The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-19 00:00:00

A Clergyman Chaiged with an Assault,

At the usual weekly sitting of the magistrates for the
Hundred of Taverham, in the county of Norfolk, on Satur-
day last, the Rev. Samuel Hayward, vicar of Salhouse and
Wrexham, was charged with assaulting Sarah Webster, a
girl about 20 years of age, at Salhouse, on Sunday, Sept.
3. The magistrates who adjudicated upon the case were
Mr. John Longe and Colonel Stracey, of Clitheroo. Mr.
Chittock appeared on behalf of the complainant, and Mr.
Lenay for the defendant.
The complainant deposed that she walked from Norwich
to Salhouse on Sunday, 3d inst., to see defendant, with
whom she had been corresponding, about some money
which he had promised to pay for her. She met defen-
dant as he was coming from church after morning ser-
vice, and requested to speak to him. He said ho would
have nothing to do with such a worthless -, and
went to his residence, whither complainant followed
him. On reaching his house she rang the bell,
and defendant answered the summons. She again
told him what she wanted, when he pushed her from the
step, along the gravelled walk, threw her into a bush, and
kicked her leg. She afterwards went into defendant's kit-
chen, being very faint, and had a glass of water, and found
that her dress had been much torn. To show that she be-
lieved she had a right to go to defendant's house on the
Sunday, Mr. Chittock elicited a statement from the com-
plainant that she went into his service when nearly 15 years
of age as a general servant. About five months after she
had been in his house ho seduced her, and fearing that she
was pregnant she told him, and he supplied her from time
to time with a mixture of gin, laudanum, and some dark stuff
which ho got from a chemist's. He recommended her to
leave his service, and promised to get her another situation.
Complainant subsequently found that she was not pregnant,
and in 1862, she went, at his invitation, with some friends
to his house, when he made au appointment to meet her
the following day at the White Hirt Inn, Norwich. They
met, and intercourse took place between them, the birth of
a child in July, 1863, being the result. A medical man in
Norwich attended the complainant, and defendant paid one
of his bills, and promised to pay another, but did not keep
his word, and it was to induce him to do so that she called
upon him on the day of the assault. It was also adduced
that on one occasion at the White Hart defendant promised
to marry her when Mrs. Hayward (who was in court during
thn hearing of the case) died. Complainant also said that
sho could not ensure finding defendant at home during the
week, and that was why she called on the Sunday. She
went to a house in Norwich which he frequented, and
which was occupied by a Miss Child, alias Harbord, for-
merly mistress of Salhouse school, but that person and de-
fendant refused to admit her.

In cross-examination complainant denied being too
familiar with two persons at Saihouse, and said that de-
fendant, when he kicked her, was wearing the boots in
which he walked home from church.

The Rev. J. S. G. Cranmer, the curate of the parishes of
Salhouse and Wroxham, deposed to meeting the com-
plainant as he was going to perform his afternoon duties,
and he observed that she was much exhausted, and that
her dress was much torn. When he saw her again, on the
following Wednesday, she had a large bruise upon her
arm.

Mrs. Denmark, with whom complainant resides, corro-
borated the last witness as to the condition of complainant
after the assault. She also stated that the defendant on
one occasion left a sovereign with her for complainant.

Mr. Lenay, on behalf of defendant, called Sarah Alexan-
der, servant, who stated that her master did not kick the
complainant, that he had on his carpet slippers, and that
she fell down upon the path. In cross-examination she
admitted not seeing defendant push complainant off the
step, and that her master was between herself and coin-
plainant.
This was all the evidence, and the court was cleared
during the deliberation of the magistrates. On the re-ad-
mission of the public,
The Chairman said to defendant—We have given this
very disagreeable case every attention, and we have come
to the conclusion, without the slightest hesitation, that we
must convict you. It is certainly one of the grossest
assaults that ever came before this or any other court. The
defendant was then fined £lO and costs, and in default
three months' imprisonment.
The defendant had not the money in his possession, and
two hours was granted him to obtain it.

Flogging a Schoolboy.

-

A case which had excited much public interest was heard
yesterday at the Chipping Ongar Petty Sessions, to which
Dr. Clark, who keeps a school iu which there are about 100
pupils, was summoned for having, it was alleged, exercised
undue severity towards a pupil 12 years of age, named
Francis Simlack.

