The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-10 00:00:00

lIO.RRIBLE AIUBDE.R.

The Court of Assizes of the Vaucluse, sitting at
Carpentras (says Galignani), has just been occupied
during three days with the trial of a farmer named
Leonard, for the murder of his wife and two chil-
dren under horrible circumstances. The following
are the principal facts of the case as shown by the
evidence and the prisoner's confession. About one
o'clock in the morning of the 21st October last, a
farmer named Bonnaud, residing in a lone house
in the commune of Pertuis, was awakened by cries
of help, uttere.i by some person in the yard in front,
and on going out he saw a man dressed in shirt and
trousers only, both of which were stained with
blood, and who said that he had just escaped from
the bands of persons who had attempted to murder
him. Bonnaud recognised this individual as a far-
mer named Leonard, whose house was at some dis-
tance across the fields, and immediately got his
horse and cart to convey him home to La Thuil-
liere, where his family usually lived, though they
had another farm at Martelly, where they also some-
times resided. On arriving there, however, he found
the house closed, and could make no one hear, so he
drove off to the hospital at Pertuis to obtain assis-
tance for the injured man, who had been wounded
by a gun or pistol-shot behind the ear. The
surgeon observed that the sides of the wound
were burnt with powder, but could not find
any trace Gf wadding or ball. As soon as Leonard
was able to give explanations, he stated that he
had been working with his wife and children
the previous day at the farm of Martelly, and that
he was just getting his cart out ready to return to La.
Thulliere when he was shot by some one from in-
side the house. He fell, and remained insensible
for some time. As soon as he recovered his senses,
he had with difficulty dragged himself to Bonnaud's
farm to obtain help. What had become of his wife
and children he did not know. The gendarmery
were at once informed of Leonard's statement, and
two men were sent to Martelly to look after the
wife and children. On arriving there, they found
the outer door open, and the rooms full of smoke,
while in the middle of the bedroom lay a smoulder-
ing heap, from which the smell of burning flesh
proceeded. On examination the bodies of the woman
and her children were found,
cut in small pieces,
and half carbonised. If the falling of the roof had
not partially smothered the fire the house must have
been entirely destroyed, and scarcely any trace of
the crime would have remained. The surgeon's
doubts as to Leonard's statement respecting the
manner in which he received his wound excited
suspicion that he was the murderer of his wife and
family, and had inflicted the wound on himself with
a pistol. Having been taxed with the crime, he at
last admitted that, aggravated by something his
wife said, he struck her a blow which killed -her ;
that he afterwards murdered the children, and set
the house on fire. In his remorse for what he had
done he then attempted to kill himself, but failed.
Circumstances, however, were soon discovered
which proved the murder was premeditated, and
that his object was to obtain the sole possession of a
piece of land worth about 2,500 fr., which belonged
to his wife and her children, and which he bad
already attempted to mortgage without her consent.
The evidence was conclusive against the prisoner,
who was found guilty by the jury without extenuat-
ing circumstances, and condemned to death. The
execution was ordered to take place at Pertuis, near
the scene of the crime.

LA TV ITV TELLIGEN CE, Feb. 8.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(BeforeLord Chief Justice Cockburn and Special:Jury.)

WELLS V. WEBBEIL-LIBEL.

