The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-19 00:00:00

, y,6,6

i PRICE SD.

1
that he heard from Lieutenant Curtis that Colonel Gar-
rett, had called Lieutenant Perry a fool for his pains for
reporting, he does not say that he ever heard from Lieu-
tenant Curtis or any one else that Colonel Garrett had
done what the prisoner had charged him with doing--
viz., personally reproached him for making a complaint,
and called him a fool for his pains. And it. is this allega-
tion alone which forms the subject of the first issue.
And with regard to the third issue, relating to Captain
Nicholas's conduct, the evidence, so far from contradict-
ing that of• the witnesses for the prosecution, tends mate-
rially to confirm it ; and it does so, not when given in
reply to questions put to him on cross-examination, but
to questions put pointedly to him on the part of the pri-
soner. At this stage of the proceedings a letter was put
in evi.lence by the prisoner, from which it would appear
that Lieutenant W. T. Waldey had stated that Captain
Nicholas had, on one occasion, used an opprobrious ex-
pression towards Ensign Coote. Whether the expres-
sion
in question was ever used does not seem to be
clear, but, if used, it seems to have left so little im-
pression on Ensign Coote's memory, that when asked
as to this very matter on cross-examination by the
prisoner, he positively denied that it had ever been used
towards him on any one occasion since he joined the
regiment. And he spoke of Captain Nicholas in the
same gratifying terms that had been used towards him
by all his brother officers. I shall not waste'your time
by further comment on such a piece of evidence. The
fourth witness, Major Stewart, seems to have been
called solely with a view of prejudicing the Court
against the 46th Regiment and its commanding officer.
The prisoner studiously avoided puttinga single question
to him which had any relevancy to the charges, and when
the Court directed the attention of the witness to the
charges, and examined him upon them, it appeared first,
that he knew nothing whatever about them ;' secondly,
that the only matter of which he had any personal know-
ledge occurred in 1842, twelve years ago. The evidence
of the fifth witness; private Edward Lawler, the servant
to the prisoner, like that of the last witness, was quite
irrelevant to the issues. I have now gone through the
whole of the evidence both for the prosecution and the
defence, and although, in the address that has been read
to you by the prisoner, a very different view of it has
been taken from that which I have submitted to you, I
believe I have correctly stated its bearing on the issues,
and the wei -dit that should properly be attached to it.
I shall not waste your time by commenting on the pri-
soner's assertions=that he has been attacked and sur-
rounded by conspiracy, combination, calumny, and per-
jury; nor upon the still more extravagant assertion that
his case has been injured in consequence of his having
been, from time to time. stopped in the cross-examina-
tion of the witnesses. But there are some statements in
that address which cannot be passed over so lightly.
The prisoner has insinuated, I may almost say as-
serted, that witnesses who could have given material evi-
dence have been sent to Turkey to deprive him of their
evidence. A simple recital of dates will best expose the
truth of this assertion. The prisoner's letter which gave
rise to this trial was written on July 24; all the witnesses
in question had then already been seven days at sea, for
they embarked on 17th July, exactly a week before the
letter was written, so that, had those officers been sent
to Turkey in order to deprive the prisoner of their tes-
timony, it must have been from a foreknowledge on the
part of the authorities that seven days after their em-
barkation the prisoner would do an act for which he
would be brought to trial, and might, therefore, need
their evidence. Again, the prisoner instances as an act
of injustice on the part of the prosecution that the letter
relating to the difference between himself and Lieut.
Shervinton was introduced into the case. The court
will remember, and it appears on the record of the pro-
ceedings, that it was against the wish of the prosecutor,
and at the express and urgent request of the prisoner,
that those letters were produced. From these two in-
stapces the court will be able to appreciate the general
character and trustworthiness of the address. There is
one more point to which I should wish to call your at-
tention, and I have done. The prisoner, finding himself
unable to justify his libelious charges against Captain
Nicholas, seeks to shelter himself-Ist, under a legal
technicality, that the alleged libel was a privileged
communication ; 2ndly, that as I had not called
Captain Nicholas to contradict the charges, as I did
Colonel Garrett, they ought, therefore, to be taken to
be true. With regard to the libel being a privileged
communication, I shall leave that question for the
court and the Judge-Advocate-Generat to deter-
mine. But as to my not calling Captain Nicholas
as a witness on the third and fotirth instances on the
charge, the only possible object of calling him would
have been to give the prisoner an opportunity of cross-
examining him generally, and the Court will find in page
419 of the proceedings that when Captain Nicholas was
examined on the first and second instances, the prisoner
not only had the opportunity, but availed himself of it
with reference to the affair of Lieut. Dunscombe, and
would doubtless have done so with reference to other
matters, had he isat .known that it would be more pru-
dent to abstain. If the prisoner had charged Captain►
Nicholas with sense specific. act or acts of misconduct, I
should certainly have felt it my duty to examine him as
to such matters in the same way as I examined Colonel
' Garrett ; but when a man is charged with habitual mis-
conduct of an indefinite nature, it would obviously
be absurd to adopt such a ccurse. The only mode of
disprovir'g such a charge is by the evidence of those wit-
nesses who must know the habitual tenor of his life, and
he, therefore, able to give the most satisfactory informa-
tion respecting it ; and as the prisoner asserted in his
letter that he was prepared to substantiate by evidence
all that he had said against Captain Nicholas, it is surely
matter of grave observation that he has not even at-
tempted to substantiate those charges by calling a single
witness, or producing any evidence of any sort or kind.
I shall now, gentlemen, leave the case in your hands,
without further comment.

Mr. Perry handed in a statement relative to the read-
ing of the whole of the correspondence respecting Lieu-
tenant Shervinton's affair, which the court objected to