The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-05 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-.GLOUCESTER, APRIL 2.
HOLLISTER V. BUTLER.

Mr. BUSBY opened the pleadings, and stated that this
was an action for several libels upon the plaintiff, a young
lady at Cheltenham, imputing a want of chastity, and inde-
corous conduct. The defendant had pleaded that he was
not guilty, that parts of the libellous matter were true, and
that they were confidential communications.
Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD addressed the jury. The de-
fendant had resided at Cheltenham, and had become ac-
quainted with the plaintiff, a young lady who was living
there with her aunts, two maiden ladies of the name of
Loveday, and a maternal unole named Pointer. About
two or three years ago he made his appearance at that town,
and was considered as a man of great affluence. He pur-
chased a house there for 6,0001., and set up two carriages.
The plaintiff was his inferior in life. She is the daughter
of a respectable tradesman in Painswick, but she had been
honourably educated, and possessed great personal attrac-
tions. The defendant professed to make honourable pro-
posals of marriage to the plaintiff, and sent her a letter, of
which the following is a copy :
" Dearest Mary,—Believe me I regret to have occasioned
you a moment's anxiety. Forgive my warm affection and folly,
and believe me still the adorer of the angel of angels. Within
the next six months I pledge myself to make the most direct
proposals through Mr. for your hand, and I hope fully to
crown our happiness in 12 or 14 months.
" Believe me, angel of angels, yours affJ ctiona
TL tely,
" . BUER.

" Cheltenham, Dec. 1, 1834.
" P. S. Be assured that I never mean to marry any one but
you, and you have my most direct promise that I will marry
you at the very earliest opportunity my circumstances will
admit."
le received this letter, she dis-
covered that he was already marrieul, and had two children.
She immediately refused to see hint again, ai. -1 broke off all
intercourse. The defendant then, finding that could
not regain her affection, either for the purpose of gratit:ing
his revenge, or in the hopes of compelling her to throw her-
self into his arms as a refuge, sent five anonymous letters to
her relations at Cheltenham, two to her aunts, and one to a
maternal uncle. Those letters were the subject of the present
action. The Learned Sergeant here read the letters. They
were very long, and professed to admonish the aunts and
uncle of the loose and imprudent conduct of plaintiff in her
associating with the officers and men of fashion who fre-
quented Cheltenham at that time. Her supposed course
was pointed out, her dress was described as inelegant and
indecent, and her whole conduct as betokening great levity
and immodesty. The writer impressed upon the relations
the necessity of putting a restraint upon her, and of pre-
venting her falling a prey to the seduction which appeared
to be inevitable. The first was not communicated to the
plaintiff, but the second was ; when it was read to her she
became greatly distressed, and betook herself to her father's
at Painswick. After a time she returned to Cheltenham,
and the other letters were sent. The defendant's hand-
writing was recognized, and this action was commenced
against him. What would the jury say of the good faith of
a man who proffered marriage to a young lady at the time
that he was himself a married man ? But he had added
insult to injury. He had endeavoured to deprive the plain-
tiff of those damages which it was to be expected a jury
would give her.
Cheltenham, dHe bad lately' sold off all his proper
a
an removed hirnaelf from that town. So laseas the sth of last March he sent Mr. Pointer this letter :
~
" As Mr. Butler considers thil le be a lawyer's, action

Every part of this case, if taken singly, would be atro-
cious, but taken all together,-it presented a mass of atrocity
and crime which he was sure the Jury had never heard of
in all their experience.
Mr. MAULE, on behalf of the defendant, did not im-
pute to the plaintiff that she had actually lost her honour
and her virtue. Mr. Butler firmly believed she had not.
But he had thought it right to warn her relatives of the
dangers to which she was exposed. Of great personal
attractions, walking about the town of Cheltenham, having
no occupation, finely and showily dressed, it could not be
denied that she was in danger. If she had not fallen, if
her relatives had interfered, mightit not be fairly attributed
to the very letters which the defendant had sent. The de-
fendant had been foolish ; he had given way to a passion
for a pretty girl, who had doubtless not been slow to re-
ceive his attentions. He had fallen, as the wisest of men
had done before him. As to the pretence about the mar-
riage, it was impossible that Miss Hollister did not know he
VMS a married man, living as be was at Cheltenham with
his wife and family, driving about the town in his carriage,
and known as a man of affluence. After all, what damage
had .Ibe sustained by the defendant's writing the letters?
They wzlre sent to her relations, were intendd for them,
and but for' tine interference of the attorney would never
have been pu:.,lised.
The Jury rettumbd a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
3001.

G.:7l,`E V. BUTLER.
This was an action by the attorney for the plaintiff in
uublished against him by the
the last action for a libel
same defendant, with reference' to his prosecution of that
'went for 40s. damages.
suit. A verdict was taken by ci