The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-09 00:00:00

THE LONDON MISSIONARY SOCIETY.

LIBEL.

THE REV. DR. TIDMAN v. THE REV. ROBERT

AINSLIE.
TERMINATION OP THE PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. Whateley, the arbitrator in this case, resumed
the inquiry yesterday in the Lord Chancellor's Court.
There was a very large attendance of persons connected
with the society, the greatest interest being felt in the
proceedings.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, Mr. Joseph Browne, and Mr.
Lush appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Edwin James and
Mr. Hawkins represented the defendant.

Edwin Stacey, the clerk who found the letter alleged
to have been written by the Rev. Mr. Davies to his
wife, was examined by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins as fol-
lows :—I have been twenty years in the employment

of the London Missionary Society. I have known
Mr. Davies ever since his first connexion with the

society—since 1839—1 never had any difference with
him, nor did I ever hear of any complaint being
made by him against me. I went with him to Black-
wall to see him on board the vessel when he was leaving

this country for Berbice. I corresponded with him from
1832 to 1848, and am perfectly acquainted with his
handwriting. I never tried to imitate writing, nor
did I ever tell anybody I had the power to do so. I did
not know Mr. Davies had any settled abode in 1845-6.
I am able to state of ray own knowledge he addressed
letters to his wife at the Mission-house. She frequently
read and answered them in the waiting-room. On Tues-
day, the 4th of November, 1845, I happened to go into
the waiting-room, and saw lying on the floor a sheet of
note paper. It was lying open near the door. I picked
it up. Some of the passages, which were deeply under-
scored, struck my eye. I read the letter from beginning
to end. I was perfectly acquainted with the character of
the handwriting. It was that of the Rev. E. Davies. I
saw from the conclusion of the letter that it was ad-
dressed to his wife. In 1845, the Rev. John Arundel
was the Home Secretary. He was away ill at the time.
I showed the letter to my fellow-clerk, Mr. Robert
Young Horley. He was well acquainted with Mr. Da-
vies' handwriting. We agreed to make a copy of the
letter. I wrote the copy. This is the copy of the let-
ter, and this is the postscript, being the attestation
signed by Mr. Horley and myself. We took a press
copy for Mr. Henley to keep. I folded up the original
letter and placed it in an envelope till Mrs. Davies should
call at the Mission-house. I wrote " Mrs. Davies" on
it. When Mrs. Davies called at the Mission-house, I
placed it in her hand, with two other letters which had
come in by the London delivery post. On the following
day Horley told me he had met a friend who advised him
to have nothing to do with giving the letter up to Mr.
Arundel. I took my copy of the letter home, and pat
it in a box, in which it was for many years.
Maria Stacey examined by Sergeant Wilkins—l am
the wife of the last witness. I remember on one occa-
sion many years ago my husband telling me about a letter
he had found in the mission-house. He said it was a
letter from Mr. Davies to his wife. I wished to see it,
of course, but he said "it was not fit to be seen ; it was a
♦ery bad letter."
Professor Godwin examined by Serjeant Wilkins—l
am professor of theology at the New College, St. John's
Wood, an office which I have held for four years, and a
similar one for eleven years in Highbury College. lam
a member of the Congregational Board. I was chair-
man of the committee to investigate certain charges
against Mr. Davies in June 1852.
At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. James requested
an adjournment of half an hour, remarking it might save
the learned arbitrator's time.
The learned counsel for the defendant then retired
with the view of considering the terms of an arrangement
for settling the case. The plaintiff's counsel did not
leave the court.
Mr. James, on his return, said they had availed them-
selves of the interval so kindly afforded by the learned
arbitrator to adopt a course which he must say in jus-
tice to his client, Mr. Ainslie, had originated in his
own impulse, and which had met with the sanction of
his learned friend Mr. Hawkins and himself. Now, on
behalf of Mr. Ainslie, he had to tender to his learned
friend Serjeant Wilkins, as the counsel for Dr. Tidman,
the regret of the defendant that he had been induced, on
the statements of the parties to whom, after the evi-
dence which had been adduced, he could now attach no
credit to impute to him perjury and subornation of per-
jury ; and it was to.ths honour of Mr. Ainslie that
now, when be had ground for doubting the veracity
of those parties, he came forward to make an ample
apology for the error into which he had been led.
He now therefore publicly, on behalf of Mr. Ainslie,
had to tender to Dr. Tidman not only Mr Ainslie's
apology, but the expression of his belief that there
had been nothing on Dr. Tidman's part, during the
whole of these proceedings, which detracted from
his character as a gentleman and a Christian mi-
nister. Mr. Ainslie, feeling that he could no longer
place that implicit reliance on the veracity of those
on whose statements he had brought his charges against
Dr. Tidman, now withdrew those charges, not only
against Dr. Tidman, but against Mr. Stacey, to whom
he made the same apology ; and would consent to a ver-
dict against him in the two actions brought by Dr. Tid-
man and Mr. Stacey, against whom there was no impu-
tation ; but he would say, in justice to Mr. Ainslie,
that his conduct had been such as to hare justified the
assumption that Mr. Ainslie had formed. However,
the charges against Dr. Tidman and Mr. Stacey, were
now withdrawn, and Mr. Ainslie retired from a contest
which he undertook from the most generous impulses,
to vindic de a man who, as he then believed, had been
falsely accused, and in doing so acted most generously
by indemnifying all the parties from the expenses they
had been put to. (A murmur of applause from the au-
ditory followed the learned counsel's remark.)
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiffs in the
two actions, " Tidman v. Ainslie," and " Stacey v. the
same," with nominal damages of 40s. by consent.
The learned Arbitrator said it was part of the order of
reference that his order should be published in the news-
papers.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins said his learned friend Mr.
James himself had agreed to waive that, as the proceed-
ings would go forth to the public, and that would be
sufficient publication. The plaintiff was anxious to
avoid anything that would have the appearance of a
triumph.
Mr. James said Mr. Davies was in court, and perhaps
the learned arbitrator would ask him how he intended to
act in reference to his actions ?
The learned Arbitrator said he would rather not put
the question to Mr. Davies now, as he had better consult
his advisers, there being undoubtedly a strong body of
evidence against him.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. James then thanked
the learned arbitrator for his courtesy and attention to
the case, and the proceedings terminated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 8.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before Vice• Chancellor Kindersley.)
WYNCH V. GRANT.