The lad stated that he had run away from the school
twice, and that Dr. Clark had given him blows on the
hand because he was walking on a Sunday and had picked
some blackberries. In reference to the flogging to which
he was subjected, he said a boy (Clarke) who sleeps in my
room told Dr. Clarke I had thrown some butter about the
room. My mother had given me some, and the other boys
said if I did not give them some they would tell on me.
Clarke took me up into the bed-room and I scraped it off
the wall, and then he took me into the school and reported
me. Dr. Clarke then gave me 40 lashes with a stick on my
back as I was lying on a desk. The stick was as thick as a
riding whip. As I lay over he pulled up my jacket. After
1 had been flogged the boys told me they had counted the
number of blows ; nearly all the boys in the school were
present. Dr. Clarke said I was going to run away. Two
other boys said they would also run away. Dr. Clarke
said he owed me a flogging, and I should then have it.
He then flogged me the second time, and he gave me
forty more lashes ; he then kicked me out of the room.
He hit me on both occasions as hard as he could. It
was with a knotty stick he struck me. I then ran away.
I could not run about with the other boys. I was sore and
bruised, and I lay abed the next day. On Wednesday I ran
away and went home. I walked from Ongar to Loughton.
I was about three hours walking. I ran away four times.
First time I was brought back about a week after ; the
second time I came back at night ; the third and fourth
times was on account of my having been beaten. My
father said he would rather have me away with him.
I did not grease the face of a boy (Clarke) as he lay
in bed. There is a captain to each room. Ho reported
me after he showed me the butter on the wall. It
was about as big as the palm of my hand. I did not then
intend to go away. Dr. Clark did not tell me he would
give me 10 lashes. It was a boy_named Fisher told me 1
had 10. I had been in the school about one month. Dr.
Clark came to my father's house and offered to pay back
half the money. I don't say I was a good boy. My father
threatened to send me to a reformatory school. I have seen
some boys thrashed with a cane. Dr. Clark told a boy named
Griffiths to cut a stick, and with that he was flogged.
Mr. Myhill, a physician and surgeon of Old Ford, Bow,
who had examined the boy, said he considered the punish-
ment had been excessive, and described the condition of
the boy's legs when he saw him.
The "captain" of the room proved that Master Simlack
had smeared a boy's face, and for this he reported him, but
the witness said that only 10 blows were given, and 10 for
the old offence of running away.
The magistrates' clerk stated that when the summons
was applied for the boy's back was black and blue, and his
flesh looked like crimped cod.
Mr. Preston, who appeared for the schoolmaster, con-
tended that the facts had been much exaggerated.
The magistrates, after some consideration, stated that,
although no doubt too much violence had been used, the
conduct of the boy had been irritating, and they had de-
cided not to convict the accused, but they should recom-
mend him to use some instrument which would not inflict
such wounds. The case was dismissed without costs? ex-
cept Dr. Clark's own costs.

MR. HUDSON, THE EX-RAILWAY KING.—It will
be remembered that at the late general election Mr.
Hudson, better known as the Railway King, was a candidate
for the representation of Whitby, but immediately previous
to the nomination day he was arrested at the suit of W.
H. F. Sandeman, of London, for a debt of £23,989 55., in-
cluding costs. He was forthwith sent to York Castle, at
which prison he arrived on the 10th July last, and still
remains in custody. On Saturday Mr. J. Stephen, registrar
of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, attended at York Castle,
and held a court to adjudicate parties in the gaol detained
for debt bankrupts. Mr. Hudson was one of the insolvents
who was required to appear before the registrar; but Mr.
Rees, solicitor for the detaining creditor, Mr. Sandeman,
applied that the case might be adjourned, inasmuch as within
the last few days a friend of Mr. Hudson had boon enabled
to make a proposition for an arrangement, and be believed
that the proposition would be accepted by Mr. Sandeman.
It was considered desirable to avoid bankruptcy proceed-
ings, which might interfere with Mr. Hudson's future pro-
spects. Mr. Rees therefore asked for an adjournment, so
that time might be afforded for carrying out the arrange-
ment. The registrar said he would have been glad to have
acceded to the application, but he thought he had not the
power. Some conversation took place between Mr. Rees
and the registrar on the point, but the latter ruled that Mr.
Hudson must appear, and that he could not consent to an
adjournment. Mr. Hudson was accordingly brought into
court, when he addyessed the registrar, arguing that he
had a right to ask for an adjournment, .there being a die-
cretionary power vested in the registrar. The registrar
mutually adjourned the case for a month.