The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-30 00:00:00

cause it leads directly w a conelu:itm ; and becau,:, it I un-
derstand your proposal right, I could not accede to it. When
all is settled, I shall esteem it a favour if you will explain on
what grounds you have founded your obj,!.ctions and reproaches,
for to this moment 1 am perfectly ignorant of their specific
nature.---I am, dear Sir, your most obedient servant,

" J. Ley."
• " Torquay, June 23, 11324.
" To the Rev. Jacob Ley, Ashprington.
" receiving your letter a fortnight since, I felt such
contempt for a person who could be capable (in the first in-
stance) of practising such a gross imposition on me, and then
have the effrontery to endeavour to persevere in the imposition
tlae expence of honour and every good feeling ~hat might
have been expected, that I did not choose to answer it. The
general expression of your letter was insolent, to say the best
of it. It evidently shewed you would sacrifice your son as well
as myself to an ungovernable obstinacy, and a mean unmanly
spirit, or you would not leave him with me. You are affecting
ignorance on some points, and asserting others not true. Your
son is a useless incumbrance to me, and after your conduct,
naturally it's extremely disagreeable both to Mrs. Pollard and
myself to have him in the house, and do what you can, ;le
must leave at last, anti all your stratagems, all your evasions
can avail nothing as affecting the main point; hence you had
better take him away without further delay. question as
to whether any or what part of the premium shall be returned
to you, is a very proper one to be submitted to a reference, be-
cause a manifest difference of opinion exists between us on the.
subject; and as all declarations of desire to settle this mat-
ter amicably must be at variance with truth, when accompanied
by a refusal to leave the question to an honourable reference,
it will be quite useless, unless this method be adopted, to hope
for a fair and honourable termination of a business, which, in
justice to your son, you ought never to have allowed of its
being mentioned to any indifferent persons. I shall have no
objection to assign over the indenture to another person, pro.
vided there is nu concealment of circumstances. I had hoped
my interview with Mr. James Cornish would have had the
effect of diverting your mind from persevering in a course which
cannot possibly answer any good purpose ; but hearing nothing
front him since, has caused me to write to you, and earnestly
as I wish to have it settled, yet, if you are still indisposed to do
Po, you will find me as determined ; and whilst I exist and pos-
sess a shilling, I will not submit to such a gross imposition,
which at first might have admitted of excuse.
" I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

" Foi.r.a a D."
" Ashprington, July 1, 1824.
" To W. Pollard, Esq.
" Sir—l am greatly at loss to understand, whether the abu-
sive language with which you honour me, be natural to you, or
whether it be forced and got up for the occasion, to accomplish
some particular object which you have in view. For certain,
my letter lays no foundation for it. In that letter, to which I
still adhere, I express my disapprobation of coarse language,
decline your proposed reference, and consent to transfer my son
to another master on certain stated terms. I have now to add,
that I have no desire for concealment, but will readily agree
with you, whether I ant in treaty for a master, or you in treaty
for an apprentice, to lay our correspondence before the party
with whom we treat. This will be reciprocally candid. On
this ground I have acted in forwarding copies of our letters to
Mr. Kitson, to whom you had mentioned our disagreement.—
You shall meet with nothing but candour front me. If you
desire explanation, inform me in what, and you shall have it.
If you are sincere in believing that I have used finesse, or have
treated you unfairly, let me know when, how, and in what, I
shall think it my duty to show you that you are mistaken.
" I um, Sir,
" Your very humble servant,
" J. LEY."
_ _

" To the Rev. J. Ley, Ashprington.
" That ! still pursuing the deep game, and no advancement
in doing me further injury—only adding additional insult to
the injury already done. - The correspondence between you and
myself has been shown to the parents of the young gentlemen
whom I have recently engaged as an apprentice—but I do not
believe you have laid the whole of it before 111 r. Kitson, or any
honourable impartial person. Such a step would be at variance
with your proceedings. Well for the public you arc not Lord
Chancellor, or one cause might be sufficient to occupy the at-
tention of a lifetime, and still be left undecided ; you must be
more clever than I take you to be, if, with all your deceit, you
can make any one long believe natural deficiencies of intellect
to be perfections, or that they are compensated for by insensi-
bility. I return you this, to show you that I'll receive no more
of your jargon—no more of your insolence; that 1 want no
further proos of your deep, mean-spirited, and dishonourable
conduct; or perhaps, if it is possible, I may think worse of you
than I do at present. " W. Por.i.An

