The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-14 00:00:00

put in by the agent. I have been subpoenaed by the de-
fendant's attorney. I was for some time examined by him.
Frederic,Lumb examined—l am an attorney in Wakefiele,,,,
in Yorkshire. I know the defendant, who resided there
about four or five years since. He was in orders then. I
have had correspondence with him. I am well acquainted
with his writing. (The letters were put in the witness's
hands.) I believe confidently that all of these letters and
addresses are in Mr. Robinson's handwriting.
Cross-examined—l knew the defendant in Woolley Par-
sonage. Ido not know he ever dated W. P., nor that he
referred to such initials in an advertisement. He had bad
health. I heard that he had haemorrhage in the lungs. He
is a gentleman of considerable attainments. While in my
neighbourhood he was mainly instrumental in getting a
church built there. The letters are not written in a dis-
guised hand.

- The Rev. Henry Dawson examined—T am a clergyman of
the Established Church, living at W-kefield. Defendant
lived at Woolley, seven mile from Wakefield. lam very
well acquainted with his writing. (This witness also identi-
fied the handwriting.)
Cross-examined—Defendant has always been exemplary
in the discharge of his duties in his parish. He was obliged
from his health to give up duty, in consequence of rupture of
a bloodvessel in his lungs. He has published a few sermons
and other little works.

Mr. am the town clerk of Worcester. I was pre-
sent at the marriage of Mrs. Barker.
Cross-examined—Mr. Barker was not horse-whipped on
corning out of church. No occurrence of the kind took
place. I believe lie was teaching singing. She had been
living in Worcester, where she met Mr. Barker. They
lived after their marriage in Cheltenham, and at Brompton-
square in London. He was not a rich man, and was occa-
sionally in difficulties. He lives now, I believe, in Bromp-
ton- square. I last saw him performing at the Princess's
Theatre, London. He is a singer. I believe her family
were not agreeable to the marriage, at which none of them
were present. There were none present but myself, the
clergyman, and the clerk.
Mr. WIPATELEY addressed the jury for the defendant. He
said it was now quite obvious that it was not by her husband,
a poor player, that the prosecution was maintained. She
had married a man much beneath her in rank, and who
clearly could not support her in the luxuries of a carriage
and four horses, in which it appeared she usually, and in
fact, always but on one occasion, travelled. It was alleged
in this indictment that the defendant had wickedly, wilfully,
and maliciously published a libel, with the intention to
injure Jane Barker, and to deprive her of her good name. It
was quite clear that her good name was lost long before
these alleged libels had been written. It was asserted that
under a recent Act of Parliament the defendant might
have pleaded that the charge was true, but this would
have availed him nothing, unless he could also have
pleaded that it was for the public benefit. Why had not
the prosecutrix taken a different course ? She had two
others open to her. An action might have been brought,
and then the truth alone of the libel would have been a de-
fence. An information might have been filed, but then to
obtain it the prosecutrix must have negatived on her oath
the charge against her. Why had not the prosecution called
Lord Fitzbaroinge, as a witness, to prove that the intercourse
between him and the lady was of a pure and innocent cha-
racter? To show that he visited her, and dined with her,
twice a week, and remained with her till eleven or twelve at
night during the absence of her husband, to comfort and
console her, and to guide and instruct her in the paths of
morality and virtue? The defendant was, it had clearly
been proved, a most exemplary pious clergyman, who had
not only attended zealously to the spiritual wants of his own
parish, but had mainly been instrumental in building a new
church in his neighbourhood. For one season lie, a married
man, with the charge of young men whom he was preparing
for the university, had endured the scandalous conduct of
his neighbour the prosecutrix, one celculeed to corrupt
the morals of pupils, and disturb the comfort of his wife.
He found that she was about to return, and then that. in
spite of the friendly, but perhaps injudicious admonitions
he had sent her, she actually had returned; he, no doubt
irri'ated by her conduct, and desirous at all risks to get
rid of such an intolerable nuisance as her residence within
three doors of his house, sent the letters in question, in-
tending to drive her away. He did not knew the prose-
cutrix personally; he could have entertained no malice
against her; he. in fact, acting perhaps most injudiciously,
had merely wished to guard the murals of his servants and
pupils against the contaminating influence of the mode of life
of the prosecutrix, and to restore comfort to his wife. These
were the real facts. No malice could have existed; and he
(Mr Whateley) was sure that the jury would understand,
what is hopeless to expect such people as those who were the
instigators of this prosecution could understand, the high and
the pure feelings which caused a zealous clergyman, at all
hazards, to interfere, and abate any nuisance which threatened
to injure the morality of the neighbours, and more especially
to corrupt the morals of those young men who might be
under his care.

