The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEIV'S BENCH, June 25.
THE QUEEN V. WALKER AND PAWLS,

Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Seymour ap-
peared for the prosecution; Mr. Ballantine conducted
the defence of Walker, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins that
of Pawle.
This was an indictment for a misdemeanour. The
indictment contained two sets of counts; the first for
obtaining certain bills of exchange under false pretences;
and the second charging the two defendants with baying
conspired together for the purpose of obtaining these bills.
It appeared that the prosecutor, a person named
Clements, had been a schoolmaster at Tarnham-green,
but that in 1845 he took a house, or lodgings, in Lowndes-
.

square, proposing, as he said, to retire from business,
but he engaged in railway speculations, and became
sometimes pressed for money. He held 615 shares or
scrip certificates in railway companies, for which he had
paid two guineas a share, and being in want of some
ready money, ho applied to Walker to borrow for him a
sum of 1501.) on the security of these shares, 120 of
which he proposed to deposit with Walker. That
person, who had acted as the prosecutor's attorney for
three years or more, said that he himself had not the
money, but that he would obtain it from a friend, whose
name, however, he declined to give to the prosecutor.
Nothing was said about interest, as the prosecutor was
so much in want of an immediate sum of ready money
that he did not feel inclined to dispute upon that subject.
Tixis -vrais in March, -18445: In .a.pru, 1Z546; ane prOW
tutor wanted some more money, and Walker undertook
to get it from the same friend, but said that this friend
would require, besides the deposit of shares, that certain
bills should be accepted by the prosecutor. A bill for
3002, payable in two months, was therefore accepted by
, the prosecutor, who got only 2821. 18s., a sum of 17/. 2s.
being deducted for interest. This bill was not enforced
when it became due ; but in November Walker applied
for an additional sum, 78/., to be paid to this friend for
interest, observing that if this was not done the friend
would sue on the bill, and give up the shares for what he
could get. The prosecutor refused this sum, but after-
wards gave a bill for 501., and paid it, but being after-
wards a party to an action brought by him as the owner
of these railway shares against the directors of the
company, he applied to Walker to get them produced in
court, as part of the formal evidence in the cause, when
Walker said that his friend refused to produce
them except upon the further payment of a
further sum of 100/. for interest. This sum the prose-
cutor refused to pay, notwithstanding the advice given to
him by Pawle, who appeared to be Walker's clerk, that
he had better pay it than be defeated in tbe. action. The
refusal, however, did not seem to be conclusive, for the
parties met the next morning, when Walker produced
three bills which he had prepared for 50/., 40/, and 251,
at different but not distant dates, which the prosecutor
accepted, it being then arranged that Pawle should
hold the bills as trustee for both parties, and that the
bills should not be negotiated. Walker took prosecu-
tor's seal, and pretended that he had sealed up the bills
in the presence of the friend who advanced the money.
At this time the prosecutor had got another attorney, in
the person of Mr. Lane. and as the prosecutor swore,
Lane e as, by the defendant's desire, left uninformed of
the transaction and was not present. The scrip certifi-
cates or shares were, in consequence of those bills being
given, produced at the trial, and immediately after it the
defendant Walker came to the prosecutor and asked to
have them returned, but the prosecutor refused to return
them unless his three acceptances were delivered up, or
the name of the" friend" given him. They were not de-
livered up to him, notwithstanding a promise of Walker
tisat they should be delivered up, and notwithstanding
that the prosecutor allowed the defendant 12s. 6d. as for
the stamps that had been spoiled, but the prosecutor had
been obliged to pay the 50/, and the 401. bills' and had
been threatened with proceedings on the 25/. bill, and
had been actually sued upon the 3001. bill. The false-
hood of the pretence was established by the evidence of
a person named Tinghy, who swore that about the time
referred to as the time of the trial he had advanced
2401. to the defendant on the deposit of 240
shares of the railway company in question, without any
stipulation whatever as to the payment f interest to
him from the defendant, for the advance. He after-

wards returned these shares to the company, and got for
them nearly as much as he had advanced upon them.