This was an action for libel, in which both par-
ties were medical men. The defendant pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Phinn and Mr. Day were counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Joyce con-
ducted the case for the defence.
Mr. Phinn said the plaintiff, Mr. Wells, was a
surgeon and a fellow of the College of Surgeons,
residing in Grosvenor-square, and practising as a
consulting surgeon. He was head surgeon of the
Samaritan Hospital, which was devoted exclusively
to the treatment of diseases incident to women and
children, and until the end of 1861 he acted as
editor of the Medical Times. The defendant, Mr.
Webber, was a surgeon practising at Tur.bridge
Wells. The present action was brought by the
plaintiff to vindicate his character, in consequence
of some very serious aspersions cast upon it by the
defendant. In the early part of last year the plain-
tiff delivered a lecture at the Samaritan Hospital
on a new mode of treating fistula. It was pub
lished in a medical journal, and being well received
by the profession, the plaintiff was induced to re-
print it in the shape of a pamphlet. In September
last he made a short tour in Derbyshire in com-
pany with two friends, gr. Parker, a manufacturer
at Barnsley, and Mr. Spencer, a surgeon in the same
town. They happened to go to the George Hotel,
Buxton, and while there the plaintiff met Mr. Web-
ber at the table d'hote. He had known him before
but a coolness existed between them in consequence
of the plaintiff not taking up the defendant's cause
in the 111 edical limes, in a difference he had with
the council of the College of Surgeons, who had re-
fused to elect him a fellow. He, Luwever, spoke to
the defendant, and he and his two friends
passed some time afterwards with him in
the smoking room. Next morning as the
plaintiff was waiting for the omnibus at
the hotel door, with his friends, with the inten-
tion of taking their departure from the town, the
L post arrived and brought him several copies of his
pamphlet. He thought it would be an act of
politeness to present a copy to Mr. Webber, and he
called the " boots," and giving him one requested
b that he would take it to that gentleman. He then
left Buxton, and thought no more of the matter.
On the 9th October last he was astonished to see

in the Medical Circular of that date the following
correspondence :
".311t. SPENCER WELLS AND THE VISITORS AT THE

BUXTON HOTEL,

" TO TnE EDITOR OF THE MEDICAL CIRCULAR.

" We learn that on the 25th ult. an illustrative

little book, purporting to be a lecture on vesico-
vaginal and recto-vaginal fistula, delivered in May,
1861, in the neighbourhood of St. George's Hospi-
tal, London, by T. Spencer Wells, Esq., F.R.C.S.,
surgeon to the Samaritan Hospital, &c, and re-
printed from the British Medical Journal, was left
as a gratuity at the George Hotel, Buxton, by the
author ; as some documents forwarded to the College
of Surgeons, of which we subjoin a copy, will show.
(Copy.)
" George Hotel, Buxton, 26th Sept. 1861.
" This pamphlet was left last Tuesday evening
or the following morning with the' boots' of this
hotel (by Mr. Spencer Wells), to be placed in some
conspicuous place, and was accordingly exposed by
him on the post-shelf at the hotel, where ladies of
all ages, and gentlemen, and other people, go to
seek for letters. We, the visitors now assembled
here, especially those with us, cannot but express
our indignation at so revolting a violation of de-
cency, so flagrant a disregard of social privileges;
to say nothing of so quackish as well as indelicate a
mode of advertisement. Such a means of notoriety
among professedly orthodox practitioners is very
sickening.
" We hope this reproof will have the effect of
preventing the extension of so demoralising a sys-
tem of publicity.
" W. ANDROS (President), R. J. GRIFFITHS,
C. POLHILL, S. S. BRITTAIN, GEO. W.
EVAN S, AUST. ODLING, CHAS. MITCHELL,
8.A., R. EVERS."
" Copy of the Letter of the Landlord of the Hotel,
addressed to the Visitors, thanking them for their
Protest against the course adopted by Mr.
Spencer Wells.
"George Hotel, Buxton, Sept. 26, 1861.
" Gentlemen,—l am much obliged to you for the
course you have taken, as I fully concur in the sen-
timents you have expressed relative to the indecent
pamphlet by T. Spencer Wells, F.R.C.S.,' &c.,
London, which was handed to the ' boots' (to be
laid where it would be seen!) by a person who left
this hotel, in company with two other visitors, on
Wednesday morning, and who, I have reason to be-
lieve, is the author of it. I also conclude he is known
to the medical gentleman forming one of your num-
ber, as ' he left his compliments for him' at starting
'to Chatsworth on his way to town.' The pamphlet
to which you have appended your protest will there-
fore be transferred to that gentleman, with a copy
of this letter, and an intimation of your expressed
opinion that it should be forwarded to the College
of Surgeons, of which it appears the author is a
fellow.