The Rev. Jacob Ley.—l am a clergyman of the Establish-
ed Church, and Rector or Ashprington, in this county. I wrote
And sent these letters, and these are the answers I received
(pointing to the letters which had been produced.) One of the
answers, the last which had been read, was written on the back
of a letter of mine, and returned to me in that manner. The•
last witness, Alr. W. Ley, is my third son. I have four sons
and four daughters My son William left me on the 13th of
January, 1824, to go to Nlr. Pollard, the defendant in this
case. My son left Dr. Warren's school at Midsummer. He
then went to another school.

Cross-exantined.—When the arrangement with hl r. Pollard
was made, I and the defendant were acquainted. Ile was in
very respectable practice. Indeed, he was in practice of the
very first class. I never heard Dr. Warren make a complaint
of my son's inability. Dr. Warren did not say it was neces-
sary that my son should leave school on that account. I heard
no complaints of my con's general ability. There were some
complaints with respect to his slowness in learning languages.
His quitting school was not occasioned altogether, or in part,
by that communication. 3ly son, at the end of every half year,
brought a letter.
The Counsel for the defendant objected to the statement of
the contents of those letters.

Witness continued.—My son did not leave that school on
account of any dissatisfaction I felt with the master. Ile went
to another seminary immediately. My son's progress was
slow at each school. He was not placed with Mr. Pollard upon
trial. lie had not resided in Mr. Pollard's house until he was
apprenticed. The defendant knew him. I resided ten miles
' from defendant's residence. My son resided three months with
the defendant, before I received any intimation as to his want of
capacity. When he expressed his doubts of my son's suffi-
' ciency, I did not desire him to retain the young man. There
was a difference of opinion between us respecting my son's abi-
lities. I thought the defendant had formed a premature judg-
ment, and I wished my son to have a fair trial. Mr. Pollard
• offered no objection to my son's remaining with hint. In about
a month he made a communication to me respecting ray son.
Ile tent me a message. It was sent by my brother, and was in
these words—" Desire your brother to take away his son ; he
does not suit me." M brother did not represent to :re. that
that desire was founded on Mr. Pollard's opinion of rily son's
inability. Some hours afterwards I pressed my brother to tell
me if he could conceive any reason sby Mr. Pollard had sent
sue that message. My brother, who seemed to have r, horror to
express what I afterwards had a horror, tohear, said, " he thinks
him a fool." I never had any conversation with rie defendant
sine I received that message. I never bad more then one con-
versation before with him on the subject of my son. betters had
trequently passed between us on the subject. knew, in the
month of Nay, of Mr. Pollard's intention to send home my
win. The young man remained with him until the defendant
turned him out of his house. That was in January, 1825 I
Itsve received back all the premium. I did not make any com-
munication to the defendant respecting my son's slowness in the
acquirement of classical knowledge, bet Ore my son went ap-
prentice to him. I thought they knew each other sufficiently
Some letters were written before, and some after, those which
have been read. At the time of this correspondence, Mr.
Pollard charged mg with having suppressed my Son's inca-
pacity.
Re-examined--I had my son from school during the vaca-
tion, and I have watched him very anxiously.
The legaliv of a question pot by Mr. WILLIA?I9, on re-
examination, by which the capacity of the prosecutor's son
was brought into question, here became tlw.i subject of dig-
C 13106011.

The defendant's Counsel argued, that as they had not Cr(Mil,
examintd the witness to that point, which was really foreign to
the issue before the Court, the question put On re-,:talnitlatkis
could not be permitted. •
\lr. L I.IA If 8, contra, asserted, that the crona-exarninatitm
in fact, though not in form, went to show that the son wm in-
capable of acquiring a knowledge of surgery t.and that, there-
fore, the question was proper.
Alt, Justice LI T TIXDALL deeded against the opiaion of
!.Zr. William*
Re-c-sashinatieo coatinsed--Tb• 06,/7 ibliznation 1 Neeived