The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-23 00:00:00

Sir A. COCKBURN—That is not the question.
Witness—l could answer, but I avail myself of the
privilege given by the Judge not to answer.
Sir A. COCKBURN said the privilege of not answering
could only be allowed in a criminal court.
Lord CAMPBELL said he could not compel the witness
to answer the question.
Witness—l never had intercourse with any woman in
the sacristy of the church a,, Viterbo, nor in any room
contiguous to it. In 1826 I went to La Quaercha of my
own accord ; I was not sent ; I did not go there by way
of penance. Every officiating priest in Italy has not a
general power to confess like I had. In 1826, Spaletti,
a priest, might have made accusations against me; I
heard that these accusations were in circulation, but I
did not go on a tour of visitation with Broscente to
avoid them. There was not one single word against me
when I left Viterbo. In 1834 there was not a charge
against me of violating the person of a young woman
in Cardinal Be lzes house. There might have been,
but I cannot now recollect. lam not indifferent to
charges of that kind, but thousands of the same
nature have been made against me. When in
the prison of the Lquisition I was accused of
murdering a nun, and the matter was brought under
the notice of the French Government. To obtain.
letters of seclurezition, I must have a patrimony.
The letters mention vows in the plural, but I still per-
sist in saying I only took one vow as a Dominican
monk. I obtained the patrimony from my uncle shortly
after the letters of secularization were granted. In 1831
I did stay for a portion of the month of October at the
house of a lady named Gantilli, the widow of one
Christoche; the house is in the country near Rome.
The servant in the house was not the woman Valenti,
I don't recollect ever seeing her face before. I have
gone out shooting while there, with Spaletti, the vicar of
the bishop.
Sir A. COCKBURN—Oh! that is the amusement of
monks.—(Laughter.)
Lord CAMPBELL said that formerly English bishops
and the clergy kept fox hounds.
Sir A. CCCKBURN—But there is a great difference
between secular clergy and monks.
Witness—l never took out any servant girl to show
her some shooting sports while I was at Signora Gen-
tiles house. •

You have plenty of funds to carry on these proceed-
ings?—l hope Providence will furnish me with funds.
From whom do you get funds?—l get them by the
providence of God.
That is not my question?—l obtain them by the Pro-
vidence of God through some friends.

Lord CABIPZELL-1" do not see any necessity for in-
quiiing into that point.
Sir A. COCKBURN—I only want to show funds are
not wantieg.

Lord CAMPBELL —I think there are no funds wanting
on either sid..—(Laughter.)
I think, Dr. Achini, you have said the monks at
Viterbo are very wicked people?—i do not come here to
cry out against them.

But you have cried out against them—have you not?
—When time and circumstances allowed it.
You said, I think, they were a sinful and profligate
people?—l did not say that of the monks of Viterbo.
Are they a good and virtuous people?—Some are
good and some bad.
Were some loose in their conversation with women;
and were all possible means taken to hush up their con-
duct?—According to the law, it was the duty of the
principals to proceed against them, and I myself have
been charged to conduct inquiries respecting some.
Were you ever charged with sach an offence?—As
long ca I remained with the Dominicans I was their
idol.—(Laughter.) Atter leaving Viterbo I went to
Naples, having previously spent Lent at Calms.
While you were at Capua had you intercourse with
any woman whatever ?—I might say " no;" but I ap-
peal to the privilege given me by the Judge not to
answer the question.—(Sensation.) I was never charged
with having intercourse with the daughter of the cham-
berlain of the Bishop of Capua.
Do you think, now you are a Protestant, that, a
charge of unchastity is a serious ene to be made against
a Roman Catholic priest 2—l believe it is a real crime
among all Christians. I do not think it makes much
difference between a clergyman and a layman in this
respsct.

(The witness was under examination when our report
left.)

SECONDAMES.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
HOPPER V. X URNETT.--WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE..
The plaintiff in this action is a ship broker in the,
City, and the defendant carries on the same business at
Sunderland, and the action was brought to recover the
sum of 21. for money lent.
Defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
The Learned SECONDARY said that in this case som®
person had sent him a letter; he had not read it, but it
was highly improper of any one to write to a judge on
the subject of a case about to be tried before him. He
should therefore hand the letter, which was at great
length, over to the plaintiff's attorney to read.
The plaintiff's attorney reed the letter, and said it
was from the defendant, but did not disclose the contents,.
The plaintiff's attorny then called the plaintiff, who.
proved that he lent the defendant 21., and took hii
I 0 11.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.
The plaintiff's attorney applied to the Secondary
to certify for costs to prevent the necessity of plain-
tiff
going before a judge, as it had been necessary to
bring the action in the superior court, for if they had
taken proceedings in the County Court it must have
been at Sunderland, and plaintiff would have been at the
expense of going down there; or, on the other hand, a
special application must have been made to the Judge of
the Sheriff's Court, London, and then defendant, if he
had a defence, would have had to bring his witnesses up
to London.
The Learned SECONDARY said, that where there was
a concurrent jurisdiction, as in this case, ho had no
power to give a certificate—the application must be.
made to a judge at chambers.