The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-29 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

At the sitting of the Court this mornins, Lord DEMIAN gave judg.
meat in several CAM.

PIINCEi v. SAVO.
In this case, which was an action Our an arrest without probablecause,
the Court was of opinion that the rule for a new trial ought to be dis-
charged.

THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR ♦ND CORPORATION OF THE BOROUGH OF POOLE,

In this case, which was a rule for a mandamus to compel the Corpo-
ration of Poole to award the applicant, Mr. Edwards, compensation for
having been dismissed from his office of Collector of Customs and Duties
of the Harbour of Poole, under the provisions of the Municipal Corpo-
ration Act, the Court was of opinion that the appointment of Mr. Ed-
wards being under a local Act, the ease did not come within the provi-
sions of the sth and 13th William IV., and therefore the rule for the
mandamus must be discharged.

MG QUEEN V. Tim WARDENS, OVERSEERS, AND INHABITANTS OF ST.
SAVIOUR'S, SOUTHWARK.

This was a mandamus directed to the defendants, and commanding
them to make a rate for the purpose or repairing the parish church, and
paying the salaries of the chaplains and schoolmasters. To the man.
damus two returns had been made, which the Court were of opinion
wcrenot sufficient. Without reference to any funds in the hands of
the Churchwardens (which might be made the subject of future enquiry)
the Act, 56th Gco. 111., provided that these salaries should be de-
frayed out of an annual rate, to be assessed upon the inhabitants, and
therefore the mandamus was good, and the returns must be quashed.

RAWLINS V. DV.SIII.OUGII.

Lord DENMAN then gave judgment in this case, which was an action
upon a pcflicy of insurance. The Court were of opinion that the rule
for a new trial shott'd be granted generally, enlarging it until another
case had been tried.

CRIMINAL INPORMATION.
THE QUEEN N. FLETCHER.