The question in this suit was whether some executors,
who were the personal representatives of both a creditor
and his debtor, and had in their hands assets of the
debtor, could, out of those assets, retain the creditors'
debt in priority to other claimants. The facts of the
case were as follows :—Sir John Peter Grant, by a
Scotch settlement, secured 5501. to his wife, Lady Grant,
after which he became a judge in India, and died in May,
1848, having by his will appointed Thomas George Gar-
diner and James Gibson Craig his executors. Lady
Grant never received any payments on account of the
5501., and she died in May, 1852, having appointed her
husband's executors her executors also. In that latter
capacity they carried in to the chief clerk's office a claim
in respect of the settled reoney belonging to Lady Grant.
This claim, if proved against Sir J. Grant's office, would
render the assets insufficient to pay all his creditors in
full. The executors, therefore, as the representatives
of Lady ;Grant, insisted upon their right to retain
her debt, by virtue of the settlement, out of Sir J.
Grant's assets in their hands ; while the creditors con-
tended they had no inch right to priority, and they re-
lied on the opinion of a Scotch advocate, which had been
taken to that effect. _ _

The Vice• Chancellor said a creditor's right to retain
his debt out of a debtor's assets in his hands was a com-
mon law right ; but the reason why an executor was
entitled to retain his debt, was because he could not
bring an action fir it against himself, while the other
creditor might sue and get paid first. An executor
might prefer one creditor to another, and hence there
was, therefore, no injustice in his preferring himself as
one. In a case of " Wyatt v. Wyatt" (1 Mad. Ch. Pr.
730—note) this court had, in a similar case to the pre-
sent, directed a ease to a court of law, but, from the
report, nothing further appeared to have been done.
Under all the circumstances, his honour thought that
the executors •f Lady Grant 'were entitled to retain
in their hands the amount due from the estate of that
lady's husband.