The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-19 00:00:00

PUNTER v. LORD GRANTLEY.

We have been requested to give insertion to the
following communications respecting this law suit,
and as we contributed to give circulation to the
article in the Times on the subject, we have the
less hesitation in complying with the request. We
may at the same time add that the object of the
writer would have been more easily attained by a
simple statement of facts without " railing accusa-
tions :"

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir—l am well aware it consists not with the inElli-
bility too frequently assumed by newspaper scribes to
confess a fault, and, therefore, did not expect that the
writer in your Journal would even borrow the garb of
such a virtue ; but since he has thought proper to en-
hance his offence by his remarks on my letter, I
must once more briefly trespass on your " invariable
practice of giving every man the opportunity of vindi-
cating himself." On the " substantial merits of the ease"
my defence of Lord Grantley is more particularly
grounded, and in my letter of the 10th instant I plainly
stated " that from the evidence offered on behalf of
Lord Grantley, the Learned Judge (Lord Abinger) did
not see how the jury could conic to any other conclusion.
than that his. Lor.iship's title had been sufficiently
proved." What, then, does the unscrupulous critic of
my letter mean when, with unblushing hardihood, and in
defiance of the truth, he asserts, in the face of the public,
that " Lord Abinger plainly intimated his opinion—not
, that the defendant had established his title, which for
I, the moral justification of the defendant was the
necessary
\point, but that the plaintiff had failed," &e. If this
I be not a deliberate attempt to misrepresent a very
important fact to the prejudice of Lord Grantley, I will
at once admit that " humanity has been more fortunate
\in its defender than has the Noble Lord, over whore
conduct in this matter I have attempted to place only
the shield of truth.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
1 JOSEPH HOCKLEY.

Guildford, Aug. 15, 1840.
The following are the " short and simple facts o
the case" as stated by Mr. Hockley, and commu.
nicated to the same Journal :
In the year 1795 the late Lord Grantley purchased
the cottage and garden in question at a public auction
in the village of Wohersh, and placed the father and
mother of Punter, the plaintiff, to reside therein rent
free. From that period down to the time of his death,
which happened in the year 1822, his Lordship visited
the cottage at intervals, directed all necessary repairs,
and treated it in every respect as his own. Punter, the
father of the plaintiff, died in the late Lord GrantleN's
lifetime, and his widow continued to occupy the pre-
mises by the favour of the late, and, after his death, the
present Lord Grantley, till six or seven years ago, when
her second son, John Punter, the plaintiff, came at
night to the cottage, threatened violence, and drove
his mother and her family out into the fields. lie then
took possession of the cottage, set the benefactor of
his father and mother at defiance, and ii;ever spffered
Mrs. Punter (who died about three years ago, at 4
ay. gpipi iena.l e dUtpoona
•
ll*,
tfiG, pm.' r-'rantley, after repeated appacatioul to the
"ighbouring cottage) to s
withoutde effect, there
plaintiff oßtieffn
Bench of
pNoisasgeistL,
ciunpo,f t)t,' r,;,entlemen of all
parties and shades of opinion, who, after 'it careful ia.
vestigation of the circumstances on each side, issued
their warrant under a recent Act of Parliament, of
which tlin"wiiter ,i./.) yR9r paper evidently knows no-
thing, directing the Constabe; of Wonersli to expel
Punter from the cottage, and deliver possession to Lord
Grantley. They did so, and Lord Grantley has since