In this case a rule for a criminal information had been obtained
against the defendant, who is the proprietor of the Chester Chronicle,
for an alleged libel on the Rev. Frederick Master, Vicar of Runcorn.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now appeared to show cause against the
rule. He must say that in the course of his experience, which was
not now a short one, he had never known such infatuation and such
dementation as the case presented, on the part of the Rev. Mr. Master,
in bringing these matters before her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench.
He would make it appear to a demonstration, that that gentleman, after
forfeiting all the rights of morality and religion, had screened his
. offence by committing gross perjury, and had induced a most amiable
and excellent person, his sister, by his subornation, to commit perjury
also. It appeared that Mr. Master had been appointed Vicar of Run.
corn in 1816, that he was a married man, but his wife had died in the
year 1824, and since then he had remained a widower. There was in
his family a girl of the name of Mary Hinde, then of tender age. She
continued in his service after the death of his wife, and on December
127, 1836, she was delivered of an illegitimate child, and according to Mr.
Master's own showing there was a general rumour that he was the
father of the child. The child died immediately upon its birth ; there
was an inquest, and in consequence of some marks of violence that AP-
p-ared about the throat of the child, the Jury found a verdict of
" Wilful Murder" against the unfortunate young woman, although 1
there was not the smallest pretence for saying that she was guilty of the
crime laid to her charge. She was carried to the house of a constable
at Runcorn, and was then removed to Chester Castle-. A bill of indict-
ment for the murder was preferred against her, but the grand jury
ignored the bill, and she returned to her father's house. As early as
the 2d January, 1837, on account of the rumours that had been spread,
Mr. Master wrote a letter to the Bishop of the diocese, stating that a
very painftil occurrence had taken place in his house—the birth of a
child by one of his female servants. That the minds of the people be.
came inflamed from supposing that he was the father, which he begged to
assure his lordship was not the case. That the unfortunate female had
he understood, been in the habit of going to a public-house in the
neighbourhood, and that men had been discovered lurking about the
premises, which the Rev. Mr. Stokes, his assistant, could testify. The
letter concluded by requesting, for the sake of himself and his pa-
rishioners, that the matter would be thoroughly investigated by his
Lordship. It would appear, therefore, that as early as the 2d January,
it was generally rumoured that Mr. Master was the father, and that
on the 20th January in consequence of the recommendation of the
Bishop, after some previous inquiry had been made, a suit was in-
stituted in the Ecclesiastical Court against Mr. Master. On the 27th
September witnesses were examined at Chester, who gave the mine
evidence in substance as now appeared in their affidavits. On the 29th
September the first publication relative to the affair appeared in the
Chester Chronicle. He was not aware that that publication was com-
plained of, for the passage was to the following effect :—" We have
learned that rumours are in circulation as to the father of the mur-
dered child, but for obvious reasons we do not more distinctly allude to
them." It was evident from the letter of Mr. Master to the Bishop
that these rumours were in circulation, and no offence therefore could
have been taken at such a statement. The article proceeded to state
that the Chester Consistorial Court had sat the previous day,
and among other business was that of Johnston and others
a. Master, which they thought had been abandoned—that the
Reverend Gentleman's congregation had dwindled down to a very
small number, there being only eleven souls the previous Sunday while
the Dissenting chapels were crowded. The article went on to state that
if such a charge had been brought against a dissenting clergyman, he
would have been removed at once until the case had been inquired into,
and regretted that such was not the practice in the Established Church.
That regret lie (the Attorney-General) would observe had been ex-
pressed by the heads of the Established Church themselves. Mr. Mas-
ter wrote a letter to the editor immediately after the appearance of that
article denying in strong terms the charge, which•he designated as one
of the most foul conspiracies ever framed against the peace and happi-
ness of an innocent man, and expressing his surprisethat the press should
have been prostituted to giving currency to such a rumour. On the fish
of October the other publication complained of appeared. The editor
therein denied that ho had made any attack upon the Reve.
rend Mr. Master, but that he had repeated what was stated at
the trial, that the girl Hinde had confessed to a friend that Mr. Master
was the father of the child. It further observed that when such a
charge was pending (for no judgment had then been given) the Rev.
Gentleman should have ceased to perform his spiritual dnties. He
would now refer their Lordships to the affidavits on which the rule
had been obtained; and he had no doubt that he should be able to prove
to their satisfaction that Mr. Master was a most guilty man. The
learned gentleman then referred to the affidavit of Mr. Master, who
after stating the circumstances already detailed, deposed that he was at
Liverpool at the time the girl was confined, and denying in the most
positive terms that he was the father of the child, or ever had any in-
tercourse with the girl. The Learned Gentleman then alluded to the
other affidavits which had been filed at the time the rule was moved
for, the objects of which were to vindicate the character of the Rev.
Mr. Master, and to attach suspicion of the paternity to George John-
ston, who was one of the promoters of the suit in the Ecclesiastical
Court. The Learned Counsel dwelt particularly upon the affidavit of
Miss Master, with whom the girl Hinde had always slept. Miss
Master deposed that Mary Ilinde had been of late in the
habit of absenting herself from the house, and that she sus-
pected her of intoxication, and after alluding to the circumstances
connected with the birth of the child, concluded by asserting
her entire belief and conviction of the innocence of her brother.
With respect to the affidavit of the poor girl, anything more touching
he had never heard. It would appear not only on the affidavits, but on
all the probabilities of the case, that she was seduced by her master
who ought to have been her protector—that she had previously borne an
irreproachable character, and that Mr. Masters was now snaking the
attack upon her by stating in his affidavits what was untrue merely to
exculpate himself and escape the punishment which he deserved. It
was a curious fact, that his present attorney was the one who conducted
the prosecution against the unfortunate girl for murder. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to read her affidavit, which was of very great
length. It stated that she was 25 years of age, and that up to the year
1825 she resided with her father close to the vicarage house; that from
1820 to 1825, she attended the national school, and was frequently ,

