The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-15 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING,

Lab) Intelligence.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-MAY 13.

Sittings at Nisi Him M Westraiuster.—(Before the Lord
Chief Baron and a Sper..al Jury.)
THE REV. MR. HATCH'S CASE
HAWN V. LIWII AND UHT&
(Concluded from yesterday's Express.)

•
The Lord Chief Baron summed up to the jury. lie
said—This was an scam brought by Mr. Hatch against the
firm of Messrs. Lewis, charging them--or the eldest member
of the firm, charging him—with negligence for whet he did
before the magistrate ; and, secondly, with what he did
before the plaintiff's trial. There could be no doubt an
attorney was liable for mnicooduct or miscarriage, but the
present action was the very fast in his experience which bad
ever been brought against an attorney is a criminal case.
He did not at all consider that it was not maintainable,
but it was impossible to resist the conclusion that it gave
rise to difficulties. That was, however, the very mason why
the plaintiff's story should be listened to with the greatest
attention and decided with the greatest deliberation.
He would distinctly state that be considered the pardon
granted to Mr. Hatch should receive the fullest effect. In
criminal cases there was no appeal, but it would be easy
when injustice had been (lone for the Attorney-Oeneral to
tell the prisoner's counsel that if be would assign error he
would confess. This would be better than applying for a
Royal pardon, which, however, was a most authoritative
declaration that the party bad bees wrongly convicted, and
that he was an innocent man. He did not think it was
wise or prudent to his client on the part of Serjeant Sheen
to exprem a doubt, if be had any. It was aot only inju-
dicious on the part of Silesia Mee to say that if
the plaintiff lost his verdict he would be driven
from society—say more, he did not believe the
observation wee true. There were, he apprehended,
two objects to be pined by this trial—the first was to
clinch the verdict of the jury as against Eumia Plummer,
and the second, which was a minor one, to obtain a sum of
money in damages. Adverting to the period when the
charge was first preferred against Mr. Hatch, he expressed
an opinion that it was his duty instantly to have surren-
dered himself, as staying out of the way for a fortnight with
a warrant out against him was calculated greatly to pre.
judice him. It was much to be regretted that Mr. Hatch's
friends had not come forward then with the some of money
they had afterwards subscribed as security for baiL
Mr. Hatch was sot acquitted, though he (the learned
judge) thought when 100 witnesses came to speak to his
character he would have bees acquitted. Then, Eugenia
Plummet was trieemLorrjosejury, sod the jury oa the as-
signments gave a verdict, and she was found guilty.
There was no dou the basis of her conviction was the evi•
donee of Mr. Hatch himself and his wife, and it had no
bearing on this cause. If the jury who had tried Mr. Hatch
could have heard his evidesce, and that of his wife, on the'
trial of Eugenia Plummer, no doubt they would have been
lOW of an exams to have acquitted him. In bringing this
make there bad bees
.= of iweireal mouths, nor hail he
made any the Masers. Lewis until be
found he =kr"! 14
proceed agginet Mr. Plummer. flat,
however, did sot prevent Isis bringing as action
now, *or could it premed him from recovering a
verdict if he could sitehlith hie right to it. One ground of
complaint against the delesdests wee, that so witnesses had
been called in the defame of Mr. Hatch. Mr. Seijeant
Mee said that all had bees dose that veld have been door.
It was for the jury to consider whether all had been done
which could 'eagerly have hese done, and if not, whether
the sot doing it wag the came of Mr. Hatch's conviction.
If they were of opinion that then most have bees a com-
mittal by the seighatate, X would be inipoamble to say
there lad been any wait ef ears or skill on he
part of Mr.
Lewis. Then there was the charge that Mr. Lewis had
neglected to cell witnesses on behalf of Mr. Hatch. Now
he would at esess say that on the trial of Mr. Hatch be
should have been acquitted, but the question was, could any
witnesses have been called by any counsel of any
discretion! Talk of the aims with which Mr. Hatch
warn charged being disgraceful to a clergyman, it was unin-
telligihle in any one. Everybody who knew anything of the
administration knew how formidable, though less so than in
former years, the last word was ; and this last word would
have fallen to the prosecuting counsel if witnesses had been
called. Mr. Serjeant Bailsman° had given his opinion that
witnesses should not be called, and Mr. Hatch having
acquiesced in that view, the not calling of witnesses could
form no dement in this action. With regard to Mrs.
Hatch's evidence in this came, she appeared to him to be
one of the most sincere witnesses he had ever seen. In her