" The ' boots' was of course not aware of the con-
tents of the book so handed to him, and therefore
did as he was directed. I am not aware that such
an obscene publication has ever before been left ex-
posed at this house; and in order to prevent a repi-
tition
of such a disgusting and discreditable an oc-
currence, I have given strict orders to my servants
to bring at once to me all such pamphlets and ad-
vertising papers which may hereafter be left with
them.—l have, &c.,
" E. LEES, pro Wm. LEES.
" To the President and Gentlemen of the
Dining-room and Drawing-room."
To the above the editor appended the following
note :
" We have deemed it necessary, in the course of
our duty, to publish this correspondence, inasmuch
as we are informed it has been forwarded to the
council of the Royal College of Surgeons for its con-
sideration. What that body may decide with re•
ference to it we shall hereafter know ; but as we
cannot believe that Mr. Spencer Wells, who is the
ostensible editor ofa medical journal,would intention-
ally offend public decency, some explanation of this
occurrence is absolutely required, in vindication,
not only of his own sense of propriety, but of the
character of the profession."
Mr. Webber's name did not appear among the
guests who signed the document, but he sent it and
the other papers to the Medical Circular, together
with a letter of his own, making further charges
against the plaintiff, and also transmitted them to
the College of Surgeons. The plaintiff afterwards
received a letter from the College of Surgeons, call-
ing upon him to explain the statements, and take
the earliest opportunity to vindicate his character,
suspending their own judgment upon the matter
until they knew the result of the present trial.
The Lord Chief Justice observed that the College
of Surgeons had acted with the greatest discretion
and judgment in suspending their decision until
this case had been tried.
Mr. Phinn said he believed that the accusation
made by the defendant was actuated by professional
rivalry, and commented upon the injurious effect it
was calculated to have upon a professional man like
the plaintiff.
Mr. Huddleston said that if Mr. Wells gave an
assurance that the learned counsel's version of the
sending of the document was the true one, the de-
fendant, under his advice, was ready to withdraw
any observations he had made upon the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Justice—lt is a matter in which
I do not feel justified in interfering.
Mr. Phinn—l think it is due to Mr. Wells that
the case should be investigated.
Mr. Thomas Spencer Wells, the plaintiff, was then
examined in corroboration of the learned counsel's
statement. He said he received six copies of the
pamphlet by the post, and he presented them all to
medical men. His account as to the one given to
the defendant was as follows—l said to the "boots,"
" Do you know Mr. Webber, the doctor ?" He
said he did, and I said, " Give him this pamphlet
with my compliments." Mr. Parker said, "Do you
know Mr. Webber's room ?" and he eaid he did.
Mr. Parker then observed, " You had better take it
to his room." I and my two friends then left the
hotel. On the day on which the Medical Circular
was published-9th of October—l heard first about
the pamphlet. Within a day or two afterwards I re-
ceived a letter from the College of Surgeons calling
for an explanation of the charge against me. I did
not distribute other pamphlets in the course of my
journey,
Cross-examined—The pamphlet has not been
withdrawn from circulation. I only had 150 copies
printed for private circulation and I have some left.
There was some medical conversation in the smok-
ing room. There are plates in the book which
would make me desirous that it should not be left
about in a public hotel. I should have been exceed-
ingly annoyed if I had known that it had been
exposed in a conspicuous position. It is not a book
that I should wish a lady to take up. There is,
however, nothing obscene in it.
i The Lord Chief Justice—There are no more illus-
trations than are necessary for scientific purposes?
Witness replied in the affirmative.
The Lord Chief Justice—l suppose if the book
had been intended for general circulation instead of
entirely for professional men, you would not have 1
shown what you have done ?
Witness—l would not. The book is utterly use-
less for general circulation. The public would TM
understand it,
Nr, Huddleston—l ouppose you were iu a hurry ,

when the post arrived or you would have put the
book for Mr. Webber in an envelope ?

