The Sun.
London, England, 1855-10-24 00:00:00

CLERICAL MAGISTRATVS.

The following letter has been addressed to the editor
of the Examiner :

Sir,—You have advanced the cause of the Essex la-
bourers, oppressed by a clerical magistrate ; may I call
your sympathy for a poor woman here ?
On the 11th of October inst., Henrietta Prior, who
with her hu-band lived as servant of Mr. George Ed-
ward Pritchett, an architect at Bishops Stortford, Herts,
summoned her master, Mr. Pritchett, before the magis-
trates at the Petty Sessions here, for assaulting her.
When she applied for the summons to the Rev. Frede-
rick Vander Meulen, the rector of Thorley, who is the
nearest resident magistrate, he advised her and her hus-
band not to proceed, but to go and Leg Mr. Pritchett's
pardon, and he would give them both good characters.
The husband, considering his wife (who was enciente)
had been improperly treated, refused to adopt this
course.

The case was heard on the 11th inst., when the Rev.
Thomas Timothy Lane Bayiiff, vicar of Albury, Harts,
and the Rev. Frederick Vander Muelin, rector of Thor-
ley. Herte, with two other magistrates, were present.
The woman gave her evidence on oath with great pro-
priety to the following effect :--On the 29th September,
at about a quarter before eleven at night, Mr. Pritchett
rang his bell, and she went to attend the summons. As
soon as she got to the door he threw his boots and the
bootjack at her. She believed he intended to hit her
with there, but she stepped back, and they missed ber—
they were thrown with great force. He then told her
to clear away the supper things. She did not give him
an angry word, but she took away the supper things,
and went and told her husband, who was in bed, what
had happened 2 • he got up, and she heard him tell her
master that they would both leave his service in a
month. Mr. Pritchett then said to her husband, "II
you had been there I would have served you nine times
worse."
Mr. Pritchett attempted to cross-examine the woman,
but she stated, in answer to his questions, that he first
threw one boot, then the bootjack, and then another
boot at her, and that he aimed them at her.
The Rev. T. T. L. Bayliff then took great pains to
cross-examine the woman, and said she had contradicted
herself, because in her evidence she stated Mr. Prit-
chett threw his boots and the bootjack at her, but in her
cross-examination she said he first threw a boot, then a
bootjack, and afterwards another boot (a distinction
certainly too subtle for any but a clerical intellect).
Mr. Pritchett, the defendant, who during part of the
time that the case was heard was sitting by the side of
the magistrate's clerk, stated in his defence, which was
not on oath, that he merely threw his boots in his usual
manner, and that he did not throw them at the com-
plainant.
The Rev. T. T. L. Bayliff then stated that the bench
did not consider that the assault was proved, and that
the complainant must pay the costs, 7s. 6d., or go to

prison.
The poor woman's husband stated that he had no
money, but rather than she should go to prison he would
pay it in a fortnight.
So that in attempting to obtain redress for an assault
on a pregnant wifo her husband has to pay 7s. 6d., be-
sides the costs of the summons.

I attended as attorney for the poor woman, chiefly on
account that I knew Mr. Pritchett, her master, was the
son of a neighbouring clergyman, and also a friend of
the two clerical magistrates on the bench, and in a prac-
tice of upwards of twenty years I never saw an assault
more clearly proved by a single witness.
In this small county there are no less than 37 clerical
magistrates.
Bishops Stortford, Oct. 17, 1855.. J. B. B.