The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-21 00:00:00

had formerly been in his service, in which, with refe-
rence to these proceedings, he employed terms in speak-
ing both of Mr. Farnall and the Bishop of Winchester,
which showed how little he was entitled to the good
opinion which his Lordship formerly entertained of him.
They must have proceeded either from a very perverted
mind, or have been the offspring of a wicked heart. That
letter was addressed to a person who was to come for-
ward and give unbiassed evidence in the cause. The
testimony of three clergymen had been adduced in fa-
vour of Mr. Craig, but they had not been on close
terms of intimacy with him of late years. Mr. Farnall
was charged with being actuated by malicious motives;
it was too trite to say that motives had nothing to do
with the case. There were rumours floating about in
1844 regarding the character of Mr. Craig, which reach-
ing the ears of Mr. Farnall, or of any other individual,
could not fail to arouse his attention, and lead to the
adoption of measures to bring the matter to a public dis.
cussion. He (Dr. Haggard) knew not how Mr. Craig
could justify the highly offensive expressions which
he had used regarding his diocesan. The commis-
sioners before whom the preliminary inquiry was held
had unanimously reported that there was ground for
further proceedings; the Bishop therefore had a duty to
discharge, and that he had fearlessly done, but in the
kindest way. It was clear from the evidence that the
female servants of Mr. Craig were all young. He (Dr.
Haggard) would consider the direct charges against Mr.
Craig, not in order of time, but according to their de-
gree of magnitude. There was a discrepancy as to the
date when Mr. Craig was alleged to have kissed, or
attempted to kiss Ann Smith; but he was willing to fix
it as occurring on the 19th of October, 1844. He con-
tended that the result of the evidence indisputably proved
that he actually kissed her. She had herself deposed to
it, and was so disgusted with his conduct that she im-
mediately ceased to attend the church. The fact of
tickling Jane Shelley's knees was equally well esta-
blished. The story was consistent with other parts of
the case proved against Mr. Craig, and was fully entitled
to credit. It manifested a depravity of feeling and
thought in the propensities and habits of Mr. Craig such
as justly to bring him within the censure of the law. As
soon as the rev. gentleman was aware that Mr. Farnall
had been informed of that act of indecency towards Ann
Smith, he went to the house of her mother, and subse-
quently wrote her a letter, which must be taken as con-
clusive against him, as showing that he was desirous of
getting her to his house, he (Dr. Haggard) would not
say for the purpose of tampering with her, but convers-
ing with her respecting the charge, which he knew must
mainly depend upon her testimony. He could not tell
what would have occurred had that young person
gone to Mr. Craig's house, but another who had made
charges against him had been induced to sign her name
to a document, stating that he had not conducted him-
self improperly. Archer's evidence proved beyond a
doubt that the defendant had gone into his servants'
bedroom, and on one occasion into the bed where two
of them were lying, although it did not appear that cri-
minal intercourse had taken place. The charge of corn •
witting adultery in Ridley Wood on the Ist of June
rested upon the testimony of William White, a carter,
in the employ of Mr. Farnall, who deposed to having wit-
nessed it, while in a tree, about ten yards off, getting
some dead wood. The description given by the wit-
nesses of the character of Ridley Wood showed that
there was nothing improbable in White's statement.
Evidence had been adduced by Mr. Craig with a view
to prove an alibi with regard both to himself and Jane
Shelley, the person with whom he was said to have com-
mitted the adultery. The principal witnesses were
Charles Young and his son, who swore at the time when
the act was said to hare taken place they were delivering
1 coal at Mr. Craig's house, and that he was present
while they were so engaged. It was not a desirable posi-
tion for Mr. Craig on a fine summer's evening, without
any assignable reason, to be mixing himself up with the
(lust and dirt of unloading coals. There were, however,
discrepancies between the statements of the father and the
son, and their evidence was not such as would justify the
Court in coming to the conclusion that White had deposed
falsely and corruptly with regard to that particular trans-
action. It was said that Shelley was engaged in help
inf.?, her sister to make some wedding dresses for a young
lady in the neighbourhood who was to be married on the
following Tuesday, but the marriage did not take place
until the Thursday, and it turned out that that was the
day first fixed upon. Shelley had been examined, but
her evidence was not to be relied upon. She had before
the transaction took place lived in the service of Mr.
