The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-20 00:00:00

IfiE SUN,

• of Winchester in giving Mr. Craig the fullest oppor •
-
tunity to vinnicate himself from the cherges made
against him. But, notwithstanding the application for
the commission was made as early as the 4th 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 he bound by the strict rules of
evidence, that nothing should be permitted on the one
side which was not allowed on the 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
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
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 reeom
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 jelo 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 ho 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 he 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 was 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
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-
ea_ ....taeaee proved that a fpovaan thy
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 au 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. lie (Dr. Addams) was perfectly satis-
fied that there was not a tittle of proof of the charges
contained in the articles, which had been most 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. PHILLIMORE was heard on the same side, and
'n the course of his comments on the commission held at
Ibsley,_

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 then)
a favourable standing before the Court, and it was im-
possible to say that they had not conducted the inquiry
to tie 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 St., 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 Learned JUDGE said he must take time to con-
sider the case. It was much too important to dispose of
without very great consideration of the evidence ad-
duced both on the one side and on the other. It was
not the mere question of the guilt or innocence of Mr.
Craig, but it was a matter of great moment to the in-
terests of the whole of the parishioners.

ZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, July 17.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE and Common
Jurier.)
WILLIAMS V. GRAVATT.
Mr. Whateley and Mr. SeHe 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 he 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-
bonrhood. 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
answer being that he was not employed by them but by
the defendant, he then applied to the defendant. The
latter was annoyed that the plaintiff had not applied to
him in the first instance. He did not pay the plaintiff,
and thereupon the action was brought. It was proved
that the defendant received from the company 1,5001. for
the survey of the line.
For the defendant it was contended that he employed
the plaintiff merely for the company, and that the plain-
tiff himselfis
bill h otuog
thht soco
mwpaasncyl eianr t
hfreo
first
sthe i
nfsatcatn thate. heA
number
sent i
n 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.

ASSI

BOWLEY AND.OTHERS v. WHITFIELLD AND OTHERS.

Mr. Godson and Mr. Keating were for tho plaintiffs;
and Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Phipson for the de-
fendants.

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,