The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-14 00:00:00

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

NAY 11.
(Way the Judge Ordinarf.)
HANDPORD AID HANDPORD V. HOPWOOD.

The testator, Joel Handford, late of Hayfield, Derby-
shire, died on the 13th at April, 1849. He left a will, dated
May, 1848, by which he lift hie property, a cottage and •
small piece of land, to his wife and her daughter, with re-
version in default of isms to his son John by •
former marriage. This will wee proved, and Mrs.
Handford having died, the property bad come
into possession of her damhter. On behalf of the plain.
tiffs, of whom John Hanaord was one, a new will was pro-
d 4 which purported to have been executed in Decem.
pro-
porn
1848. It was alleged that this document had been
found at the end of 1858 in making some repairs in • mi-
dge which had formerly been occupied by a brother of the
testator. All the attesting winnows were dead, bat it was
admitted that one of them was t at the funeral, and
beard the will of May reed w• hoot making any remark.
It was also admitted that the brother, in whom hmee the
will wee said to have been found. survived the testator,
and sever mentioned the second will.

71;insiVitliisTtb;sitstisrp;o7anunced against this new
will.

Sir C. Crimsonll said the document wee palpably an im-
pudent forgery, sad eamdsmned the plaintiffs in the meta.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
(Continued from Bsta/day's Szprtes.)

THE CASE OF THE REV. MR. HATCH.
Mr. Edwin James then proceeded to reply upon the whole
case in a most able and powerful speech, which was listened
to with the utmost attention throughout. He said that the
verdict the jury would now shortly have to immunee
would clove one of the most remarkable ewe that hod
perhaps ever been investigated in a wart et jusllos. His
learned friend bad truly told them that Mr. Hatch bad
stood at the bar of this oceal, and was =Meted by the
jury of indecently assaulting them two girls, and
that the learned judge who tried Wm, had dose es
he was bound to do in seek • ere, and, mdsr such air•
esstanese, sentenced him to bur yews' imprisoa-
meet and hard Wooer. Yr. Hatch sew mate before another
gory to acenplain the the farmer verdict had teen obtained
by false evidence • that, in point of fact, the course of
rice had bees perverted, and on this ground to ask the
nry to reverse the decision that had been formerly come to.
ben Mr. Hatch stood at that bar on the former trial, and
after his conviction, he made the remarkable statement
that he was innocent, end that be felt aasured the day would
come when God would prove his innocence of the crime
laid to his charge, and he believed that the day had now
come when their verdict would confirm his statement. He
need not inform them that the effect of the former verdict
was not only to destroy the immediate prospect, of Mr.
Hatch, but that in point of fact he might as well be
deprived of existence, and be admitted that the object of
the present prosecution was to show that he had been un-
tlatlycoovicted and to reverse the former decision. His
Mead had made a great many observations upon
the fact that the witnesses who had now been examined
ware not called on the former occasion. He had the highest
opinion of the ability of his learned friend Serjesnt
tine, who appeared for Mr. Hatch on that occasion, and he
had no doubt that he exercised a sound discretion upon the
facts then before him, and the instructions he had received,
in not calling edam*. ; but was a man to be considered
guilty of a crime because his counsel did not think
proper to call witnesses? The jury would also re-
collect that one scene of the foul oonspireoy was the
bedroom of Mr. and Mn. Hatch, and that no idioms could
have been celled to rove this portion of the statement.
The case of his learned friend, as it appeared to him, wee
full of the most glaring inconsistencies. With one breath
Mra Hatch was represented to be • virtuous and respecta-
ble woman against whom there did not rest the slightest
eumicion, and with the next she wan represented to have
been the deepest accomplice of her husband, and she was
charged with direct perjury. The child was actually made
to say that Mrs. Batch, wife of the party accused, was
present upon one when these abominations were
going on, and that she actually saw what occurred.
When • case rested upon such evidence as this
be asked them as reescoable and sensible men whether
they could rely upon it, and whether the whole stricture
of this wretched story had not been completely shattered in
the course of the investigation? His learned friend had
made a great many comments upon Mr. Hatch having
adopted the course of procuring • number of statutoryions, and has having submitted them to the Secre-
tary of State with a view to obtain a pardon, but what was
he to do ! He had gone to his dungeon, he had no appeal
allowed him by law, he could not call his wife as a witness,
and what coluve was possibly open to him but
to obtain the solernm declaration of every human
being who was in his house at the time and
who witnessed what occurred, to show that he
wee not guilty of the crime of which he had been unjustly
convietel. These witnesses, or the greater part of them at
all events, had no interest in the matter. Mae were the
servant., there was the 'overawe, a highly respectable
young lady whom position entirely depended upon her eha.
raster and her regard for veracity and honour—there were
the two French ladies, also peen= of great respectability—
/ad all these witnesses led given evidence showed
conclusively that Mr. Hatch Gould not have been guilty et
the offence that was imputed to him by Eugenia Plummer
upon
d the first ocemioa of her going to the school.
the jury believe for a moment that these re-
spectable witnesses were guilty of perjury ? There
was not the slightest foundation for such a suggestion, end
he hoped to be obis to satisfy them that those witnesses
had spoken the truth, and that the story that hod been told
by the children had been trumped up by their mother, and
that from some trifling 'circumstance originally serrated by
Eugenia Plummer, it had been swelled and magnified to the
Aortal accusation; that were ultimately made. It had bee
irked by his learned friend what motive coald have actuated
these children to make such • charge, but be should show
them presently that there was ample motive for their
doing so, from the admission of one of the children hereell. '
Serjeant fithee, in his address to them, had said that this was
not the first time in which it had been proved that • clergy-
man of the church of England had been ooa violet] of • Grimed
this ileeeriptiim This was undoubtedly true, bat the observe.
than applied equally to Roman catholic ministers and to