employed by Mrs. Master in needletvork.; that about July, 1824, Mrs.
Master died, and that when bible Master came to reside at the vicarage,
deponent went there as her waiting.maid and lived in that capacity
until Christmas 1830, during which time she slept itt the tame
bed with Miss Master, It did not appear, however, that any cortipleint
was made against the girl during the whole of the time she slept with
Mist Master., In whose bed she was Wl:?ri delivered of this child. The
a,te'eel., Went 011 tV 'tete that Mr. Masters contintlt'd a widower; that
the deponebt in consequence 0t4145 dite4itiori, Wits in the habit of taking
toast and water into his bed-room, where she ?reejtMlitlf Washed his fed;
Ithat aboet rev years ago, or early in 1834, Mr. Master fleet Deplete to
'lee and teke liberties with her, and on one occasion threw her on the
bed and endeavotired to sexual intercourse with her, and that on
several occasions he solicited her for that pdrpreee, bid that the resisted
all his endeavours and imp'ortimities, until one evening in the fitettimn of
1834; When deponent, having as tistfal taken warm water into his bed-
room, he sCletel her by the Waist, threw het Upon the bed, and succeeded
in acdompiishing his objet, and that he frequoitly acted in a similar
Matinee afterwards; and tilwxy# ,;hawed the greatest affection for her.
The affichteit thVie stated that the depo7lent's master having been absent
for some time, returned heerrie about Christnlttej and that she then in-
tc,nded to make her mother acquainted With her sitUation, but that on
the following Morning She was seized with the baths of labettr, whilst in
Miss Master's bed, and Wei shortly afterwards clehreted art chi!de that
Mie. Masters afterwards asked whose child it was, and deponent said fir
inaster'et Gil Which Miss Master said, "God futglie you both." Pep tut
went on to state that ells told Mr, Miles and Mrs. Mlles that her mattet
was the father of the child ; affil, that when her moth & made the
sense enquiry, before she had time to reply, Margaret Johnston
said " her master." Deponent stated, that she did not see Mr.
Master again until the Sunday following the Ist January, about
five or six o'clock in the evening ; that there was no other person in the
room at the- time; that he took her hand and said he was sorry to sec
her lying ill, on which she burst into tears ; that he then said that if
she had told him he would have taken her away somewhere ; that she
would not be rent abroad, but remain In Chester gaol for a short time,
when all would be right again, and that if she wasted for anything she
was to send to him for it. That in the course of the same evening Miss
Master came to her room and said, " now my brother has confirmed
it," meaning, as deponent believed, that he had admitted that he was the
father of the child. The deponent stated that on the oth January she
was removed to the house of the constable at Runcorn, where she re-
mained until the 30th ; that during tide time Mr. Robinson Fostdcetine
to her, and asked if the child was the vicar's, Stating that if it was not
he did not want to know whose child it was, and that there were many
persons who would be glad to lay it on him ; that the question was put
in a variety of forms, and that she made no reply thereto. lie then
asked if she acquitted the vicar, and she replied, after some hesitation,
" acquit him." He then said, " But is he innocent ?" and she replied,
" Oh, let him be innocent." He again asked if it was the vicar's child,
and after being wearied by his importunity, she at length said ".No."
He then said he was glad to hear her say so, and that the vicar would be
glad also. The deponent then stated that on the 22d January, John
Johnson came to her, and pressed her very much with questions,
and that after his departure she wrote a letter to Miss blaster,
(which was handed up to their Lordships). The letter (the Attorney-
General said) was written spontaneously by the unfortunate girl, but
was intercepted on its passage, and no one after perusing it could enter-
tain the slightest doubt as to the truth of her whole story. It stated
the perplexity into which she had been thrown by the attempt which
had been made upon her to make her swear that the child either was or
was not her master's, but that she could not do the latter, when she slid
not know another mature in the world. After stating in the most
pathetic terms, the distress of her mind, the writer concluded by saying,
" 0 that I could see you ; what would I not give, that I might open my
mind to you, which I cannot do to any one elite ?" The deponent sail,
that on the Wednesday Mr. Johnson came to her again, when she seed
that the child was the Vicar's and that it was of no use denying it. That
