The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-14 00:00:00

vent his going into the dining room where tlie dressing-
case was.

James Emerson is acquainted with Mr. Watts, and was
in April residing with him at No. 58, Torrington-equare.
Called at Mr. Levi's shop on the 3d. Resided with him
for the purpose of keeping his term, as witness is a law-
student. Saw a dressing-case in Levi's shop which lie
wished to purchase, anti made a bargain to give a dress-
ing-case, some old wearing apparel, and a balance of ten
guineas. Mr. Levi had seen the articles before the bargain
.was made on the day before. The dressing-case was sent home
on the 3‘l, between three and four o'clock. A boy brought it,
and took away witness's dressing case and other things, and
left the case he had brought. Witness sent word to Mr. Levi,
that he should have the ten guineas in an hour, or at any
time in the evening. Dined with Mr. Harvey and Mr.
Watts, and went out immediately after dinner to receive
some money, which witness expected had been left some-
where for him in the morning. Was gone about twenty
minutes. When he returned he found a number of per-
sons about the door, knocked and was admitted, and saw
Levi walking about with his bat on in the parlour, calling
Mr. Watts a swindler, and saying that they were all
swindlers together. Mr. Watts said he had sent for
police officers, and requested witness to go and hurry them.
Met the officers and returned with them. Mr. Watts
was in the hall, and requested the officers to take the Jew
in charge. The latter was then in the parlour. Levi
made no charge against witness, but said Mr. Watts had
assaulted him. The officers took Levi into custody, and
took him away. Witness placed the dressing case in the
bands of the officers. It had stood on the sideboard in the
parlour. Went to the Police-office with Mr. Watts about
a quarter of an hour afterwards. Did not think that Mr.
Harvey was there then, but three of Mr. Watts's servants
attended. The case was not heard that evening, as the
Magistrate was gone. The next .day was Good Friday anti
witness attended on Saturday with Mr. Watt!, Mr.
Harvey, and three female servants. Sir G. Farrant was
the Magistrate who heard the case, in what witness was
told was the private room. Mr. "Watts objected strongly
to having the examination in the private room, as he
wished to have a statement of the case made to the public.
Levi, his attorney, his boy, and the officers were then pre-
sent. On Mr. Watts objecting to having the case heard
then, Sir G. Farrant said he was not going to hear the
case, but he said to Levi, " the affair seems to have ori-
ginated with you, let me hear yowl. story." Mr. Watts
said that the charge was his, and not Levi's, and begged
to he heard. Levi, however, then related the account of
the bargain for the dressing-ease, and then related some
facts which hart occurred in witness's absence. It was
not stated that the officers thought it the best course to
bring the dressing-case and parties to the office. One of
the officers said, that Mr. Watts had given Levi in charge,
and that he had received the dressing-case in charge from wit-
ness. Mr. Levi never used such an expression as " that he
was done oat of his dressing-case, or suspected that he had
been done ont of it." Witness was not charged with any
assault by Mr. Levi. The case was nearly concluded
when Colonel Lester Stanhope arrived. Witness had said
that Colonel Stanhope was coming, and then Levi said
that lie knew Colonel Stanhope would also speak to his
respectability, as he had dealt very largely with him. Levi,
however, claimed no acquaintance when he came in.
Colonel Stanhope attended at witness's request, and walked
away with him, Mr. Watts, and Mr. llarvey. Neither
Mr. Watts nor his witnesses were examined, although Mr.
Watts requested to be heard several times. In answer to
which Sir George Farrant said he was not hearing the
case, and declined examining him or his witnesses.
Went on that day to the Times office, and wrote a note
to the editor, stating that the proceedings which had taken
place that morning were ex-parte, and that the statement
they contained was false, and that the reply to it was not
received. The Evening Mail is published at the same
office. The publication afterwards appeared on the Menday.
Went to the office, and saw a person who appeam ed to be
a clerk, said the statement was false and requested an in-
terview with the editor, and was told that witness might
see him at eight in the evening. The same account was
also published in the Evening Mail. Called at night with
Mr. Watts, and left a communication for the editor.—
Called again the same night, and saw a person whom be
understood to be Mr. Lawson. The paper witness had lett
was then returned to him, and Mr. L. told him that he had
nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of their police
reports, as they only studied their correctness, as far as
they were a faithful account of what took place at the
Police-office. if they had any complaint to make of the
unfaithfulness of the report they would willingly insert it,
but as the paper they had left was a mere vindication of
their character, they must consider it as an advertisement,
and charge five guineas for its insertion. Witness then
came away, and on the next day (Tuesday) witness pre-
pared a second statement to correct the mistake in the
report. This is the statement.—(Produced it.)—Let it,
and called again on the Wednesday, when it was returned
with considerable erasures, and witness was told that it
must still be considered as an advertisement, and a sum
was mentioned (more than fire guineas) for its insertion.
The first statement left by witness was then read, it was
in the shape of a letter, and entered into a repetition of
the report in nearly the same way as the witness had now i
done upon oath. The second statement was also put n ;
it entered snore fully into a justification of the witness's
(who was the writer) reasons for not giving up the dress-
ing-case to the Jew. This statement had been sworn to
by the witness before a Master in Chancery.

