The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-27 00:00:00

acted illegally in acting as attorney and advo-
cate, and that he had been guilty of illegal
maintenance. He (Mr. Kennedy) would only l'say
that it was a case that must be established by
evidence, and not by a speech, and he would
deal very shortly with the opening. He sought
to recover £20,000 for services which he had ren-
dered, and rendered under the most extraordinary
circumstances. For those services the female defen-
dant had herself promised the amount named to him,
and had signed a deed for that amount. The service
he had done the defendant was to restore her to
large estates, known as the Swinfen Estates, and
to that cause he had devoted some of the most valu-
able years of his life, meeting with all kinds of ob-
stacles and opposition, making many enemies, and
at the same time sacrificing the most valuable pro-
spects of his life. During the time he was conduct-
ing the case the defendant made the most liberal
offers and promises, declaring that she would be a
sister to him, and that she would compensate him
for all he suffered in her cause, and that he should
share her good fortune whatever it might be. He
never made any ungenerous or illegal stipulation
with her. He only made such a bargain as his ser-
vices entitled him to. After 1859, when the decree
was made that established her in possession of her
property, she agreed that he was entitled to this
remuneration, and soon after that she executed a
deed at his request, giving him a reversion in the
estate. This deed was at first intended to be secu-
rity for the sum proposed, but at her request it was
put into the form of an absolute gift, and she de-
clared at a later period that she regarded it beyond
a question as an actual gift. They had not on the
defendant's side pleaded the deed as an answer to
the charge, and they sought now to take from him
the money by saying that the deed was not a gift.
No complaint was made until Oct., 1861, and then
she not only broke her other promises to plaintiff,
but she sought to take back from him her own gift.
She wrote a letter to him to give the deed up on the
ground that be had obtained it by fraud. In the rage
of the moment, for her conduct nearly drove him out
of his mind, he resolved to publish the whole facts
of the case in a pamphlet, and to show her conduct
to the whole world. That pamphlet was to have been
called " The Serpent of Swinfen," but by the advice
of his solicitors and friends be was brought to a
calmer tone of mind. This woman sent to him her
solicitor, Mr. Collis, a highly respectable gentle-
man, and Mr. Collis showed him (plaintiff) a letter
in which charges were made against him by the fe-
male defendant, and Mr. Collis offered him £lO,OOO
if he would give up the deed, and he refused, not
only because it was not what he was fairly entitled
to, but because he would make no surrender of his
legitimate claim after what she had done. He had
determined to vindicate his rights. His position was
peculiar, and if the deed was void he would not have
been paid for his services. If he had taken no steps
to vindicate himself it might have been said that he
admitted the charge of fraud, and at his death there
would have been nothing to protect his children
against the allegations made by the defendants, and
he did not know at that time how far he was af-
fected by the marriage settlement made at the mar-
riage of defendant with Mr. Brown. He would have
been content had they left him the deed. It now aP-*
peered that that marriage settlement was a gross
infringement on his rights, and instead of carrying
out what that deed contained they charged him with
these indictable offences. They sought, when they
found he was determined to go to trial, to move the
venue to London, which would have postponed the
trial for some months. They did not succeed, and
then they filed a bill in equity, and in filing this bill
they made affidavits totally differingfrom the female
defendant's letter of November. The letter said
" she did not know what she was doing when she
signed that deed, and that it was a black transaction,
and so Mr. Collis and the attesting witnesses
thought." The affidavit alleged that the deed was
given for another purpose, and was to be returned;
that the female defendant frequently asked him for
it, and that he refused to give it up; and it accused
him further with deliberately trying to get a will in
1859, making the most ungenerous use of the infle-
enee which he had obtained as her counsel. There
was one most remarkable thing in the affair. All the
persons who had made terms to him had made ever,'
effort to keep things from the public gaze, and the
only person who was really anxious to have a the'
rough public inquiry was himself. There was an'
other circumstance stranger still, to which he would
call the attention of the jury. if he was guilty of
what the defendant had charged him with she had
been perfectly aware of it for several years, and be.
would show the jury, not only by his evidence, but
by her own letters, that he and the defendant had
continued to be on terms of intimate friendship from
that time to October last. He had no desire to de
more than to vindicate his character and assert his
rights, and if the defendants would withdraw their
pleas and put on the record the deed, or if they Pre:
ferred it pay the present value of the deed, he would
accept it for the purpose of avoiding public scandal'
He had no fear that any human being would believe,
any of the things brought against him, and he would
prove to the satisfaction of the jury that what the
female defendant had sworn to the affidavit i!`
Chancery was a mass of untruth, and he
would ca
ll
before them Mr. Collis. He did not know what
they would say, because the deed was not executed,
in his (plaintiff's) presence ; but he would only re 7
peat that he never heard a complaint about the deed
either from the female defendant or from her trus-
tees under the deed, Messrs. Collis and Howitti
They were honourable men, and he had no doubt
they would report to the jury what was done with
regard to him (plaintiff). The female defendant
first of all said she did not know what she was do-
ing, and then she said that plaintiff held the deed
as security, and when he received £2,000 he woo
to give it up. Plaintiff was never asked for the deed,
and he would prove that he had performed the or'
vice for which it was given, and the jury would see
that in a fair commercial point of view the stye
charged was not unreasonable. Having reference
to some seven years afterwards, £20,000 paid to him
now would not be worth more than £6,000 paid:
then would have been, and the jury would see that
he would be no great gainer by the bargain if he
got the money, when they had heard the evidence.
if he could only have known what would happen
he would not for £20,000 have to undergo what he
had already undergone in this case.
[Mr. Kennedy was under examination when the
court adjourned.]

FOREIGN MAIL _PACKET LIST.