on the 30th she was removed to Chester Castle, where she made a de-
claration, which was now in the same state as it was at that time.
That agreed with the substance of the affidavit which she had made
with respect to her interview with Mr. Master, and her having been
seduced by him. She then went on to give an account of her interview
with Foster, and of the letter which she wrote to Miss Master, which
exactly tallied with her former statement. The declaration that the
child was the Vicar's was made in Chester Castle, where she was con-
fined on charge of murder, and before the trial. She then- states that
while confined there, Mr. Walker called on her on the part of the
Vicar, and that she made to him the same declaration that was con-
tained in her affidavit. The Grand Jury having finally thrown out the
bills against her, she state. that she was discharged from Chester Castle,
and had been living with her father ever since. She states
that after the letter was intercepted, she saw that any further attempt
at concealment was useless, and that she has always since that main-
tained that the Vicar was the father of the child—that Foster was very
intimate with Mr. Masters, and that she believes he was sent to her with
a view to obtain from her some declaration that would be favourable to
him. Deponent then proceeds to notice the statements contained in
the affidavit of John Ward, the greater part of which she flatly contra.
diets, and further says that on his asking her if she wished to have the
child buried in the same grave with her mother, her reply was that if
her tomb was to be disturbed for the interment she would not hear of it,
Ward then asked her who was the father of the child, and she distinctly
stated to him that it was the Vicar. With respect to the statements
made by Miss Master, she says it is not true that she was ever accused
of being in liquor while living in her house, and that she was never
absent from it without leave. Neither was it true, as stated in the
joint sillidavits of Mr. and Miss Master, that she had made frequent
applications to go home, in consequence of the delicate state of her
health , and she says that she made no application of the sort until
the day before her delivery. She then proceeds to notice the affi.
davit of Hannah Reid, and positively swears, in reference to the
statements made by her with respect to James Askby and George
Johnston, "That she never had sexual intercourse with either of these
persons, or with any other person whatsoever, with the exception of
Frederick Masters." She states, that when interrogated in the Con-
sistorial Court, she made answer to the same effect, and that, in making
this affidavit, she is actuated by no hostile feeling against said Master,
but that she makes it solely because required so to do. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to quote some passages from the affidavits of
Mr. Miles, the surgeon, at Runcorn, so frequently referred to above,
and of his wife, a lady, who he stated had been on habits
of the greatest intimacy at the Vicarage, and who could not be sus.
pected of anything like a hostile feeling towards the family. He
would first call their attention to the affidavit of Mrs. Miles. That
lady states that on the morning after the delivery she went to the vicar-
age, and was informed by Miss Master of what had occurred. The
statement made by that lady to Mrs. Miles with respect to the facts of
the delivery, agreed in almost every particular with the affidavit of
I Mary Hinde herself. In reply to the question put to her by Miss Mas-
ter and subsequently by deponent as to who was the father of the child,
her reply was, that "it was the Vicar's, and no one's else." Deponent
had several interviews with her after, in all of which she persevered in
that statement. elm. Miles then proceeded to state that, on Thursday,
the 29th of September, she went from Runcorn to Liverpool to
bring back the Vicar, which she did on pretence of his sis-
ter's illness. He was not informed of what had happened during
his absence until his arrival at the house of deponent's 'husband.
He asked deponent and her husband to accompany him to the vicarage,
and on their way there Mr. Miles observed "that the charge was a very
serious one, and that he (the Vicar) must be aware whether it was true
or not." His reply Wag, that "he had good reason to suppose that
he was not the father of the child, inasmuch as he had nochildren by
hit late wife." On arrivingat the vicarage gate, he said that" the girl had
been much about his person, that he had a great affection for her, and
that he had entertained serious notions of marrying her." Deponent
remarked that it would have been much better that he had done so, than
