The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-10 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
(Continued from yesterday's Expreat.)
TB! CLEM 0? HIT. MI. HAWN.
At this stage of the case the court adjourned for the pur-
pose of enabling the jury to take some refriehroen:m.llz
their return the examination of Mr. Hatch was proceeded
with.

Witte= heard nothing mom of the matter nnta the 26th
of October, when he received a letter from the Bishop of
Winchester, and ha •
ing consulted Mr. Onalow, the governor
of the gaol, be ewigned his post, and was afterwards tried
and convicted.

Cross-examined by Serjeaut Shoe— Witness was ordained
in 1848. At that time he was thirty years old. After
keying Cambridge he went to New South Wales as a
tutor, and then returned to England. His salary at the
poi was 2501. a year, and • residence was found
for him. He had no fortune, and was entirely dependent
upon hie appointment. During the fortnight Eugene, Phan.
mar was at his house he was very kind to her, and she
appeared to be fond of him, and generally ran to him and
kissed him when she came out of school. He never scolded
her or made her cry upon any occasion. She was scolded
oboe for behaving improperly to a gentleman in the house.
He did not wish to insinuate that she behaved in any
meaner indecently. He saw nothing in her conduct different
to what be should expect from • child of respectable
Christina parents. He was to receive 501. • year for each
child, and there was no disagreement as to the amount be
was to receive when the children were taken away. Wit-
ness would not undertake to swear that the child Eugenia
woe left alone with her mother soy part of the day on the
26th of October, except when they were in the water-
closet. Witness did not kiss the child in her bed more than
four times. He had a distinct recollection that his mother
was at the drawing-room window when the children were run-
Wag after him, and he bad so doubt his wife and the French
ladies were there she Oa the 18th of Angost he did
take the two children on his knee, but it warn merely to tell
then a story to amuse them, and be swore that no lode-
eincy whatever took place. When the child came to his
bedroom in the morning, she bad nothing on but her night
I dress, and be himself was also undressed : but, of coarse,
covered with the bed-clothes. Eugenia was sometimes
the bed in the position he bad stated while Mrs.
Hatch was engaged in trashing the other child, Lucy. He
should not have allowed the child to come to his bed if
ft had not been by the express desire of her mother, as hs
did sot Shish it was right.
&least dhos—Thinking it wrong, why did not you—.
clergyman, and • man of your age, competent to form an
independent judgment—refuse to allow it to be done ?
Mr. Hatch—l thought the child wan accustomed to it, and
she did not think any harm of it.
Ei t Shee—But if you yourself thought it was wrong,
wlsyltayou allow it
i isMr. Hatoh—l did not think there was any absolute harm
it

Cromentaminatkia continued—Moat likely he Ides= the
child when elle first got into the bed. He would swear
=1,244 that he never went into Stephanie Plummet's
with nothing but his night shirt on. Witness had
always been on affectionate terms with his wife, and he
could lately depend on her judgment in any matter of dell-
Eboycasnected with her own sex. They were married at
,in August, 1846. He never told her the details of
until the day that he surrendered himself, the
litthelorrovember. He had previously shown her the let-
ter the Bishop of Winchester wrote to him upon. the sub-
ject, and in which he requested that an investigation should
take place into the affair by the visiting magistrates. He
handed this letter immediately to his wife. This letter wee
received = the 3rd of October. On the Bth of October
=tams maw • copy of the letter that had been written to
the Bishop of Winchester by Mr. Plummer, complaining
of his conduct to his daughters, and thus became
aware of the precise nature of the charges that
were made against him. He did not show thin
letter to his wife, and his reason for this principally was
that his child Lacy's name was mentioned in it, and that
his wife might get into conversation with her about it.
He did net mention the matter to his brother chaplain at
the gaol, but he wished now that be had done so. He, of
course, felt that he wanted advice, and he was on intimate
terms with • great many clergymen in the neighbourhood,
but still he did not mention the matter to any of them. He
resigned his appointment at the poi, which was all he had
to depend upon in the world, rather than have the matter
investigated by the visiting magistrates. His reason for this
was that Mr. Onalow, the governor of the gaol, told him that
whatever might be the result of the inquiry, it would be im-
possible for him to retain his position with soy comfort.
He now believed that it would have been much the
better mune for him to have met the charge and
refuted it by the evidence of the witnesses whom he
knew be was in • position to produce. He did not even
mention the matter to his own solicitor, and his reason was
that he thought the whole thing would be hushed up. He
saw, now that it was too late, that he bad not adopted the
most prudent causes.
Sergeant finse—Wßl you explain how you could come to
the conclusion that the matter would be bushed up, and an
one know anything about it, when you must have been
aware that you would have to leave Woodworth, and break
up you establishment, and would be bound to give some
ex non of the reasons for this proceeding?
. Hatch-1 did think so, and I can give no other
"Z=unination continued--When he left Wandsworth
he west to Poplar, but his wife did not know where he had
go= to. He was aware that his wife had written a letter to
Mr. Plummerbefore he surrendered, and he also knew that •
warrant bad been issued for his apprehension upon this
charge. He believed that in his wife's letter she implored
Mr. Plummer to forgive him, and stated that be was
already utterly ruined by the proceedings that had taken
place. (The letter was pat In. It was to the effect that
Mr. Hatch had left his home distracted ; that he had given
op his appointment, and they were completely destitute,
and implored Mrs. Plummer for God's sake to dorOve hire,
and not carry matters any further.) While he was at
Poplar, and aware that a warrant had been issued against
him, he took no steps to*obtain advice, but his mind was
very much distracted at this time, and he did • great many
foolish things. When he was taken into custody he in-
quired of the officer what the punishment was for such an
offence. Mr. Pratt, the solicitor to Mr. Plummer, offered
to abandon the charge if he would admit that it was true
and express his regret, and he refused to do so. He never
made use of the " Lam mad " or " I was mad."
Re-examined—He refused to admit the truth of the
charge, and told Mr. Pratt so distinctly, and that he had
determined to meet the charge. He was quite atupified at
the charge that was made against him, and did not mention
the matter at the time to any one except Mr. °allow. the
governor of the gaol, with whom he was on very intimate
terms.

