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

me that he has off,red the girl's father 20/. He has
never said anything about that, or aay oth,r sum. I
know a man named 11,Ann.y. I have not heard from the
defer) lant that hogrit Romney to offer the 20/.
I will swear he has tievrr said anything about the offer,
on any ono occasion. I never said I had had connexion
with the girl down to Sept. or October, IS4B. I never
told Mayne that.
Re-exureinetiiby Mr. BRAMWELL—A great many peo-
ple, at different times, have asked me what cvidience I
was going to give. Davy. the postboy, is not employed
by. the plaintiff ; he ptCs his 11,,rse up at the plaintiff's
Cable.
By the JUDGE—It was part of my duty to go to
clean the church, and it wa% 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 were
there on some of the occasions. These transactions
with me and her occurred is different parts of the
church.• Mrs. Diamond was also very often in the
church at the time. She was generally occupiedtrin,the
gallery.
By a Jura man—Mrs. Dismond could not see from-the
gallery to the pew where the connexiontook place.
_ _

Elizabeth Diamond called and au fined by Mr.
BRAMWELL —She said, I live at 11ottenhant, and was
employed in the church there down to the latter end of
1847. I know the young man who has ju4t left the box.
I know Frances Elisabeth Colyer. 1 hare 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 transec:ed 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. I assi.tt d
to lay him out; and I charr.d 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 Cnurch ever since it was built—sixteen or
seventeen years. I know the gallt ries 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
oleakt r.
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. BRADS WELL—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
?lever remember it. I never heard her say it was
Improper for me to be in that shop. She may have
Si,done and I may have forgotten it. I might have
.eett five or ten minutes at Perkins' shop at the
tine- I might have been there a quarter of an hour,
hut I wont swear it. I will swear 1 have not been there
all 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-
Illetaber Mrs. Diamond speaking to me when I came to
'IV a pair of scissors.
The R9v. John Brewster Twining was next called,
"nu examined by Sergeant RYLES—IIe said, I am the
r4hliater of the church at Tottenham. It has been built
TQBtY years. I know the construction of the church.
• gallery is at the west end of the church, and facing
altar, and with the exception of the pews under
e 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
en one side of the apace, and the desk on the other, and
there aro side aisles round the church as well as a
taid,ile one.

Mr. BRA3IWELL replied upon the additional evidence
given for the plaintiff. The object of the examination
,Of Mr. Twining, and of the cross. examination of Mrs.
uilmond, had been to show that the church was so con-

structed that the transactions in question cculd not have
taken place in the church, without being se en by any
Person who might be in the church. He submitted that
that evidence was perfectly consistent with the statement
15f Chalkley that the intercourse on one occasion had
taken place at the bottom of the pews.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES then addressed the jury for the
raietiff. Equally with Mr. Bram ?Tell he regarded the
/rue of this trial with the great( st anxiety. Mr.
ramwell had said the verdict of the jury, if against the
I,etendant, would ruin him. He (Mr. Sergeant Byles)
!nought the conclusion of the jury would be warped by
tsuch consideration. lie knew they would look only
;0 ce' (the evidence. Nothing was easier than to put a per-
bre •
ts Witness into the box, but it was for juries to ring
--e metal and decide which was true and which was
eroterfeit. A grievous injury had been inflicted on the
Po4till,tiff by somebody. His daughter had had a
What
and there it was living at this time.
was he to do ? His main witness
hersted by
...3
ine young woman herself. She not be corro-
any other witness, for no either person was
before
present. Therefore he presented his daughter
uelfore the jury—his innocent daughter, as he said; and
th:jurY had seen the demeanour of the child in going
th'cligh the croEs-exatnination of the astute Counsel for
thederenc'. Let them judge from the deportment of
I,Fitness herself, whether her testimony was credible.
anottt Was her evidence? She was sent to the defend-
-68 by her father, with some pickles. She was a per-
%f t' stranger to him. She is sent again a few days
th-erwarde. He then asked her to go into his rcom; he
leLn' as she swore, effected his purpose by vio-
-1 hi She threatened to tell her father, bat he
-
„'r " No, you wont." She went home ruined
irse
_• and her amily rarticipating in her
%remediable ruin. She if a child only fifteen years off
tel she is ashamed, but she is not yet fully aware of
41; extent of her ruin. With the shame that accompa-
tell! an innocent ingenuous nature, she shrinks from
rear,itig her friend what had happened; but the facts
hinil`.i,er Concealment impossible. She is found in the
Withilh Way, but she never divulged what was the matter
4 er- Shortly after the defendant knowing what he
not One, remarked to the mother that her dau;hter did
fea look 'well. well. The unhappy mother replied that she
wftareu her child was in a decline; but it was not till she
ell-% taken to Dr. Frampton that tha painful truth came
tended hat was her story. He (Sergeant Byles) con-
that the child which the girl bore could not have been
;;elferable to her connexion with the defendant,
farnuch as daily experience in such matters
herlued such a suggestion. She did not tell
et, parents what had happened from a feeling of shame.
at had been used against her by the defendant's
e4lln2elt but the jury would remember that they were
at then trying the defendant for a rape, when such a
tlggestion might have been made available against the
r° t.,
The defendant was not content with destroying
I' person, but he must ruin her character. With re-
Peet to the witness Chalkley, the counsel for the de-
'"rldant 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
being
or October, 1848, so as to account for Ls
the father of the child she bore; but when Chalk-
:7 gotinto the box, in the prt Bence 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
1 disgraceful position a man placed himself in by coming
done
a court of justice and telling the story Chalkley bad
_elan today. He first ruined her, according to his state-
mitt ent, and then cam into court and published her shame
0,4 his own. They might sit long in a court of justice
Tore they heard a man swearing that he had connexion
wrulth 11 young woman before the altar of a church. He
(fir' Sergeant Bvles) had never before heard such a
in alt his experience, and be hoped he would never
Ste" anything so disgraceful again. He submitted the
tinory ef. Chalkley was of a nature so improbable and
ilP.recedented as to justify the jury in utterly dis-
elieving
toll„he Loren CnrEs JUSTICE, in summing up the case
en 'tie jury, told them that the judicial history of this
bintr
then that there were no cases that came
iositire tribunals of the country so difficult of
s_testigation and of arriving at a righteous conclusion
sthose to which the present belonged. It was of the
nature Committed
and essence of those cases that the offence was
inlositted in private, the parties to its commission being
,represent, 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 ff
such privilege, whilst, in addition to that, etheenteraenhi
transaction
was n
was necessarily so private that he could call no
witness
either to contradict the statement of the female or to
Prove his own innocence. The defendant,
could only depend for the establiehment of his innocence,
if he was innocent, on the cross examination of the wo-
man herself, and his only re source was in the calm
d dispassionate consideration of an English jury. It,
s
the present case, the story of the young woman was
true, au outrage a moat unparalleled nature had been
Itiflicted upon her feelings uutl reputation, and upon the
feelings of her family; but if, on the other hand, her
6,tatement was false, had added the crime of pbrjury
in her other, delinquencies by charging an innocent man
With a grave offence. Was it within the range of human
tsxPericnce, that a girl of the tendsr years of the plain-
's daughter would not tell her p treats immediately
after an outrage such as the defendant was charged with
ttll been committed upon her? The jury would have
,
Consider whether this child had been the result of a
WPe committed upon the mother by tho defendant, or
ottether it was the issue of her cuune xion with some
Jury man. In fact, was this a case in which the
er3' could Come to the conclusion that a rape had been
ramitted?
ha The jury retired to deliberate upon their verdict, and
ziCol returned into Court whoa we went to press.