Craig, and had been dismissed for rudeness to Mrs.
Craig, over whom she was represented to have domi-
neered. On one examination she had denied that she
was discharged for that rudeness, and then, on the fol-
lowing day, expressed a wish to retract it, and admitted
that it was true. Mr. Craig, however, had taken so
much interest in her that when the schoolmistress at
Burley left in consequence of obtaining a better appoint-
ment, Mr. Craig gave her the vacant situation. The
adultery was first alleged to have been committed on the
3d of June, and an alibi had been set up for Shelley on
that day; but it was impossible to give credence to the
witnesses who deposed to it. They were at variance
with each other on several points. It was not necessary;
however, to plead with precision the exact day. That
principle was clearly laid down in Phillips on Evidence.
Upon the whole, he submitted that the charges against
Mr. Craig were fully proved; that he must be found
guilty and condemned in the costs.
Dr. JENNER followed on the same side.

Dr. ADDAMS appeared on behalf of Mr. Craig, and
said that he certainly took a very different view of this
case from that taken by the counsel for the prosecution.
A case of greater oppression and iniquity, and one more
unsupported by evidence, never came before the Court.
It was indisputably proved that the case had arisen en-
tirely through the malice of the nominal promoter, a
person of the name of Farnall, who had contrived by
some means or other to hook in the Bishop of Win.
chester, who, it was asserted, had made himself respon-
sible for the costs. It was not necessary to go particu-
larly into the character of Mr. Craig, especially as a great
deal of diligence had been used to exclude many docu-
ments from the cause to which, if the Bishop of Win-
chester had been the prosecutor, he should have expected
him to direct his counsel to offer no formal objection. It
was not to be supposed that his Lordship had invited
Mr. Craig to become the minister of Burley church with
out being well acquainted with his character; but a
letter written by his Lordship to Mr. Craig in 1839,
inviting him to accept the living, placed the matter
beyond all doubt, and in March of that year he was duly
put in possession of that piece of preferment. He had
not, however, been very long in the parish before, by
some means. which were not very apparent, he provoked
the hostility of Mr. Farnall. It was perfectly
ludicrous, in the face of the evidence, to suggest
that Mr. Farnall had not been accused by the bitterest
malice in the whole proceeding. Mr. Edwards, a wit-
ness to whom Mr. Farnall could not object, inasmuch as
he was produced to prove the absence of malice, showed
that all that Mr. Farnall wanted was to see the gown of
Mr. Craig stripped off his shoulders. That there was
any cause for Mr. Farnall's hostility to Mr. Craig at
that time, arising from irregularity in the performance of
his duties, was negatived by the evidence of Mr. Ed-
wards. Early in 1840 a resolution was passed by the
committee of the school, nearly all of whom were rela-
tives of Mr. Farnall, disapproving of Mr. Craig's ma-
nagement of it, and a copy of it was sent to him, under
seal, through the master. Notwithstanding Mr. Far-
nail's anxiety to depose Mr. Craig, that gentleman
would have maintained his ground, but for some such
proceedings as these now instituted against him. There
was a document dated 1843, proving that Mr. Craig
made every endeavour to promote a better feeling be
tween Mr. Farnall and himself: Not only, however,
had Mr. Craig's conduct been arraigned with regard to
several young women, but he had been charged with
irregularity in the discharge of his official duties during
the whole time that he had been in the parish. It
might have been expected that the latter charges would
be supported by something like credible evidence. Those
charges, it must be remembered, had been brought for-
ward before a breath of calumny had been whispered
against Mr. Craig. The person called to prove the non-
attendance at the church, and the numbers frequenting
the Dissenting chapel was a labourer, and had married
one of Mr. Farnall's servants. Some of the witnesses
did not like Mr. Craig's manner of expounding the Scrip-
tures, but that was a matter of taste. Other witnesses
had been brought forward to prove the irregularities and
the attendance at the Dissenting school, but they knew
very little about it. It had been pleaded that the Dis-
senting chapel was built in 1841, but the evidence showed
that it was only rebuilt in that year—its first erection
took place half a century ago, and the Dissenters never
had a school-room before 1845—prior to which they
taught the children in a cottage. The rumours against
Mr. Craig's character were set afloat by a person who
had been in his service, but who had left it shortly
before Christmas, 1844. Up to that period his character
had been irreproachable, and yet he was now represented
by White as going about Ringwood dressed like a bashaw,
with one of his female servants on each arm. How was
it that no other person had been adduced to substantiats
that charge? In December, 1844, a very wicked person,
not a witness in the cause, left the service of Mr. Craig,
and went to reside, not in the same cottage, but under
the same roof as Mr. and Mrs. White, and in January,
1845, she was introduced to Mr. Farnall, when she made
certain revelations to him of the alleged misconduct
of Mr. Craig. It appeared that on the 16th of
January, in that year, Mr. Farnall communicated
with the Bishop, and on the 17th he had directed
proceedings to be taken. It was impossible not
to suppose that there had been a previous communica-
tion. Every effort had been made by Mr. Craig, to ob-
tain a copy of the letter written to the Bishop with a
view of ascertaining the charges contained in it, but with-
out effect. Those attempts had been uniformly defeated
and he (Dr. Addams) must say that it was a matter of
hardship: beyond expression to Mr. Craig. There was
another letter on the 20th of January, and on the 4th of
February, 1845, a formal application was made for a com-
mission. That was summary vengeance, and if that
course were followed up the Church Discipline Act
would prove a great nuisance. The charge against Mr.
