Mr. Black, and that one of her children was Ida
Ile had had a disagreement with Mrs. Emerson, sad had
been indicted by her husband for an assault; went before
a magistrate, when he was discharged, and paid two shil-
lings costs. Mrs. Emerson made this communication to him
in the organ-loft at the chapel, her husband sitting next her,
though at some little distance. The conversation arose from
his obeerving that one of the children was not like their
father. The children were here brought into court, to show
that they were all alike.
W. Mitchell proved that the Emersons occupied a house
of his, and left, swing a quarter's rent. Ho was afterwards
charged with an assault by Mrs. Emerson.—Miss Kingdom
was the proprietor of the house in Liverpool-street, Wal-
worth, in which Mrs. Emerson lived. Last Monday, the
prosecutrix's witness, J. Manning, came and asked to look at'
the window of the parlour, and did so.—Mr. Powell saw I
Manning examine the window, and ascertain the way is
which it opened.
Mr. Richard Peters, a director of the society for teaching
the blind to read, of which Mr. Ramsey is secretary—Hs
spoke in the highest terms of the character of Mr. Ramsay;
and stated, that he wan sitting in the orgauloft of St.
Michael's church, and heard Mrs. Emerson speak of Mr.
Ramsey in the most respectful terms.
Miss Eleanor Fisher, sister of Mrs Ramsey, said, het
mother resided in the Old Kent-road, in s street which was
in the wey to Liverpool-street, Walworth; Mr. Ramsey was
in the habit of visiting her mother. He returned from Ina
land in the autumn of 1645, and came to see her mother see
after.
Jane Clerk—Kept a coffee-house in Bernerestreet. Re-
membered Mrs. Emerson, this year, speak of some puns
she had presented to Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey.
The following clergymen and gentlemen then deposed in
the strongest manner to the moral and religious character of
Mr. Ramsey, anal expressed their disbelief of his being ca-
pable of the offence attributed to him: The Bishop of Lou-
don ; the Rev. Sir H. Dukinfield, vicar of St. Martin's ; the
Archdeacon of Middlesex ; the Rev. Mr. Saunders, curate of
St. Martin's ; the Rev. Mr. Dale; the Rev. Mr. Mortimer;
Sir John Bayley, and Mr. Woollaston, of the bar; Mr.
Woolmer, one of the committee of the society for teaching
the blind to read ; the churchwardens of St. Martin's. The
Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel, and the Rev. Montague Vil-
liers, were also called, but did not answer.
This was the defendant's case.
For the prosecution, a Mrs. Adams was called, and stated
that she heard Mr. Emerson threaten to horsewhip the wit-
ness Walton for his conduct to his wife, and that he ( Wal-
ton) begged his pardon. Emerson was lso called, and gm
similar testimony.
Mr. Serjeant She. then addressed the jury in reply in a
long and powerful speech, in which ho contended that no
stress should be laid on the evidence given to the character
of the defendant, as the clergymen and gentlemen who had
come forward were the last persons to know anything about
his immoralities • that the witnesses who had been called to
r damage the character of the prosecuteix, were unworthy of
credit, and that the case against the defendant was proved.
After an elaborate summing-up by the learned judge, the
jury, without the least hesitation, returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.—The case lasted till eight o'clock.
JOHNSON AND MASON O. LIINVIS.—Mr. Knowles end Mr.
Conic appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Watson and Mr.
Maoisty for the defendant.—The plaintiffs were the assignees
of Messrs. Hayward and Adams, bankrupts, late bookseller
in Paternoster-row. Defendant is an auctioneer, in Fleet-
street. This action was brought to recover certain goods and
money alleged to belong to the bankrupts' estate. The bank-
ruptcy took pace in July, 1816, and the fiat was issued on
the 6th of August. Before that period Messrs. Hayward and
Adams were in difficulties, and, according to the plaintiff's
statement, Mr. Hayward, who conducted the business in
town, sent certain quantities of goods to the shop of defendant
for sale. The goods were taken to No. 3, Printing-house-
lane, a chandler's shop, and deposited in a garret at the top
of the house, and subsequently conveyed to Mr. Lewis's ware-
house, under the direction and superintendence of a Mr.
Canon, who was now and then engaged in business trans.
actions with Mr. Hayward. At the acme of the bankruptcy
lame knowledge of these proceedings came to the ears of
the solicitors of the assignees, who, on the 7th of the same
month, gave notice to defendant,by letterof the bankruptcy;
at the same time warning him not to part with either the
money or goods be had in his possession. In answer to this
letter defendant denied having anything belonging to the
bankrupt estate. The goods were sold, and the proceeds
amounted to 1111. I2s. 6d. Mr. Maiden, one of the soli-
citors to the assignees, applied for the money himself, but
defendant refused to give it up, on the ground that an
action had been commenced against him by Mr. Croxon.
This action was discontinued, and an attachment which
had been made removed ; still defendant would not give
the value of the goods. It was admitted that he had paid
several sums on account from time to time to Mr. Croxon,
by whom he had been ordered to sell the goods. The plain-
tiffs sought a verdict for a balance of 381. 12a. 2d., and the
value of the goods in defendant's possession, amounting to
some 601. or 701.—The counsel for the defendant said that
Mr. Lewis had no desire or intention to keep the goods, and
if an indemnity were given him against any future proceed-
ings by Croxon, and his expenses paid, he would immedistely
deliver them up. The learned counsel endeavoured to show
that Mr. Knowles had been entirely misinformed upon the
subject ; that Croxon was not, as he (Mr. Knowles) supposed
the servant Of Mr. Hayward, and had delivered the goods
to Mr. Lewis on behalf of his master, but those geode had
been given to Croxon in payment of an account owing to
him. Under those circumstances, they could not belong to
the assignees, and Mr. Lewis had acted all along with the
understanding that the goods were the Rroperty of Croxon.
Lord Denman said there was hardly any one thing proved
by any one witness. The question which the jury would
have to decide was, whether they were Hayward's goods, or
whether he had made them over in such a way before the
bankruptcy as to make Croxon the owner, in payment of a
debt incurred.--The jury retired, and after an absence of
several hours, returned a verdict for the defendant.