miniaters of all religious denominations, and to all profes.
'lona Was this the first time, however, that they had
heard of wicked designing children making false charges,
sad did they not know that there were instances in which
men's lives had actually been nearly sacrificed upon the
evidence of children, which had bean afterwards proved to
be West He believed that the statement of the children in
this case was • lie—" guilt's offspring and its guard "--and
that the whole superstructure of the accusation against Mr.
Hatch was bused upon falsehood, end that this was the real
=of the present ease. As to motive, why the gal
, when she was examined at Wandsworth Polio,
Court, let out the whole secret—" she did not like
the Hatches "—she wanted to get away, and she told her
mother something likely to effect that object. He asked
than to look at the gross and glaring improbability of the
stony itself. They were asked to believe that a gentleman
who had for more than forty year" enjoyed the esteem sad
respect of every oue who knew him—a clergymea—bad so
far forgotten every principle of honour and decency, as to
commit an assault upon • child, a perfect stmger to him,
jest admitted under his roof, almost under the very shadow
of her pa Dia, and the innocent child, Lucy Hatch, his
adopted daughter, was actually represented to be
a sharer in the abominable proceeding. Could
such • thing be possible ! It could not—it was
unworthy belief! The learned serjeant bad told them
that these two girls bad been carefully and religiously
tenet spin the fear el God, but was this so? It ap
oi them wee beptised until she was eight years
old, and her mother admitted clearly that she was not in
the bait of taking her children regularly to church. With
reprd to Mrs. Plummer they bad seen her, and could judge
what sort of woman she was, and he thought they would
agree with him that she wee a most extraordinary sort of
person, and her conduct in the witnees-box led to no other
maishaica than that she was either intoxicated or
muff** from delirium tremens. The learned counsel
then commented at some length upon the evidence
and demeanour of Mrs. Plummer, and on the contra-
dictions and discrepancies in her testimony, and he urged
that there could be very little doubt that it was at her in-
*drake the children had been induced to make up the tale
they bad done. if the first accusation to which he bad
alluded was really too monstrous to be true, and the jury
should ems to that conclusion, he said it appeared to him
them was an end of the case, for if they did not believe one
portion of the story, bow could they place reliance upon any
part of Mt Then with regard to the evidence of the younger
child, that Mrs.illatch law what was going on upon one occa-
sion.
Good God! was it possible to place any reliance upon
such • statement ? Was it sot repugnant to 'human nature
and manifestly false ? With regard to the conduct of Mr.
Hatch after the accusation had been made against him, be
thought it ought not to operate at all against him. No man
could tell what owneeles would takeundersucheircumstances,
and it was clear that his mind was borne down, and thathe was
overwhelmed by his position, and did not know what to do.
The learned counsel, after some further observatioess, said
that to Mr. Hatch the result of this inquiry was of vital
importance, while so far as the defendant was
she 'would merely be liable to some trilling
punishment. Ma learned friend had appealed to them on
her behalf, on the ground that she was an heiress of fifteen
or twenty thousand pounds, but what did it matter to the
jury whether she were rich or poor ? He was sure they
would do their duty firmly, and that the same
justice would be done to her as to the poor
creature who stood at that tar for having dashed
his hand through • glittering shop window to save
his famished offspring. The learned counsel then said he
called upon the jury to do their duty firmly, and he con-
cluded by saying that he prayed the God of justice and
of truth, to whom they had perhaps already breathed the
same prayer, to guide them aright in this great argument,
and direct them to a just conclusion.
There was a loud burst of applame when the learned
counsel resumed his sett, which was not repressed without
some difficulty.
A short discussion then took Owe between the learned
joutldand the jury as to whether the case should be pro-
with or whether it should be adjourned.
Baron Channell said he was quite reedy to promed with
his summing up if the jury wished him to do so, but be
reminded them that the morrow would be Sunday, and
that he had no power to discharge them until they gave
• verdict.

Some of the jury ware for going on, but others were
anxious to adjourn, and at length
Mr. Baron Channell mid it was a very important case,
and he thought it would be better to postpone his summing
op until Monday.
The trial was accordingly again adjourned.

THIRD COURT.
(Before the Common Berjeent.)

William Franria Vandervei I, who last session pleaded
guilty to an indictment charging him with h• appropri-
ated certain shares intim London,Brighton, and South Coast
Railway Company, of which ha was trustee, surrendered.
The primmer now came up for judgment ; another indict-
ment against him being withdrawn.
Mr. Metcalfe said there were peculiar circurestaeces about
the position of the prisoner in this case which induced
the prosecution to beg that the Court would deal mercifully
with the prisoner, as he had done all in his power to repair
the injury which he had committed.
The Common Serjeant said, considering the statement
made by the prosecution, and the fact that the real penalty
to the prisoner was his degraded position, he should not
pass a heavy sentence, but could not pass it over without
some punishment.
Sentence—one month's imprisonment in Newgate.