Craig of indecent conduct towards his female servants
was attempted to be supported by . a witness unworthy
of credit; while there was the testimony of the other
thing
Craig o f
were the
kindserva.ntlsttwhaats tshaeidy
thathad ntehsea! r e
r n
all young, but that arose from his limited moans, he could
only afford to pay low wages. The statements as to Mr.
servants observed
df
any
Alri
Craig entering his servants' bed had either not been given
to Mr. Farnall before the 4th of February, or, if fur-
nished to him, he did not believe one word of it, otherwise
it would have constituted the principal charge in the first
instance. Between the 16th of January and the formal
aw;aad tsi
advisable
dnsvhi
s hisoat l
Ideh reply,toank ex hisc Craig'se
application for the issue of the commission, Mrs. Craig,
it
unknown to her husband, had Ns ritten to the Bishop,
begging him, if possible, to put a stop to these proceedings,
,Lordship,
addeda ta accountf theor that stating
the
re-
joice more than himself in Mr. Craig's vindication.
Certainly, no one could wouldinthvae st
suppose after that letter that
there would be any obstacle on the part of the Bishop

of Winchester in giving Mr. Craig the fullest oppor-
tunity to vinnicate himself from the cherges made
against him- But, notwithstanding the application fur
the commission was made as early as the 4.h of Fe-
bruary, it did not issue till the 25th of March, and
the examination before the commissioners did not
take place till the 24th of April, although Mr. Craig
desired to have the case investigated at the earliest pos •
sible period. When the commission issued, the principal
commissioner named in it declined to act, and the Rev.
Mr. Young, a magistrate, who frequently acted with Mr.
Farnall in that capacity, occupied his place. Mr. Young
stated that he would not be bound by the strict rules of
evidence, that nothing should be permitted on the one
side which was not allowed on tho other, but in the
course of the proceedings that rule had been departed
from, adversely to the interests of Mr. Craig. In his
(Dr. Addams') opinion the commission had been con-
' ducted in the most partial way, and Mr. Craig had had
, anything but fair play before the commissioners.
I There could not be a better instance of the
extreme bad working of the Church Discipline
Act than this case, and of the necessity, in the event of
, a new Act being passed, of some reference being
made by the Legislature as to the mode in which these
inquiries should take place. Mr. Craig had been corn
pletely victimised, and the hopes and fears of the
parties were, that, provided a report could be procured,
which should recommend further proceedings, then the
I terror, the expense, the exposure, and the difficulty
which would surround Mr. Craig would, in all proba
bility, effectually prevent him from defending himself,
and induce a submission, so that his enemies might gain
their end. The report of the commissioners recom
mending further proceedings was made on the 15th of''
May, but the letters of request, forming the basis of the
' present proceedings, did not issue until November, and
then Mr. Craig, certainly most unwisely and injudi-
ciously, attempted to avoid the service of the cita-
tion. Articles were then given in, and it might have
been supposed that some pains would be taken in their
concoction. But what was the fact ? Mr. Craig was
charged with the " habit " of visiting the room of his
female servants after they had retired to bed, but there
was only one instance attempted to be proved,
and that by a witness perjured up to her teeth, but who
stated that no act of adultery had then taken place.
