The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-29 00:00:00

me teat lie Eltid effete:l the girl's iutiler 20/. lie t,,,
never said anything about that, or any other sum. I
know a man named Romney. I have not heard from the
defendant that he sent Romney to offer the plaintiff 201.
I will swear he has never said anything about, the offer,
on auy one occasion. I never said I had hail eonnexwn
with the girl down to Sept. or October, 1345. I never
told Mayne that.

Re•cxamined by Mr. BRA MWELL A great many peo-
ple, at different times, hive asked me what es ide rice I
was going to give. Davy. the postboy, is not employed
by the plaintiff ; he pu:s his li,xse up at the plaintiff's
stable.
By the JUDGE—It was part of my duty to go to
clean the church, and it was on these occasions that I
had connexion with her. When I had connexion with
her, her sisters were in the church, and the little Gar-
mands. There are four of the Garmands. They we re
there- on some of the occasions. These transactions
with me and he: occurred iu different parts of the
church. Mrs. Dismend WAS also very often in the
church at the time. She was generally occupied in the
gallery.
By a Juryman—Mrs. Diamond could not see from the
gallery to the pew where the connexion took place.
Elizabeth Diamond called and examined by Mr.
BRAMWELL—She said, I live at Tottenham, and was
employed in the church there down to the latter end of
1847. I know the young man who has just left the box.
I know Frances Elizabeth Colyer. I have frequently
seen her in the church when young Chalkley has been
there. I saw no improper conduct between them.
I have frequently told her to go out of the church,
as I did not wish the church to be dirtied,
but I had no idea of what was being transacted there.
I have seen her there with other children playing, and
I have turned them out. I remember a Mr. Stringer,
who died suddenly in August of last year. .1 assisted
to lay him out; and I charred there for some weeks,
six or seven. I remember a young man, named Ben-
jamin Perkins; he was there keeping the shop open for
the trade until the shop was let. I saw the young wo-
man several times in the shop; and I have told her it
was not proper for her to be there so many times among
the young chaps; she could not be buying always.
This Perkins was about seventeen or eighteen. I saw
the young woman there once or twice. I never saw
her in any other part of the house than the shop.
Cross-examined by Sergeant BYLES —I have known
Tottenham Church ever since it was built—sixteen or
seventeen years. I know the galleries of that church;
I have cleaned them many times. I think there are
pews in the gallery, from which the altar is not visible.
When the clergyman is at the altar he can be seen from
every pew in the gallery. I never turned her out on
account of any indecent conduct in the church. I have
known the girl for eight years. I never saw anything
indecent or improper in her conduct at Perkins' shop.
Sometimes there were other girls with her at Perkins'
shop, and I used to turn them away. I have seen her
there alone more than twice; on one such occasion she
said she had come to buy a pair of scissors. Mr.
Stringer's shop is right opposite the church on Totten-
ham-green, facing the public road. Mr. Stringer was a
Quaker.
This was the defendant's case.
• Frances Elizabeth Colyer was recalled by Mr. Ser-
geant BYLEs to be interrogated with respect to Perkins.
She said—l know old Mr. Stringer's shop. There was
never any familiarity between me and the young man
Perkins there.

Cross-examined by Mr. BRAIWWELL—I went once
there alone to settle a bill for my father, and I went
alone to buy a pair of scissors. I have been there, too,
with other children. I don't remember seeing Mrs.
Diamond there, but she might be. I don't think
she ever spoke to me about my being there. I
never remember it. I never heard her say it was
improper for me to be in that shop. She may have
done so, and I may have forgotten it. I might have
been five or ten minutes at Perkins' shop at the
time. I might have been there a quarter of an hour,
but I wont swear it. I will swear I have not been there
half an hour at a time.

By the JUDGE—I had not known Perkins before I
went to Stringer's shop. He did not live in Tottenham
before that; he was quite a stranger there. I don't re-
member Mrs. Dismond speaking to me when I came to
buy a pair of scissors.
The R.,. John Brewster Twining was next called,
and examined by Sergeant BYLEs—He said, I am the
minister of the church at Tottenham. It has been built
twenty years. I know the construction of the church.
The gallery is at the west• end of the church, and facing
the altar, and with the exception of the pews under
the gallery, I can see the altar, and every other part of
the church from the gallery.
Cross examined—There is a partition down the gal-
lery. At the back of the north division of the pews
there is a low passage. There is a small chancel in
which the altar stands. About eight feet before the
altar rails there is an open space. The pulpit stands
on one side of the space, and the desk on the other, and
there are side aisles round the church as well as a
middle one.

