The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-14 00:00:00

//~7~
.~ /

Nicholas, Cardinal Wiseman, to come fortkd give ,
evidence upon his subpwna, in the usual form. ; it:-1;.-j!
Siierj77,- 81 lae_said
:_.that 111e_ cardinal was in the/.3,' -4eX.,1r..-
....,„ 1\ ir .. j'ani,s caid, h if‘6s sure the rourt,l6,o4tke I,`
.- Lf:r..
dkst.
inpr4 IficitiCe of the Cardinal being in the:bulldiug. than it ..- "'"s•
'W(kikl, of the poorest individual in the country. lie ,:ik,114.4.2
Ili-anted 'the Cardinal in ekirt. ' ' , . :i, .> aid:
Serjeant Shee said that if the Court did not take no-
•,-141.:-1
iice of the Cardinal, he.was sure his learned friend .bad'' s"',)'','°-'1
'done o quite enough in' MS. speech. (A. laugh.) .7,..L., - ti_,i-ilw
Mr Jappir7And I. mean' to, do so ; and. I have-100 ,Lilt ug
doubt the Cardinal wOulct take ilotice of me if he could.
1 If tba Inquisition wero in existence, I Ictibisr u
where I 'icD
:liould he: (LaillVlteco). ' [.;:zoyp v:n -If ' :77,-- 7 -
' Cardinal Wiseman was-here introdncecrTroniw priyaterr "
room at the back of the learned judges rana 4,,44:--ii-050np.5..,...i
seat on thelheneh. . ' , ;r:a ND M L`,l7 elf/ Util
Mr. James saidle desired the Cardinal to be' sworn. ' ~) tr,a
Serjeant .Shee-said, the Court ,44a Atd 1-cled Oat 'the Imi '47.
Cardinal could not be examined as a witness,. and 111ere...:,,,,,,'
fore ought not to be. sworn. - i 'ti,: ,11,3
The Chief Baron asked what reason there could befor i .1_ tit
administering the oath, when be had ruled that the Cary ' '3"
dinar could not be examined?

Mr. James said, at all events he was entitled to claim ,•
the right to have Cardinal Wiseman sworn, and, what
was more, he should ask for his committal if he refused
to take the oath. It had been done.nnly ,a few days •,_
ago in the case of a poor woman, upon another circuit.
Serjeant Shee said, surely these observations might be
spared. The question of committal could not arise until
there was a refusual to do something that was ordered
to be done by the Court.
The Chief Baron having decided that the oith'itottld
' not be 'administered, the Cardinal left the nowt.
Dr. Thomas Grant was then examined. He- said—l
am the Roman Catholic Bishop of St. George's; South-
wark. I know the defendant, and am on intimate terms
with him. I remember going to Paris upon the subject
of this libel, but I don't remember having had any con-
versation with the defendant relating to it. I had a
conversation with a gentleman belonging to the Univers
journal, but he did not give •me any manuscript. lam
quite sure the defendant never told me that he wrote the
letter signed "Nicholas, Cardinal Wisem4n," which ig:
the subject of the present action. '
The Rev. George Spencer, known as Father Igniting,
was the next witness. Be said—.l am intimately ac-
quainted with Cardinal Wiseman, but I don't see Much
of him. I remember reading the letter kiii-the Catholic
standard, and I had a few-wordy with the Cardinal
upon the subject. All .I can remember thaihe said
was, that he had reason to know that Boyle had com-
municated the article that appeared in the Ami de la
tßeligion. He did nob eay-a word about the authorship
of the letter. • . ,
Mr. P. Lucks, M.P., was next examined—l sac the
editor of the Tablet, but I know nothing of' the letter in
queStion,'and I have never read it. I haVe.-110 manu-
script of it, and I know nothing about it. He went on
to say that, in obedience to the subprena he had received,
he had written to Dublin to request that the manuscript •
of the letter might be sent to him, and he had received
the: roll of paper in reply which he now produced and
, handed to the learned counsel.

Mr. James, having looked at the manuscript, gave it
back to witness, and asked him whose writing it was ?
Mr. Lucas replied that it was the writing of a Mr.
Ormsby, who was connected with the establishment.
He added that be had had some conversation with the
Cardinal upon the subject of the letter at his-house,
and although he could not recollect exactly what it was,
his impression was -

The Chief Baron said, the witness must not state his
impressions.

Examination continued—Witness certainly under-
stood that the Cardinal had Written a letter, and that it
referred in some way to Boyle. He did not know, how-
evil., what letter was referred to. g,phOuld say that
tl4 letter had relation to Boyle, but not referring to any
attack that had been made upon him.
ha plaintiff was then called and sworn, and Mr.
J, nes was about to examine him, when
irjeant Shee interposed, and said that, unless his
le rued friendcarry
could the. evidence of publication
fu t
J,
iler than he had, he should submit there was nothing
to, go to the jury.

The Chief 7B:llion—There is clearly not siiffdient evi-
dfnee of publication to go to the jury, and if no more
evidence on that point is to be offered, in my opinion,
there is an end of the case.
iThe plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

=

v•,us'

c