Witness—Yes.

Cross-examination resumed—l have not seen the
" boots" since. I certainly did not tell him to place
the pamphlet where it might be seen.
Mr. Ross, the editor of the Medical Circular, the
plaintiff's two friends, the secretary of the College
of Surgeons, and other witnesses were then called.
Mr. Sadler said that at the hotel Mr. Webber said
to him " If Mr. Wells had said of me what I have
said of him I would Hot speak to him again." Mr.
Trimmer, the Secretary of the College of Surgeons,
said that Mr. Webber had been elected a fellow,
but he had declined to sign the bye-laws. He be-
lieved he had before been black-balled.
Mr. Huddleston did not call any witnesses, but
addressed the jury in mitigation of damages. He
said the defendant was quite content and desirous
to retract anything he might have rashly said or
written about Mr. Wells, and to tender him an
ample apology. Up to the time of the trial he had
never been asked to apologise, nor offered any ex-
planation of the circumstances under which the
pamphlet got into the public room, and if Mr.
Wells now assured him that he never intended it to
appear there he was prepared to make the repara-
tion he had mentioned. From the carelessness of
the "boots," perhaps, the pamphlet, which was cal-
culated to shock the sensibility of modest and un-
professional persons, was found in the room, and
created very great disgust among the visitors. The
defendant thought it had been placed there by the
plaintiff as an advertisement of himself, and, indig-
nant at such conduct, took the course which was
now complained of, and which he (the learned
counsel) now admitted was unjustifiable.

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said the
action was brought for a very serious libel, because
if the plaintiff had, as alleged, placed the pamphlet
in a conspicuous place in the hotel for the purpose
of advertising himself as a medical man, he ought
to be expelled from all decent society. He had no
alternative, therefore, but to challenge his accuser
in a public court of justice, and to vindicate his
character from such a charge. It now appeared
that the accusation was destitute of the slightest
shadow of foundation. The defendant said that,
having heard Mr. Wells' account, he was ready to
withdraw all he had said and apologise, and it was
suggested that with this Mr. Wells ought to be
content, and allow the matter to drop. He could
suppose that the defendant, from a momentary
feeling of indignation at the plaintiff attempt-
ing, as he imagined, to advertise himself by means
of the pamphlet, at the risk of offending the
modesty of female relations in the hotel, might
honestly have taken the course he did ; hut
it, would have been more fair and generous to
a brother practitioner to have first given him an
opportunity for explanation. If Mr. Webber had
appeared in the box, and explained how he came to
be the party to promote the circulation of the docu-
ments, there would be considerable force in the
learned counsel's observations; and he (the learned
judge) could not help expressing his great astonish-
ment and regret that any consideration whatever
should have induced him not to offer himself as a
witness upon that point. The defendant had chosen
to trust to the last word of an ingenious counsel
rather than to his own version of the matter,
honestly and straightforwardly given in the box ;
he thus left himself open to the serious imputation
of foul play on his part in stimulating parties to
engage in a course of action injurious to the cha-
racter and position of a brother medical man. It
was for the jury to say with what animus and object
he published these serious and grave charges. If
they believed he had preferred them with malig-
nant, sinister, and bad motives, they could not suffi-
ciently mark their sense of such conduct, but if on
the other hand they thought he had acted honestly,
though rashly, they would deal with him in a very
different manner, although in any view of the case
it was impossible not to feel that the defendant's
conduct was open to severe censure.

The Foreman, after the jury had been a few
minutes in deliberation, asked if there was any in-
formation as to the position in life of the defendant.
The Lord Chief Justice said it only appeared that
he had retired from practice.
The jury, after being locked up for about a quar-
ter of an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £3OO.