The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-25 00:00:00

he thanked her for" the pretty flowers enclosed in
her last letter, but he would much rather have seen
the flower that sent it." In another letter of August
of the same year he again wrote, acknowledging the
plaintiff's long-looked for letter, and also informing
her that he had received her portrait, which, he
said, was a good resemblance, but than which he
would rather have the one it was taken from. He
then said the portrait employed the greater portion
of his time; it looked " such a modest little crea-
ture. "In November, 1858, she left service and again
went home ; and just about this time the defendant
having some difference with his uncle, was also
taken in by the plaintiff's mother, and kept as a
member of the family. In January, 1859,
plaintiff went again into service; and in writi
said ng to
her in February of the following year, he he
" hoped the time would soon come when he should
be able to call her his." Thus up to the above date
he had talked to the plaintiff of marriage, made
her presents, had been honourably received by her
friends, and the marriage was expected shortly to
tyke place. At last the defendant took advantage
of his nosition with the plaintiff, and from that
t •
moment do deserted her.
The Jury ~nand a verdict for the plaintiff—

Damages, £125.
CROWN COURT.
THE CEMETERY OUTRAPES AT SHEFFIELD.--TFIE
TRIAL OF THE CLERGYMAN.
John Livesey (on bail), was charged with making
a false entry of burial on the 3d of April last, and
giving a false certificate of the same burial on the
sth of June last, at Sheffield.
Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr. Hannay prosecuted ;
Mr_ Bliss, Q.C., and Mr. Blanchard defended the
prisoner.
The case seemed to excite an nnusuai degree of
interest, and the court was crowded at a ve:y early

hour.
Mr. Price stated the case. The prisoner at i.he
bar,--the Rev. John Livesey, has been, and is now,
the incumbent of St. Philip's Church, Sheffield, and
has had the office some 30 years, and so far as he
(the learned counsel) knew had conducted himself
as any one in that position of life could be expected
to do. Mr. Livesey was indicted under the 24th
Victoria, chap. 98, sec. 36, which enacts to the
effect, among other things, that whosoever should
knowingly or unlawfully insert, cause, or permit to
be inserted in any register of births, marm2,ges,
deaths, or burials, or any certificated coi:117
thereof, any false entry relating to any such
births, deaths, marriages or burials, should
be guilty of felony. The entry out of
which the present case arises is one con-
cerning a body brought from the Medical Hall, of
one John Gretores. It purported that it was buried
on April 3d, which was utterly false, as it was then
lying in a coach-house in the cemetery. Next came
the most important entry, "By whom performed ?"
Answer, "John Livesey," which was equally false
as the other, and more than all, must have been
made with the full knowledge of the prisoner in
whose handwriting the entry was. In consequence
of certain disclosures concerning the exposure and
mutilation of dead bodies in the cemetery the sexton
became the object of much excitement and public
opprobrium, and in consequence Mr. Livesey took
upon himself to write a letter of explanation to the
Sheffield newspapers, in which he tried to excul-
pate himself, and cast all the blame upon the sexton.
He spoke of what was found in the coach-house as
" a mass of foetid matter, black and shapeless," and
of the existence of which he surely ought to have
known ; and he also referred to what was found in
the cemetery catacomb, or large pit, as " relics of
humanity, over which the burial service could not
legally be read." Now, there were only three cases
in which clergymen can refuse to perform the burial
service. The first was in the case of one who might
be excommunicated by the Church; the second where
a person had not been baptised ; and thirdly, in the
instance of one respecting whom a coroner's inqui
sition had returned a verdict offelo de se. Now, al-
though the prisoner knew this, yet he represented
to the authorities that he had read the burial service;
besides which, if he had refused to do so, the autho-
rities would probably have decided the question,
and thus have satisfied the prisoner's mind. Since
the time that the question had been before the
grand jury Mr. Livesey had had the register, to
which he had appended a long note, explaining that
on June 23 last he had discovered that the body of
Joseph Gretorex was not buried, as he had supposed,
on the 3d April last, but that after its removal it
had been decently buried.
The above facts were then proved by the wit-
nesses for the prosecution.
Mr. Bliss addressed the jury for the defence.
He contended that the present was rather a
question for the bishop of the diocese than a
criminal court. He submitted also thnt the burial
service was addressed to the living, and not to the
dead, and when the interment was a square box,
with a dissected body in it, and without any kind
and mourning friends to witness the ceremony, the
service might, without impropriety, be left out.
After an absence of nearly half an hour the jury
returned a verdict of Guilty. Sentence deferred.
The case of Isaac Howard, the sexton, was then
proceeded with, but was not concluded when our
parcel was dispatched,