The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-02 00:00:00

facts before them, and the circumstances under which
they were precinct d. The Learned Counsel then went
through the evidence given by Mrs. Emmerson, com-
menting upon almost every sentence of it, urging that
her conduct was not that of an injured woman ; that
no one could for a torment imagine that a woman who
had been so treated would continue to attend a church
where a man who had acted in so base a manner
preached the Gosrel, and this for the paltry pittance of
161. a year for the services of herself and her husband.
He contsnd,d that her whole story was such that no
one c,uld believe it. Would any woman have permitted
her husband to make presents to the man who had en-
deavourrd to seduce her? But, as the case was without
support, so must it be without contradiction. The de-
fendant, howe% er, must endeavour to destroy the credit
of the only witness upon whom the charge rested. In
1843 she was a singer at the Tivoli-gardens, and dis-
charged for her immoral conduct, making overtures of
the most disgusting description.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE said, CS Learned Friend could
not go into such matters.
Sir F. THESIGER said, until he was told he was pur-
suing an improper course he should proceed to show the
utter worthlessness of her character. He would show
this woman tampering with witnesses, and endeavouring to
induce them to givellse testimonyond if be found awoman
endeavouring to pollute the pure source of justice what
must she be. and what credit could they give to her—
and doing this for the purpose of ruining a man against
whom, except from her polluted lips, the breath of ca-
lumny never issued? When he found such a woman,
whose reputation was so blasted, thus charging a man
of so good and excellent a character as he should prove
him to be, he felt it his duty to call upon :hem to dis-
miss him with the same high character he had hitherto

enjoyed.
Tremendous applause followed the address of the
Learned Counsel, which was delivered in the most ener-
getic manner.
The case was then adjourned until to-morrow morning.

Thursday, July 1.
The court, as yesterday, was crowded to excess with
eager listeneri, and although all females had been de-
sired to leave it during the proceedings, there were seve-
ral female auditors in the out-of-the-way corners of the
court. The Bishop of London, Archdeacon Sinclair, and
the Rev. Sir il. R. Dukinfield, the vicar of St. Martin's

parish, in which St. Michael's is situate, were on the
bench. Of course the generality of the evidence, as in
similar cases, is unfit for publication.
A great number of witnesses were called for the de-
fence, including several members of the choir and two
pew openers, and they concurred in stating that they
had never heard anything disadvantageous to the cha-
racter of the defendant, except the statements circulated
by Mrs. Emmerson. One witness, named James Clarke,
said, that when he was speaking in a favourable manner
of the character of Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Emmerson re-
marked, " Oh, you do not know him as well as I do;"
and she added, that he had taken improper liberties with
her in the vestry, and she bad told her husband of the
circumstance. bat her husband did not think anything

