The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-14 00:00:00

CRAIG V FA.R.NALL.

This was originally a sort in the Arches Court of
Canterbury, promoted by Mr. Ge‘,rge irtoukc Farnall,
the respondent, against the liev. Joltn Kershaw Craig.
the appellant, " for his soul's health and the lawful cor-
rectiou.and reformation of his manners and excesses,
and more especially for having been guilty of the crime
of adultery, fornication, or incontinence."
The Judge of the Court of Arches pronounced that
the proctor for the promoter had failed in proof of some
of the articles containing the charges against Mr. Craig,
but had sufficiently proved the rest; and suspended Mr.
Craig for the space of two years,.and condemned him in
the sum of 2501. nomine expenAarum.
From this sentence an appeal was interposed on be-
half of Mr. Craig, and the appeal having been adhered
to o❑ behalf of Mr. Fantail, the whole case was brought
under the review of the Judicial Committee.

Dr. HAGGARD, who
.appeared on behalf of the re-
spondent, now moved their Lordships to rescind the con-
cluSiOn of the cause, for the purpose of receiving addi-
tional articles on the part of the respondent, and also to
direct the attendance of the witnesses .produced in the
court beloW on behalf of the appellant, in order that
they might be examined viva voce. The Learned
Doctor grounded his first motion principally on an affi-
davit made by Moses Sims, a servant in the employ of
the appellant from the month of Jauuery, in the year
1845, till the month of May, 1848:- The affidavit stated,
that during the whole of that period, except for about
four months in the year 1847, one Charlotte Sims was
also in the service of the appellant; that in April, 1847,
the appellant frequently spoke to the deponent about
the pregnancy of Charlotte Sims (the fact being at
the time manifest from her appearance), and
told him that she was going to Jersey with her
father, and that he (the appellant) had promised to
accompany them. On or about the ad of May,
1847, the appellant left. home, Charlotte Sims having
taken her departure on the preceding day; and, upon
the appellant's return, after the lapse of about a week, he
informed the deponent that he and Charlotte Sims had
been at Jersey. After an absence of sixteen weeks, or
thereabouts, Charlotte Sims returned to the house of the
appellant, being then much reduced in size, and having
been, as the deponent verily believed, delivered of a child
during her absence. The deponent had also seen the
appellant, on different .occasions, conduct himself with
indecent familiarity towards Charotte Sims and her sister
Jemima, who was also a servant in his house. He had
one evening, in the month of February, 1848, observing
a light in the dining-room of the appellant's house, looked
in at one of the windows, and had there seen the appel-
lant and Charlotte Sims in the act of immoral intercourse
on the floor. On another day in the' same month.
going into the same room, he found Charlotte' Sims
rising • from the floor, on which were the cushions
from the carriage, and the appellant standing near
her and arranging his dress. The affidavit then
set forth, that on Mouday, the 26th of No-
vember, Charlotte Sims was delivered of a child in the
house of the appellant, and this fact was confirmed by an
affidavit of Mr. Steven Westcott, surgeon at Southamp-
ton, to the effect that he had attended her during her
confinement. On the motion for the attendance of wit
nesses produced in the court below on behalf of the ap-
pellant, in order that they might be examined viva voce,
Dr. Haggard relied principally upon another affidavit of
Moses Sims, setting forth that the appellant in his pre-
sence, and on different occasions, tampered with his wit-
nesses, having instructed them as to the evidence they
were to give on their examination, and induced them to
do so by treating them to refreshments. The particular
mode in which this was effected was minutely described
in the affidavit, which was backed up by another from
John Lewis, the landlord of the public-house where the
treating took place. To these there were counter
affidavits by the appellant, and Mr. Dowdier, his
all the statements on the part
proctor, denying
of Moses Sims and others upon which a cri
urinal charge eegild be founded, and referring to
documentary evidence for the purpose of throwing
discredit en the veracity of Moses Sims. The affidavit
of the appellant jet particular stated " that he has never
had sexual intercourse, or taken any indecent or unbe-
coming familiarity with any female ; AD, or about, or he-
longing to the district of Burley, more especially with
Amelia Archer, Jane Shelly, Charlotte Sims, Jemima
Sims, or Jane Sims, and Anne Smith, severally men-
tioned iu these proceedings; that every charge of such
a nature which ever has been or is now to be brought
against him is utterly false and unfounded, and repug-
nant to tie feelings and principles of this depouent.
That ever since his residence in the district of Burley,
now a period of ten years, he has had to
sustain the unrelenting hostility of the promoter,
George Booke Farnall, and others, but has en-
deavoured, notwithstanding, to discharge his duties,
as minister of the said district, with zeal and fidelity ;
in proof cf which facts he humbly refers to the evidence
in this cause. That, although acquitted in the court be-
low of the two most serious offences laid to his charge,
the deponent, jealous no less of the honour of the
Church of which he is a minister than of his own cha-
racter, and anxious for the prosperity and reputation of
his wife and children, has, at a great sacrifice to himself
and his friends, appealed to this Hon. Court to acquit
him of the remaining charge." The affidavit proceeded
to state that the appellant's total income was 2901.; that
of that amount not more than 90/. was derived from his
benefice, the retention of which, therefore, was of no:pe-
cuniary importance, and the appellant would have re-
signed long ago had it not been for the necessity of
vindicating his character. Dr. Haggard entered into a
long argument in support of the two motions made by
him on behalf of the respondent, but failed to support
his applidation by any case in point.
Lord BROUGHAM, without hearing counsel for the ap-
pellant in reply, intimated that their Lordships had
rejected the application which bad been made to them.
No case had been cited to show that they had the power
to do what was sought for, and, even had such a power
been established, it had not been shown that the circum-
stances were such as would justify the exercise thereof.
Their Lordships therefore bad no hesitation whatever in
refusing both the applications made to them with costs.
They said tot a word upon the merits. It might be all
right or all wrong. They merely disposed of the present
interlocutory application.
Sir F. 'Tfasioea and Dr. ADDAMS, who were for the
appellant, then asked their Lordships to fix an early
day for hearing the appeal from the judgment of the
Cain below, and after some discussion the Ist of March
was agreed to for thot peep.,se

COURT OF QiThEiv%) BENCFI, Feb. 13.
THE QUEEN V. TURNER:
(Contintied from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Atter fiesaring.a quantity of evidence;
Mr. Sergeant SHEE submitted that there was not suf-
ficient evidence to go to the jury, and begged his Lord-
ship to consider the length of time that had elapsed since
the occurrence charged in the prosecution had occurred.
Mr. Justice- Erie seethed to be of the same opinion, and
Mr. C,.cklptuts, who appeared fur the plaintiff, concurring
to some eldeat in this opinion, a verdict of Not Guilty
was taken by pons en •. •