This was the obtaining under false pretences which
formed the subject of the indictment.
The defence relied on was the improbability of Cle-
ment's tale, and the fact that he was engaged in railway
1 speculations and had become embarrassed, so that no one
was likely to advance money to him except upon getting
every possible security for its repayment.
Lord DENMAN left it to the jury to say whether it
was possible to reconcile all the parts of Walker's con-
duct with the supposition of his innocence. As to Pawle,
the case against him was undoubtedly weaker than that
against Walker. In the first place, he was Walker's
clerk, and there was no proof that he had not relied en-
tirely on his master'sm tse
representations. representations, or had
Tnhoetr
There
givenw a s
his advise and entirely conducted himself in the full
faith of the t
logteot moneyi
warranter the charge of conspi-
be
certainly no evidenceo
the rors thought
for a
.client
racy. As to the main
that this was a mere mameuvir
from a person who did not seem
credit, both the defendants must be acquitted, but
was nothing to show that any part of the money :oh e
ob-
tained was applied to the account of any client, nor did
it appear that Clements himself was a debtor to Walker
in respect of any other transaction.
The jury, after a short consultation, acquitted Pawle
on both charges, and acquitted Walker on the charge of
conspiring with Pawle, but found Walker Guilty on the
charge of obtaining the bills under false pretences.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 25.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
NOTTIDGE V. RIPLEY AND ANOTHER.

The trial of this singular case was resumed today.
After the examination of three witnesses, whose
evidence was much of the same nature as that taken on
Saturday,
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER addressed the jury fur the
defence. He was quite willing to admit that t'ais Was
a very serious case, if it were true that the de-
fendants had been guilty of the base and mercenary
motives which had been attributed to them. It was
said that the design of the defendants, who stood in the
intimate relationship of brother and brother-in-law, was
to get possession of the property of this unfortunate lady
(the plaintiff), for the benefit of themselves and their
families, and in order to accomplish it that they had not
scrupled to take her from the quiet and tranquil
home which she had selected, and to expose her to
all the restraints and horrors of a madhouse.
Now, he would show that this was a very false and, at
the least, a very exaggerated account of the real state of
the case. Ile admitted that he had no right to interfere
with the religious opinions of any person who was com-
petent to decide for himself, however absurd and extra-
vagant they might be. The Agapemone, or "Abode of
Love," in which the plaintiff had taken up her abode, con-
tained among its inmates lour apostate clergymen, a civil