Mrs. Eerie Hatch sail—l am the wife of the Rev. Mr.
Hatch, the prosecutor of this indictment I am 35 years of
age, and was married to him in Sydney, in 1845, and we
stayed there about a year afterwards, and then went to
Walton-on-Thames, of which pariah my husband's father
was vicar. I remember Mn. Plummer coming to our house
on the 11th of August with her husband and Eurnis.
Plummer, the defendant. (The witness then gave a detail
of what occurred, subsequent to the departure of Mr. and
Mrs. Plummer on the ev • of the llth August, to the
same effect as her husband.) en the cab had started,
I went into the drawing-room and stood by the window.
My mother, the governess, and the two French ladies were
also there. I never lost sight of my husband or the two
children, Eugenia and Lucy, until they came into the house.
They were not in the garden more than two
or three minutes—a very short time. My mother
called out to Mr. Hatch that the tea was wait-
ing, and he and the two children came in im-
mediately. If any proceeding each as that spoken to by
the child Eugenia had taken place I must have seen it ; It
could not have happened without my doing so. I remember
my husband being upstairs with the two.children on the
18th of August. A gentleman named Coghlan went up to
fetch them, and they came down almost immediately.
(The witness then oontradicted the evidence of the defen-
dant in some other particulars.) It was impossible for my.
husband to have gone to Eugenia's bedroom every evening
during the fortnight she was at our house without my no-
ticing hie absence. It was at the request of Mrs. Plummer
that Eugenia was permitted to come into our bed to be
"petted," hut it was greatly against the wish of my Nis
band. She wee never allowed to oome actually inside the
bed, but only under the counterpane. Lucy used to come
into the bed also, and Mr. Hatch used to make them say
the first and last letter of any article in the room
that he mentioned. She never exhibited the slightest
symptom of fear or distress upon any occasion
when she was taken into the bed. I remember
Mrs. Plummer coming to the house on the 25th of August,
and she had plenty of opportunities on that day of being
alone with her daughter. Upon that day Mrs. Plummer
said that Eugenia was betrothed to their own medical man,
and the child said, Yee ; and when lam seventeen I in-
tend to marry him." Stephanie, the younger child, was
left with us on this night, and when Mrs. Plummer left
she did so aa the most friendly terms. It was impossible
for Mr. Hatch to have committed any act of indecency in
our bedroom with the child without my seeing it. Mrs. Plum-
mer came again on the 26th, and said that she thought the
thunderstorm of the previous night was a judgment upon
her for separating herself from her children, and she had
resolved to take them away. Before she went away she
kissed me, and appeared to be very friendly. During the
whole time Eugenia Plummer was in our house I never
saw the slightest act of imptopt.et on the part of my
husband towards her. My us handed me the
letter he received from the bishop, but I did not read it,
and I was not aware of the particulars of the charge
against him until be surrendered himself. On the
28th of October I wrote the letter that has been referred
to, to Mrs. nonuser. My husband di() not know that I wax
Done to write to her, and he did not know the terms of it.
I remember Mr. Pratt, the solicitor, coming to visit me at
Wandswesth. He said that he wished to speak to me