There was nothing criminal in the charge with re-
gard to kissing Ann Smith, but he denied that
her evidence could be relied upon; in some circumstances
that she had stated she was directly contradicted by
other witnesses. The testimony of White as to the act of
adultery alleged to be committed in Ridley Wood was so
completely fete de se that he (Dr. Addams) would not
trouble himself to refer to the evidence by which the alibi
was clearly established. According to White's own ac-
count he was, at the time he witnessed the transaction,
engaged in an act of felony, for which he was liable to
be imprisoned and whipped. That was the respectable
witness to prove a fact against a clergyman of the high
character of Mr. Craig. White called himself a church-
man, and said that he continued to attend the church at
Burley until this matter broke out. His conscience,
then, would not allow him to sit any longer under the
ministry of Mr. Craig. His conscience was of a very
different description to that of Miss Ann Smith, who
affirmed that in the whole course of her life she had
never heard anything against the character of Mr. Craig,
but who nevertheless was so outrageously modest that
because, as she alleged, Mr. Craig was guilty of the
enormity of attempting to kiss her she would never
go to the church again, because it would remind her
of what Mr. Craig had done. White stated that he
had kept the occurrence in Ridley Wood secret for a
period of nine months, notwithstanding the rumours re-
specting Mr. Craig were the gossip of the place during
that time. White knew that nothing would gratify
his master, Mr. Farnall, more than his ability to assist
him in this prosecution ; and, although he was in con-
versation with him de die in diem, yet ha never opened
his lips about it until his examination under the commis-
sion at Ibsley. Jane Shelley had been examined and
cross-examined ; it was admitted that she had given
her evidence with great modesty and propriety, and she
utterly denied the conduct imputed to her and Mr.
Craig. Shelley had made use of a rude remark to Mrs.
Craig ; Mr. Craig wai apprised of it, and what did he
do? He instantly dismissed her from his service. Had
there been the least truth in the charge now made, dare
he have done so ? It had been said that Jane Shelley
domineered over Mrs. Craig, that Mrs. Craig was seen
crying for hours together ; but the whole tenor of the
evidence proved that Mr. and Mrs. Craig lived together
I with the utmost harmony and affection. There was not
a single report against Mr. Craig which might not be
traced up to a girl of deplorable wickedness named Sim,
who had been seduced, not by Mr. Craig, but by
some one while living in his service. If no witnesses
had been examined on behalf of Mr. Craig, if that
gentleman had given in no allegation, there would
have been a total and entire failure of the case, and
he ought not to have been subjected to a prose
cution on such articles as those exhibited against him.
Some of the parties who had invented stories respecting
Mr. Craig had, when brought to a better state of mind,
retracted them. It could not be said that Mr. Craig had
bribed them, for it was well known that he had not the
means of doing it. Influence and station were on the
side of Mr. Farnall, not of Mr. Craig. Various insinua-
tions were thrown out in the interrogatories addressed
to the witnesses examined by Mr. Craig, but they were
every one negatived. With the exception of Sim, Mr.
Craig had produced every servant who had lived in his
house, and they had all negatived the charges made.
One female only had left the house of Mr. Craig enceinte,
but that gentleman was not the reputed father of the
child. But what, however, was the state of Mr. Farnall's
household? Several of the servants had left it in that
condition. He entirely exonerated Mr. Farnall per-
sonally, but the evidence proved that a footman, the
reputed father of one or two of the children, had been
retained in Mr. Farnall's house. It was said, however,
that he was the servant of Miss Elliott, a relative of
Mr. Farnall's, who resided with him and took the
head of the table. It was true that Mr. Craig
had written a letter to Miss Angus, in which
he had employed strong language; but Mr. Craig was
described as an eccentric man; he had expressed himself
with warmth and fervour; the letter was utterly incon-
sistent with guilt, and was penned when he was goaded
almost to madness by the attack which had been made
on his character. He (Dr. Addams) was perfectly satis-
fied that there was not a tittle of proof of the charges
contained in the articles, which had been moat improperly
framed. It was a prosecution to which the Bishop of
Winchester had been misled to give his countenance,
and the inevitable consequence must be that Mr. Craig
must be dismissed from the suit with his full costs.
