The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-13 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. MILLER.

This was an indictment charging the traverser with an as-
sault on Mr. Thomas Reid, alleged to have been committed
on the 29th of January last, at Epsom pen, in this parish. The
circumstances of this case have been the sulject of much con-
versation since they occurred, and have caused much odium to
be cast on Mr. Miller—that, however, will be now removed by
the result of the proceedings on this trial.
Mr. Edwards, acting Attorney-General, appeared for the
prosecution, and Mr. Middleton and Mr. Macdougal for the
defence.

The witnesses for the prosecution were a reputed son and
daughter of the prosecutor's, and two of his servants. They
deposed that, on the 29th January last, old Mr. Reid went to
Epsom. He found the gate locked, but obtained entrance by
his servant procuring the key from a woman who was there.
He immediately threw away the old lock, and put a new one
he had brought with him, on the gate, and went up to the
house, of which he took possession—claiming the right to the
premises under a deed of trust to Mr. Tharp, executed by
Mrs. Wyatt, the former possessor of the place.
Mr. Miller, as the attorney of two ladies residing in Eng-
land, who also claimed the right to the property, had obtained
possession about 20 days previous from Mr. John Reid, son of
the prosecutor, who had resided on the pen for some years ;
first, as overseer, during the lifetime of Mrs. Wyatt, and then
for nearly two years after, considering himself the owner of the
place, Mrs. Wyatt having made a will bequeathing it to him
and his sister. He, however, became aware of the deed from
Mrs. Wyatt to Mr. Tharp, and from that time he swore that
he considered himself acting as overseer for Mr. Tharp. Mr.
John Reid stated, that Mr. Miller had applied to him several
times for possession, and at length succeeded in getting it,
partly by threatening to sue him fur rent, and partly by a pro-
mise to sell the property to his sister. Under the influence
of these threats and promises, ho swore that he gave up pos-
session to Mr. Miller. On the 29th of January, 29 days after
John Reid gave up possession, old Mr. Reid came from St.
Ann's, and obtained the key of the gate by stating, according
to a witness for the defence, that he wanted a glass of water.
He got it on this pretence, put a new lock on the gate, threw
the old one away, and refused to give up the new key to Mr.
Miller's overseer. Mr. Miller having been informed of this
proceeding, sent several messages to Mr. Reid, desiring him
to quit. One of these messages was sent by a constable (an
apprentice) with one leg, who goes on crutches—and he was
accompanied by a German emigrant who had been out shoot-
ing, and consequently had the fowling piece in his hands.
This was magnified into " armed banditti" being sent to eject
the old gentleman. Mr. Thomas Reid was quitting the place,
when he received a message, alleged to have been brought
from Mr. Tharp, and he then turned back, and refused to
leave. Some hours afterwards Mr. Miller and Mr. Coore
went over, and in a gentle manner, ho more force being used,
according to the evidence of Miss Reid, than was necessary to
put the old gentleman off the property. The fact of the re-
moval was not denied, but some of the witnesses for the prose-
cution endeavoured to magnify the assault to a most marvellous
extent.

In defence it was clearly proved that Mr. Thomas Reid had
no right to Epsom pen ; that quiet possession was given up to
Mr. Miller for the rightful owners; that Mr. T. Reid got ad-
mittance by a misrepresentation, and that when requested to
quit, he said he would rather have a ball through his heart than
do so. On this Mr. Miller and Mr. Coore gently assisted to
lead him off the property. Mr. Miller requested him to ac-
company him to Armagh (his, Mr. Miller's residence), and
on his refusing, Mr. Miller offered first a horse, and then a
chaise, to convoy him to his daughter's residence, which ,be
also declined. The foregoing is a correct epitome of the very
lengthy evidence, both oral and documentary, that was ad-
duced in this case, which occupied the Court two entire days,
Wednesday and Thursday, in the trial. The exaggerated re-
ports of Mr. Miller's conduct on that occasion, arising from the
evidence given upon the information for forcible entry, &e.,
tried before the Magistrates at the Court-house, in this town,
were entirely disproved.
After the evidence was concluded, and Counsel on both
sides had addressed the Jury,
The Chief-Justice summed up the case in a most impartial
manner. The Jury retired for a short time, and on their re-
'urn into Court delivered a verdict of not guilty.

(From the Jamaica Standard of Nov. 11.)
In common justice to Mr. Miller, who, it will be remembered
by our readers, was indicted last Cornwall Assize Court for an
assault upon Mr. Thomas Reid at Epsom, whose trial again
came on in this Court, we must offer a single observation in
this place. This action, it must be borne in mind, after the
bearing for the prosecution alone, was recommended by the
Chief Justice to be compromised ; and such was only pre-
vented taking place by the demand of the prosecutor to be
further recognised in certain legal points which Mr. Miller, as
the agent for another, could not possibly comply with. The
prosecution, therefore, commenced de novo ; and having occu-
pied two whole days in the examination of witnesses, it was at
last fully and clearly proved, to the satisfaction of the Court
and of the Jury, that Mr. Reid, in the matter of trespass was
the actual aggressor, and not Mr. Miller; and that the latter
in dispossessing—in the language of the law and of the evi-
denee—." acted wills no snore force than was necessary."
Thus, then, has Mr. Miller's character at length been cleared
of the aspersions thrown upon it, and that opinion which the
Chief Justice formerly expressed, and which we disinterestedly
supported him in, been proved, by the unanimous and imme-
diate consent of twelve intelligent and impartial men, to he
founded ea justice and truth. We have no room, and indeed
it is unnecessary to say more ; we could not, however, do our
duty, conscientiously, and say less.