the worse of Mr. Ramsay in consequence of it,
The Bishop of London, the Rev. Mr. Dale, Sir J.
Bailey, the barrister, and several other distinguished
gentlemen were called, and gave the defendant a high
character, both for religion, benevolence, and morality.
Mr. Sergeant .SEA then proceeded to address the
jury for the prosecution. He said, when it was
his duty, 83 counsel for the prosecution, to open
the case against the Reverend defendant, he had
refrained from saying anything which would pre-
judice their minds or interfere with their calm
and dispassionate judgment. lie felt it due to him, and
the Church of which he was a minister, in a case of such
a serious nature, and involving all his prospects in life,
peace of mind, and happiness, and usefulness in the
ministration which he exercised, not to submit any-
thing which would divert their minds from the
dispassionate consideration of the case. It was
with great grief that he was compelled to say that
it was his firm belief and conviction, after all the
evidence which he had heard, that the Rev. Septimus
Ramsay was guilty of the offence imputed to him
on the record, to the last letter, and that he
was one of the most shameless and abandoned
profligates ever brought to justice before a jury.
—(Sensation.) His Learned Friend Sir F. Thesiger
with a degree of eloquence which he never heard sur-
passed in a court of justice, thought proper to draw a
comparison between the positions (.f the prosecutrix and
the defendant—the woman, he said, was looked
upon with great commiseration by every one
present in the Court, whereas the defendant ap
peered with prejudice against him, charged with a
crime which it was almost impossible to disprove.
But he (Mr. Sergeant Shee) considered they would find,
on a comparison of the pos'tion of the two parties, that
the reverend defendant had a great advantage over the
prosecutrix Twenty or thirty witnesses of all classes
of society, some dignitaries of the thurch, and some
barristers spoke to the high moral and religious re-
putation of the reverend defendant. When look-
ing calmly and considerately at the evidence
which had been produced, he could not help thinking
that they would be of opinion that the rev. defendant
was guilty of the crime with which he had been charged.
It was a matter of experience that even among the
priesthood of the very church to which the de
fendant belonged there were men who, although
they held a very moral and religious cha-
racter, bad been satisfactorily found guilty of
the most abominable crimes. Such men were gene.
rally watch,nl and wary in their conduct, and were
careful in sel.cting a m•lment for sattslying their lusts
and appetites. They put on a saintly appearance to their
congregation and friends, and seemed to the whole world
not only incapable of such a charge as this, but e✓en in-
capable of the slightest deviation in their conduct, and
it was only by some unfortunate accident that the real
charge was brought to light and the people all
amazed held up their hands in astonishment. It was
impossible for the witnesses, who had been called to
speak of the defendant's character, to know his conduct
towards Mrs. Enarnr-rson. How was the Bishop of
London capable of knowing if he had committed the
crime charged against him? In truth, nothing
was more absurd and preposterous than to
call a number of witnesses who might per_
bar be the most moral and religious men in London,
to say that they never heard of the defendant being
guilty of such misconduct. Two of his Learned Friends
at the bar had given evidence of the respectable cha-
racter of the defendant, and he thought their testimony
was worth more reliance being placed upon it
than of all the reverend gentlemen in London.—
(Laughter.) It amounted to nothing more than this
they never heard anything against him, and they were
the last persons who were likely to hear of his conduct
towards this woman. These and the other witnesses
should have called upon the young women
who had been insulted by the defendant. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded in a very pathetic manner to
implore the jury to consider the painful importance of
the case to the young womon,bac husband, and five shil•
dren. The prosecutrix was as unimpeached in point of
character as any innocent woman could be.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN then carefully and elaborately
summed up the evidence. lie commented upon the
extraordinary conduct of the prosecutrix in having suf-
fered the defendant to take any indecent liberties with
her without communicating the fact to her husband or
to any one; and left it to the jury to say whether, looking
at the whole of the case, they considered the defendant
guilty of the offence imputed to him.
The jury consulted about two minutes, when
The Foreman turned round and announced that their
verdict was for the defendant.
The case did not conclude until eight o'clock.
Some imputation having been cast upon the paternity of
the children of the prosecutrix—that they were not all
the children of her husband—they were taken into the
Court this morning, and, certainly they bore more re
semblance to each other than the generality of the chil-
dren of one family.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 1.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE ANDERSON.—TURF SPECULATIONS.

This insolvent, who was described as of Lodge-road,
Regent's-park, gentleman, came up for his final order.
Mr. Lewi4, a solicitor, appeared on account of a debt
of 241., incurred for costs. Mr. Cooke appeared on
behalf of the insolvent.

His HONOUR, after hearing the case, said ho did not
consider it one in which he ought to refuse the final
order. The creditors had trusted the insolvent with
their eyes open, and knew the very precarious nature of
his avocation, as he was known to indulge largely in turf
speculations. A great portion of the debts arose from
legal expenses. There did not appear to him to have
been any fraud.
The final order was then granted. The debts were
above 5,0001.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 1.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL
WEAVER V. SCOTT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, wiliq its a
surgeon at Bayswater, to recover the sum, ail& 10s. 6A.
for money lent.
Mr. Wordsworth appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Thomas for the defendant, who pleaded that he was not
indebted.
It appeared from the evidence adduced on behalf of
the plaintiff that the defendant was the widow of a gen-
tleman who had, up to the time of his death, been a
partner with the plaintiff, and died in July, 1846, at
Brighton. At that time there was a debt of 3L 14s. due
for lodging. The defendant and her servant came up to
London, and borrowed IL, and plaintiff afterwards went
down to Brighton and paid the bill for lodging. These
were the only items attempted to be proved, the others
were for hotel expenses, cab hire, money lent, &c. The
principal witness was a person named Murphy, who said
that the money was got for some drink at the funeraL
Mrs. Scott came to London with him to get the money,
and when they got back they buried the deceased—iv.
four days. Plaintiff was down, and at
his solicitor, Mr. Bradley, was with him.% Lne funeral;
•110 plaintiff 's
son said plaintiff was a tenant to dee a
know that hi 4 father had entered a 8(34.
He did not
Caveat at Dootors'-
commons against the wife taking out letters of adminis
tration; did not know that he had acted as administrator,
or had been sued as executor.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said this was not a question
raised on the record, but if there had been any illegality
it was subject matter for inquiry at another Court.
(The penalty for administering to property without
taking out letters of administration is IMO
Mr. TrroMAS said he 1Y,14 pre0111(19,1 rmra showing
that the plaintiff' hill acted as adminiatrator, Out he must
sukonit tlp4 the debt for lodging haying been contre,,,led
daring the lifetime of the husband, the dafenclaal wp-
not liable. The tavern-keepef Mid 14°1 legally detain
the property,
The 1.4114R-SHERiFF was of opinion that if she could
n( t get away her clothes till the acti*Llnt wu paid, and
the money was advaeteed on t4at ground, it was a pay-
%et on 144. account.
arl TlVB44i—Zi9t if Vatutig ft A>i activg ail err