engineer. a farmer, a solicitor, and two blood-hounds;
and in it all pray. r was afittod ni. d, I .10%1 WuS WO. (1
the dunes emphatically enjoined upon us by our religion;
and though he could noL but feel disgusted at that, and
at the efforts of this sect to creep into families and spread
misery and desolation wherever they went, yet, if the
plaintiff was of sound judgment, he admitted that her
opinions upon such subjects were no justification to put
her under any restraint. But if she was not a free agent,
and had been irresistibly drawn into a vortex of low and
degrading associations, it was incumbent upon her
family, not merely as a right, but as a high moral duty,
to pluck her from her dangerous position. In 1844, the
mother of the plaintiff was left a widow with seven
daughters, two of them being married, and five un-
married. The family resided at Rose-hill, in the most
perfect happiness; but unfortunately Mr. Prince, who
was the curate of the neighbouring parish of
Stuke, and who had either been dismissed
from his office or had resigned it, exercised a most fatal
influence upon the family. After preaching about the
country in the open air, he went to Brighton, and in
some way or other managed to communicate with the
daughters. Three of them, it appeared, left for Brighton,
where they took up their residence, and where they
were in the habit of attending the ministry of
Mr. Prince. They afterwards returned to a place
called Charlincb, where they formed a notion
that it was the will of God that they should be united to
three of the members of the Agapemone, which had been
established there. Their marriage took place accordingly,
notwithstanding the remonstrances of the mother,each of
the daughters having 6,0001. in the Bank of England
in their own name; those sums immediately became the
property of their respective husbands. It would have been
thought that, having obtained so much of the property of
the family, their exorbitant desires would have been sa-
tisfied, and that they would have spared the two re-
maining daughters. But in the month of December,
1845, a Mr. Starkie and a Mr. Turner came to Rose.
hill to carry away another daughter. They suc-
ceeded in effecting their object, although Mrs. Nottidge
endeavoured in every possible way to dissuade her
from going with them. Mrs. Thomas, one of the
daughters who had been previously married, however,
left the Agapemone, and returned to her mother's roof,
and in consequence of the information which she gave,
the mother was induced to entertain apprehensions re-
specting her only other remaining daughter, who was
then at Charlinch. Knowing that she was of unsound
mind, and by no means a free agent, she desired the two
defendants to go down to Charlinch and release
her from the degrading position in which she
was placed. They did so; and after getting possession
of her person, they placed her in the Hanwell Lunatic
Asylum, baying, in the first instance, obtained a medical
certificate of her mental incapacity to act for herself.
There could be no doubt about the state of her mind,
for he should prove that when admitted she was in
a state of great excitement, declaring that Mr.
Prince was God Almighty—that ho was God mani-
fested in the flesh. They could easily imagine that
such would be the effect up m a weak-minded person, of
nervous and irritable temperament, when such tenets
as Mr. Prince's were made known to her. In May,
1848, she was discharged by the Commissioners of
Lunacy, on the ground that they thought she was
capable of acting for herself. But it did not say
much for her sanity, that immediately after
being released, she went to the Bank and transferred
over the whole of her money to Mr. Prince, and gave
him the uncontrollable dominion of it. And it was
strange that Mr. Prince, who was the moving
spirit of all, had not been brought forward
as a witness. If (said the Learned Counsel) daugh-
ter after daughter had been sacrificed to their mer-
cenary views, and not being satsified with the misery
which they had produced, they had endeavoured
to grasp the one remaining daughter; and if they (the
jury) believed that daughter was of weak mind, easily
excited and influenced when such awful thoughts as
those already mentioned were continually addressed to
her, he would ask them with perfect confidence, would
they have allowed her to remain exposed to dangers both
with respect to her present and eternal welfare, or
would they not not rather, acting upon the motives
which influenced the two defendants, have felt justifit
in rescuing her from her degrading position? Oa the
one high ground of morality alone would he rest in
submitting this case to them, confidently trusting that
the result would be a verdict for the defendants.
The Learned Counsel made a powerful and eloquent
speech, of which the above is only a resume, and at its
conclusion a suppressed burst of applause came from
the auditors in the court.
The following witnesses were then called:—
Mrs. Nottidge—l am the mother of the plaintiff, and
lived at Rose-hill when my husband died, with my
daughters, in 1844. My unmarried daughters were
living with me in 1843. Mr. Prince came to preach at
Stoke, and my daughters sometimes went to his church.
I heard of his going to Brighton. Louisa (the plaintiff)
and Agnes took a house at Brighton. That was before
the death of their father. I sent for them from Brighton
when he was dying, and when they came they said they
should not have done so but for the " will of God." He
died in May, 1844, and my daughters returned to
Brighton in August. Clara stayed with me. I after-
wards went to Brighton and took up my abode with
them, but I did not join them in their devotions, and I
told them I would never receive Mr. Prince into my
house. One of my daughters had married Mr. Ripley,
and the other the Rev. Mr. Roberts, rector of Haverhill.
I remember Mr. Prince coming to the house, but I would