to have brought himself and her into such a position as they were then
placed in. On entering the house, Miss Master met them in a
state of great excitement and agitation, and Mr. Master
begged of the deponent to bring her up stairs. Deponent
on this entreated of him if he were innocent to relieve his sister's mind
at once by saying so. His reply was, " I have told Miles," and he again
beggeu of deponent to bring his sister up stairs, which she accordingly
did. On going up Miss Master asked her what she thought of her bro-
ther's conduct, and her answer was, that " she believed him
guilty." On the following day deponent saw the vicar alone.
He asked her what she thought he ought to do. She said she thought
he ought to tee Mary Hinds in the presence of two or more persons, in
order to obtain from her a declaration as to who was the tether of the
child. He said that lie would prefer seeing her alone. Deponent re-
marked that if he did so the suspicion of his guilt would be at oncecon-
firmed. He offered to see her in deponent's presence alone, which
she declined. He then promised her that he would make no at-
tempt to see her, unless it was in the presence of third parties.
Notwithstanding this promise, Margaret Johnstone informed her on the
following day that the Vicar had been with Mary Hinde. Deponent
went to her, and asked her what Mr. Master had been saying to her.
She told her that " he had expressed hie regret at finding her
there, and that if he had known she was in that state he
would have made arrangements to have it take place else-
where." Deponent then informed Miss Masters of her brother's conduct.
and told him that as he had persisted in seeing the girl aloue, and as he
had thereby tacitly acknowledged his guilt, she would at once withdraw
from his house. Miss Master entreated her in the most feeling manner
not to leave her, anti she at length yielded on condition that she should
not be asked to hold any conversation or give an interview to her brother.
There was then the affidavit of Mr. Miles, who deposed that he had
carefully read over the affidavit, sworn by his wife, every word of which
was correct and true; he also added, that he had spoken to Mary
Hinde respecting the matter, anti she positively declared that the
Vicar was the father of the child. He had then the affidavit of
Harding the constable, who had the unfortunate young woman
in custody, who deposed that it was the popular opinion in the county
that the Vicar was guilty long before the publication of the alledged '
libels. He had then the affidavit of Mary Galley, which was one of
much importance, inasmuch as it proved the genuineness of the letter,
which had been read to the Court ; she said that Mary Hinde one day
asked for pen and ink, and alter writing requested her to send the
note to Miss Master. It got into her uncle's (Harding's)
hands, who, finding that it contained an inelosure, retained
it in his possession ; she was also present when Foster
desired an interview with Mary Hinde. He requested her ab.
sence ; but on going out she left the door open, and she overheard what
passed. She deposed that Foster asked if one was the father, and if
another was the father, and pressed her very hard to say that the vicar
was not, when she refused to answer. He had then the affidavits of
Messrs. Donald and Johnson, the promoters of the suit in the Er-
elesiasitical Court, wipe, deposed that they bore no ill-will to the
vicar, but were acting in justice to good morals, and the well-being
of the parish presided over by the plaintiff. He had also one
from Mr. Walker, who acted as solicitor in the defence of the young
woman, and who deposed that she had always stated the same story
without any variation. Ile had also many other affidavits, but
he must request his Learned Friend, Mr. Jarvis, to bring them under
the notice of their Lordships, for he was totally exhausted. Upon the
state of facts which was now before the Court, he would ask, even
if Mr. Master:was innocent, had he any right to appear in that Court ?
There was a suit depending, which must settle the whole matter. Hail
he then any right to come and ask their Lordship; to say whether
he was guilty or not upon affidavits ? But in what a position did he
stand ; he must know himself guilty, yet he gets his unfortunate sister,
Miss Master, to depose to statements which are, Olson the testimony of
three or four respectable witnesses, proved to be without foundation.
Upon the facts, as they were then before the Court—upon the affidavits
which were brought before their Lordships' notice, he fully anticipated
that Mr. Master must leave the Court with disgrace--a Court to which
lie had no right ever to have had recourse.

JARV-I3 was following on the same side when our Reporter left.

BAIL COURT--1-(-TITIg--DAY.)