Dr. R. PHILLI3IORE was heard on the same side, and
in the course of his comments on the commission held at
The Learned JUDGE took the opportunity of express-
ing his strong disapprobation of the preliminary inquiries
held under the Church Discipline Act.
Dr. HAGGARD, in reply, said that it was not at all a
matter of surprise that observations should be made on
the gentlemen who conducted the commission at Ibsley.
The very fact, however, of their appointment gave them
a favourable standing before the Court, and it was im-
possible to say that they had not conducted the inquiry
to the best of their ability, with the utmost attention to
Mr. Craig, and with the strictest impartiality. He ad-
mitted that Mr. Farnall had been a contributor to the
erection of the Dissenting chapel at Burley, but it was
only to the extent of it.. which sum was given either
out of respect to the minister of the chapel, or to prove
his goodwill to his fellow parishioners, but himself,
family, and domestics, had always attended the church
until the matters which were now the subject of inquiry
had been brought conclusively before him. He con-
tended that the evidence disclosed facts which fully en-
titled the promoter of the suit to plead Mr. Craig's
" habit " of frequenting his servants bedroom. There
was nothing, he maintained, to discredit Ann Smith's
testimony as to the kissing. The transaction in Ridley
Wood must stand upon the testimony of White, and he
(Dr. Haggard) submitted that the witness was fully
entitled to belief. Mr. Farnall had been charged with
being actuated by malicious motives, but the fact was
these matters had been forced on his attention by parties
repairing to him with their complaints, and he was bound
to take notice of them.
Dr. JENNER having also been heard in reply,
the other.
evidenc
let ad-
as w
The Learned JUDGE said he must take time to con-
sider the case. It was much too important to dispose of
innocenceht of Mr.
withoutndou tcet
(hi
everybmotehrequestion
o greatutehseti
oo
nneosfconsiderationidteheagnudon
ut oorft
Craig, but it was a matter of great moment to the in-
terests of the whole of the parishioners.

AxFSOSRI D
CIRCUI T.— iLvoIrG CE.
cest7July 17.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice Elms and Common
Juries.)
WILLIAMS V. GRANATT.
Mr. Whateley and Mr. Selfe appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Whitmore for the defendant.
This was an action of debt to recover 660/., for services
rendered by the plaintiff, as sub-engineer of the Wor-
cester and Leominster Railway, to the defendant, as
engineer of that line. In 1845 the defendant was the
engineer of a great many railways in this neighbour-
bourhood, and when he was appointed engineer of the
above line, mentioned to one of the directors of the
company that ho wanted assistance. That gentleman
said he thought the plaintiff would suit him (the de-
fendant). The plaintiff was thereupon engaged by the
defendant to survey the line, and he did so, and all the
lines to which the defendant was engineer in this neigh-
bourhood. This was the only one the survey of which
was completed in time for the deposit of the Parliamen-
tary plans on the 30th of November. Some difference
having arisen between the defendant and the directors,
the plaintiff sent in his bill to the directors ; but their
d
answer being that he was not employed by them but by
the defendant, he then applied to the defendant. The
Fporlatinhteitr defendantmerelyfe
it
r latter was annoyed that
w the plaintiff had not applied to
him in the first instance. He
and thereupon the action was brought. It was proved
that the defendant received from the company 1,500/. for
the survey of the line.
himself thought so was clear from the fact that he
sent in his bill to the company in the first instance. A
the as
companycontended
and that t h
al 1:
theemployed
theplain-
tiff
number of letters that had passed between the parties
were also put in to corroborate this view.
Mr. WHATELEY having replied,
His LORDSHIP
summed up, and the jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
BOWLEY AND OTHERS V. WIIITFIELLD AND OTHERS.
Mr. Godson and Mr. Keatin wore for the plaintiffs;
d Mr. Ph.
and Mr. Sergeant Allen an g -on for the de-
fendants. irh

This case occupied the Court for the greater part of
the. day. It was an interpleader issue between the as-
signees of a bankrupt and execution creditors as to
whether the latter had received notice of the bankruptcy
prior to the levy.
Witnesses were called on both sides, and the upshot
of all WAS A verdict for the plaintiffs,