uftygmblE amp tn my 1
bedroom to prevent his intrusion upon me. I recollect
my daughters going on a Monday to be present at
the opening of the chapel at Charlinch. They
were to return on' the Saturday. But only
two came back, and my daughter, the plaintiff
(Louisa), not until Sunday morning. I spoke to her
on the impropriety of travelling on a Sunday. Louisa
said Mr. Prince had written a prayer which said they
must not travel on a Sunday, but then he made another,
when he said it was the " will of God " they could
travel on a Sunday, and she also told me with tears in
her eyes, that the other three sisters were going to be
married, as it was the " will of God " that they should
then marry. She then told me that "Brother Thomas"
was coming to sleep there that night. I said I would
not consent to that, This " Brother Thomas" after-
wards married my daughter Agnes. The plaintiff said
it was of no use my objecting to his coming, as it was
the " will of God ' that he should, and in he would
cotne, and accordingly in he came at ten o'clock at night.
I said I should leave the house if this were done, for it
was very improper. My daughter went up to him, and
when they came down they told me, that it was the
" will of God," and stop there he would. In consequence
of this I went to a friend's house that night; and on the
next day, when he had left, I returned. They then
told me, that he should return at night, and that
it was the " will of God," that another man (Turner)
should also come with him. I objected, but
they said it was the " will of God," and they
must submit. I then wrote off to Mr. Ripley to
come down. It was impossible for any man to lee
more kind than he had been to all of us at all times. I
afterwards heard that the marriages were to take place
at Swansea, and I went down to prevent them, but it
was of no use, for they said it was the " will of God"
that they should be married. After this I went to
Rose•hill, where the plaintiff and Cornelia were. That
was in December, 1845. Mr. Starkie and Mr. Turner
came to Rose-hill. From what was said to her the
plaintiff said to me she must go, but that it was tearing
the flesh from her bones to leave me, and that it was the
" will of God" that she should go, and go she must.
The men gave the plaintiff two hours to pack up, and at
the expiration of that period they drove up in a carriage,
and took her away. That was the last time I saw my
daughter until she was brought back by the defendant.
lam now seventy-six years of age. I went to Wey-
mouth to find my daughter and to bring her away. I
had heard that she was living at Weymouth in the
greatest sin and iniquity. I told Mr. Ripley of what I
had heard from several friends, and from many letters.
These reports I communicated to the defendants, and

they went down to Charlinch in consequence. When I was
at Weymouth I saw two of my other daughters, but they
refused to give me any information as to where she was.
I was six weeks making my search, and was not suc-
cessful. I offered a reward, but it was no use. I con-
sulted the two defendants and Mr. Pepys as to what
could be done. I afterwards found a clue to where she

was, and I then begged of the defendants to go and bring
my daughter away as quickly as they could; and at
once down they went, for I was in such a wretched state
of mind about her. I saw them with my daughter on
their return. She was brought at once to me, and I
conversed with her. This was at Mr. Ripley's, in
Woburn-place. She told me that if it were the " will of
God" she should be at Charlinch on the Wednesday.
This was on the Monday. I put down on paper what
she said. It was when I spoke to the plaintiff about
Mr. Prince that she said, I know no such person. God I
now dwells only at Charlinch, in the flesh of him I once
knew as Mr. Prince. God, who made all, and all the
world, is now manifest in him whom I once called Mr.
Prince. He has entered his tabernacle of flesh among
men, and I have seen God face to face. He will deliver

me wherever lam taken. After this I sent for my bro-
ther, who saw Louisa, and by his advioe the medical men
were sent for.

efoc!,:nhuceishLsioaonnanteoCpf.ralrnacßye.now—hyxWlhoeykdihderyonup nfoort hfiaffeveena
months? You should have had the sanction of the law
keep-
ing the matter as
Cross-examinedclulthiasdlarn.o_
said it was done with the view of Mr. ettoi,,Diaa
son brought
possible.otiit communication
her back.
with my
i should fetched
umek
.ehre
dr
e. away
lf
until Mr.
Rfrfopmfeythaendtimmye
conversation my daughter saiScitashrkeAt this
she would have retired with me to Rose-hille,vi
of a keeper or otherwise, I would have tall'etrahhecrare
to
Rose hill, but my daughter said that she should
where it was " God's will." My intention in getting hergo
up to town was to keep her under my roof with a
keeper, if necessary. I did not wish to have a keeper,
if she would remain under my roof and control without;
and then if she still insisted upon returning to Char-
linch, I meant to put her in a lunatic asylum. I visited
my daughter twice in the lunatic asylum b3fore I left
town for Rose-hill. I also saw her there a few
months afterwards, but then my daughter said
she had not 'any mother. I never heard
either of my daughters say that I had said
that it was my intention she should live and die in
the lunatic asylum. I had never said any such thing,
Mrs. Cobb asked me to allow the phiintiff to be released
from the asylum, and also said that she wanted to see
me; but I said I would not see her, as she said she had
no mother. It was part of my directions that my
daughter should not be allowed to communicate with
any person but with my family and my friends. I ex-
cluded the daughters at the Agapemone, of course,
from all communication with her.
Reexamined—l acted under the firm belief that my
daughter's mind was affected when I gave the direction
to the defendants.

Mr. John Pepys, the brother of Mrs. Nottidge, said—