Examination continued—Was afterward, present at
an interview between Mr. Watts, Mr. Platt, and Mr.
Burrows. That was subsequent to the second letter.
Notice of an action had been given. Mr. Platt appeared
on behalf of the proprietors of the Timm!. The inter-
view lasted upwards of an boor. Mr. Platt saw the
affidavits of the witness, which have been now read. He
did not, however, examine them as he appeared satisfied
with witness's and Mr. Watts's statement. A written
paper was drawn up after Mr. Platt had gone away. saw
Mr. Platt again, with the same parties, at Mr. Platt's
house, when tic paper was presented to hint. Those in-
terviews were in order to put an end to the action, with
which they should not have gone on if their contradiction
had been inserted. The terms of the statement were then
canvassed and ultimately agreed upon. It was to be in-
serted in the Times, and a leading article was to have
called attention to it. Witness and Mr. Watts agreed ten
forego tine actions on those terms. Mr. Platt expressed
his thanks to Mr. Watts and witness, for their forbearance.
That statement, however, never made its appearance in
the Times. Was not aware that Mr. Platt said he had
no authority.
By Sir J. SCAT LETT—Was not told that the statement
would he published, but that the leading article would not.
The statement referred to was then read.
Examination continued—Neither the statement nor the
leading article was published.
Cross-examined by Sir J. SCARLITT—Those papers
that were last put in are an article and a statement. Did
not remember saying to Mr. Platt, " suppose they don't
insert them," and that Mr. Platt answered, " then you
must go on with your action." Mr. P. told him afterwards
that the statement would be inserted, but not the leading
article. In the statement he had told Levi when he
called that he should be sure to pay the money at the time
promised. Had not put off the boy who brought the
case till the next day for payment. The note produced
is witness's hand-writing. It is written there that wit-
ness had written that the boy might call on the next day,
but he certainly did tell him that he was to call in the
evening. Witness's statement, with regard to that fact,
was the same as he now stated it, and was written in
great agitation from the witness's recollection of what he
had written, and witness wished his statement to be pub-
lished as a true one. Meant to swear that the statement
is a true representation of what he wrote to Levi.
Mr. DENMAN objected that the original letter must be
put in before it could he referred to in evidence.
Lord TENTERDEN decided that no question could be
asked with a view to get part of the contents of a letter in
evidence, if the letter was put in.
Cross-examination continued—Has an action himself
for the same publication ; had known Mr. Watts since
1526; he had been an editor at Leeds; one of the state-
ments which is put in (the printed one) was printed at
St. Paul's Church-yard. Believes that Mr. Watts has an
engagement with the Standard Newspaper ; thought that
he then was one of the editors of that paper; he was not
so then. Witness has never had any engagement with a
newspaper ; summoned Colonel Lester Stanhope ; he
knew nothing of the facts, but witness, who went as a
witness for Mr. Watts, wanted Colonel Stanhope to speak
to his (witness's) character; had not found in any of his
legal studies, that one witness could want another to speak
to his character ; placed the dressing-case in the officer's
hands, because it was the subject of dispute, and because
Levi had insisted upon taking it away; Levi concurred in
sending the dressing-case to the office; rather thinks the
ill-ma inered Jew said, " Don't send me to the office with-
out se•.rding the case." Never said that Levi should not
have Iris desk ; when the boy brought the case, he did not
hear him say that he would not leave the desk without the
money ; when he returned, however, he was told that
Levy had attempted to take the desk. The time of pay-
ment was never mentioned to Levi at the time the bargain
was made ; the boy said that he did not wish to leave the
case ; when he came the second time the boy said he
Would either have the case or the money.

Re-examined by Air. ALDZIMN—When ha cam© the