cross-examination, she stated she had written a letter to Mr.
Plummer ; and what a letter t It implored him not
to act harshly to her unfortunate husband; and
when Mr. limner replied he would not wooed if Mr.
Hsieh would team his guilt, he refused to do so ;
for the first time showing a minimums of character in the
unfortunate position in which he found himself placed.
The chugs was one which might have iteggered a man of
the strangest nerves ; but when such an accusation was pre-
ferred against • man, his duty was to assemble his intimate
friends, and to lay the came before them. it would be for
them to weigh how far the fact of Eugenia Plummer being
Wren every morning into Mr. Hatth's bed—which was
most improper would have weighed with Mr. &deed
Hellmann* in his decision not to call witnesses.
If they found a verdict for the plaintiff, the
gnostic. of damages was r4siarly for them, and
they would award such as they thought
he was entitled to under the circumstances—
with regard to his own conduct, and bow far that conduct
bad eoutributed to the result.. The second count stated
that it was on account of the defendants' neglect he had
been convicted. He did not, however, think the plaintiff
was bound by that, for if the defendants' neglect largely
esatributed to the plaintiff's imprimonment, the defendants
were amenable. Bat if they thought that it would not have
been wise or politic to have called witnesses under the cir-
cumstances—the nature of the charge—the fact that the
plaintiff had resigned his living—his retirement—on
that they should find for the defendants. He
wished in the firmest voice to my be threw no
doubt on the imams:me of Mr. Hatch, and he again
mid that he ought to have been acquitted although
be had committed unhappy and unfortunate errors of judg-
ment. hey would now consider their verdict.
Mr. Chambers—Before the jury retire I must ask your
lordship to put this question to them—" Did the defendants
use proper care, skill, and diligence in preparing sad con-
ducting the case of Mr. Hatch, and take re le care in
conducting his defence.*
The Lord Cilia Bata--I am clearly of opinion I should
not pat that
Mr. Chambers then tendered • bill d escaptioes to his
lordship's Mies.
The jury retired at tweedy minutes to 4 o'clock, and in
an hour and • quarter Maned into tend with • verdict for
Tbethe plaintiff. (land elms in eirart.)
Aaosiste—Wbet dumps
I The berencen—Daseases 408. flfios reas.)
This protractid trial coneinded the sittisp.

EXCHIQUER CRAM:MR.—MAT .4.
Maw ia Saar.—(Befare Lord Chid Jonilas Coca m+,
Juliana
) Crampan, Willis, RFlaa, sad
Laatiag.
VIEW AIM .11.1011116 V. THIII rAssuans'

INISCIMANCI COMPANY.
In this ems a person named Jones had effected a policy
of laeUrileee for 2501. with the defendants, the condition
being that if he 'tied in consequence of accident or °Am-
ides within the meaning of the policy within one year
they would pay to his relations the above amount ; or if he
should sustain personal Injury, he should be entitled to
resolve 30s. per week. In September 1856, Jones, who
had taken a return ticket for Brighton, left his
friends (taking with him his carpet hag) for the
purpose of bathing. About an hour afterwards his clothes
were found on the beach, but from that time to tl.is Jones
had not been heard of. On the 30th August a dead body
was washed ashore at Walton-oo.the-Naze, but the features
were so disfigured that they could not be recognised ; but
the relatives who viewed the body expressed their belief
that it was Jean's body. The jury at the inquest returned
a venlict of "a person unknown." The defendants refused
to pay the policy, oa the ground that the death did not
come within the words "that it was caused by outward
and visible means, of which satisfactory proof should be
rendered to the directors, nor if the death was caused by
suicide, or whilst in a state of intoxication." On the trial
before the Lord Chief Baron he noosuited the plaintiffs.
Subsequently a rule was obtained to set it aside, but dis-
charged. The plaintiffs then appealed to this court.
Mr. Francis appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Lush,
Q.C., for the defendants.
TM Court said the decision of the Court of Exchequer
was
u me m
dgaw.
Jnt reversed.