Mr. BRAMWELL replied upon the additional evidence
given for the plaintiff. The object of the examination
of Mr. Twining, and of the cross• examination of Mrs.
Diamond, bad been to show that the church was so con-
structed that the transactions in question could not have
taken place in the church, without being seen by any
person who might be in the church. He submitted that
that evidence was perfectly consistent with the statement
of Chalkley that the intercourse on one occasion bad
taken place at the bottom of the pews.
- Mr. Sergeant BYLES then addressed the jury for the
plaintiff. Equally with Mr. Bramwell he regarded the
issue of this trial with the greatest anxiety. Mr.
Bramwell had said the verdict of the jury, if against the
defendant, would ruin him. He (Nlr. Sergeant Byles)
thought the conclusion of the jury would be warped by
no such consideration. lie knew they would look only
to the evidence. Nothing was easier than to put a per-
jured witness into the box, but it was for juries to ring
the metal and decide which was true and which was
counterfeit. A grievous injury bad been inflicted on the
plaintiff by somebody. His daughter had had a
child, and there it was living at this time.
What was he to do ? His main witness
was the young woman herself. She could not be corro-
borated by any other witness, for no other person was
necessarily present. Therefore he presented his daughter
before the jury—his innocent daughter, as he said; and
the jury had seen the demeanour of the child in going
through the cross-exatnination of the astute Counsel for
the defence. Let them judge from the deportment of
The witness herself, whether her testimony was credible.
What was her evidence? She was sent to the defend-
ant's by her father, with some pickles. She was a per-
fect stranger to him. She is sent again a few days
afterwards. He then asked her to go into his room; he
then, as she swore, effected his purpose by vio-
lence. She threatened to tell her father, bat he
said, No, you wont." She went home ruined
for life ; and her family participating in her
irremediable ruin. She is a child only fifteen years a
age; she is ashamed, but she is not yet fully aware of
the extent of her ruin. With the shame that accompas
wet an innocent ingenuous nature, she shrinks from
telling her friend what had happened; but the facts
render concealment impossible. She is found in the
family way, but she never divulged what was the matter
With her. Shortly after the defendant knowing what he
had done, remarked to the mother that her daughter did
not look well. The unhappy mother replied that she
feared her child was in a decline; but it was not till she
was taken to Dr. Frampton that tha painful truth came
out. That was her story. He (Sergeant Byles) con-
tended that the suggestion thrown out by Mr. Bramwell
that the child which the girl bore could not have been
referable to her connexion with the defendant,
Inasmuch as daily experience in such matters
falsified such a suggestion. She did not tell
her parents what had happened from a feeling of shame.
That had been used against her by the defendant's
counael; but the jury would remember that they were
not then trying the defendant for a rape, when such a
suggestion might have been made available against the
girl. The defendant was not content with destroying
her person, but he must ruin her character. With re-
sgect to the witness Chalkley, the counsel for the de-
fendant told one thing and the witness another. The
counsel for the defendant had said that he could prove
that Chalkley had had connexion with the girl in
September or October, 1848, so as to account for his
being the father of the child she bore; but when Chalk-
ley got into the box, in the presence of the clergyman of
the parish, he swore he had not had connexion with her
after October, 1847. He would call on the jury to look at
the disgraceful position a man placed himself in by coming
into a court of justice and telling the story Chalkley had
done to.day. He first ruined her, according to his state-
ment, and then came into court and published her shame
and hie own. They might sit long in a court of justice
before they heard a man swearing that he had connexion
with a young woman before the altar of a church. He
(Mr. Sergeant Byles) had never before heard such a
tale in all his experience, and he hoped he would never
hear anything so disgraceful again. He submitted the
story of Chalkley was of a nature so improbable and
unprecedented as to justify the jury in utterly dis-
believing it.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up the case
to the jury, told them that the judicial history of this
country proved that there were no cases that came
before the tribunals of the country so difficult of
Investigation and of arriving at a righteous conclusion
as Those to which the present belonged. It was of the
nature and essence of those cases that the offence was
committed in private, the parties to its commission being
alone present, and it was the rule of the law that while
the female was admitted to tell her story in a court o
justice, the defendant charged with the offence had no
such privilege, whilst, in addition to that, the transaction
wan necessarily so private that he could call no witness
either to contradict the statement of the female or to
prove kis own innocence. The defendant, therefore,
could only depend for the establishment of his innocence,
It he was innocent, on the cross examination of the wo-
man hers.,lf, and his only r, source was in the calm
and dispassionate consideration of an English jury. 11,
m the present ease, the story of the young woman was
true, au outrage of a most unparalleled nature had been
infltettd upon her ft-clings and reputation, and upo,i the
feelings of family; but it, I,n the other hand, her
statement was false, sie had added the crime of perjury
to her other dr litiqueeciei by charging an innocent man
with ;. grave offence. Was it within the rang.- of human
t'Ylertence, that a girl of the tender years of the plain-
tiff's daughter would not tell her parents immediately
atter an outrage such as the defendant was charged with
had been committed upon her? The jury would have
to consider whether this child had b.,en the result of a
rape committed upon the mother by the defendant, or
whether it was the issue of her connexion milli some
!Aber man. In fact, was this a case in which the
jury could come to the conclusion that a rape had been
committed?
The jury retired to deliberate upon their verdict, and
Lad not returned into Court when we went to press.