The Lout) CHIEF JUSTICE then summed up to the jury. His
Lordship said that the questions fur their consideration
simply were whether the defendant had published the super-
scriptions in question, and whether they were libels? The
facts relied on by the Learned Counsel for the defendant
formed no excuse. No imaginary or fancied sense of duty,
no high-flown regard for the general moral conduct of
society, could justify even a clergyman in setting himself up
as a censor of his neighbours, and publishing anonymous
libels respecting them. His Lordship most fully and clearly
stated the law of libel and the evidence to the jury, who re-
tired, and in thirty-five minutes returned into Court, and
delivered a verdict of Guilty.
The defendant will have, if brought up, to appear in the
Court of Queen's Bench next term to receive sentence, and
may file affidavits of any facts he considers may induce that
Court to mitigate his punishment.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.— Wells, August 11.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE. )
Alfred Green was indicted for maliciously setting fire to a
stack of hay, the property of Nathaniel Hodder, at Frotne
Selwood.
Mr. Bayley was counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Ed-
wards for the prisoner.
The only evidence that really affected the prisoner was
this, that two days after the stack had been burned the pri •
soner, a lad only seventeen years of age, met a constable in
the town of Frome, and told him he wanted to speak to him
concerning the rick that was burned. The constable asked
bim if he had any information to give? The prisoner al,-
swered, " A little." The constable said to him, " I sup-
' pose you are aware there is a reward offered ?" The pri-
soner said, "It was a bad job, but no one would ever have
it, for he had done it." The constable said, " What could
induce you to commit such an act ?" He said, it was
through a disturbance he had had with his friends on the
Saturday night; he wished to get transported and to leave
the country; he had done it with a lucifer match—he had
two in his pocket—with one he had set the rick on fire, and
the other he had thrown away; and he had twice thought
on the Sunday of giving himself up. The boy had always
been considered a good boy.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended
him to mercy on account of his youth and his previous good
character.
Mr. Justice EaLE then sentenced the prisoner to be im-
prisoned for six months, with hard labour.
Louisa Harvey and TlTilliam Brown were indicted for
stealing several silver spoons and other articles, the pro-
perty of Joseph Hoddinott, and burglariously breaking out
of the house.
Mr. Prideaux was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr.
Edwards and Mr. Salmon defended tile prisoners.
This was a sad case of profligacy. The female prisoner
was a very pretty, delicate-looking girl, only fourteen years
of age. She was the granddaughter of the prosecutor, who
was in too infirm a state to attend at the assizes, and had
been brought up by him. On Saturday evening, the Bth of
April, the house of the prosecutor was locked up, and the
next morning it was discovered that six silver spoons had
been taken out of the cupboard of the parlour. It was
proved that on that evening the prisoners, together with a
girl named Caroline Smith and a man named Daniels, were
at a public-house called the Pineapple, which was in the
neighbourhood of the prosecutor's house. The two pri-
' sowers went out about eight o'clock, and returned there
again about half-past ten o'clock the same night. Harvey
an:l Smith had been sleeping at that public-house for two
or three nights, but on that evening the landlady said she
would not allow them to remain there that night. Daniels
then went away, and shortly afterwards the two prisoners
and Smith followed together. About five o'clock the next
morning Harvey and Smith called at the house of Mary
Bishop, who lived at Frome. She got up and let them
in, and they remained there a good part of the day.
This part of the case was es:ablished beyond any
doubt, but the wl.ole of the evidence to connect the pri-
soners with the robbery was given by the woman, Caroline
Smith, who gave the following extraordinary account:—" I
was in service at Frome. I was about to leave my place,
and had another place to go to, in Bath. I did not know
the prisoner, but one day she called upon me and made her-
self known to me. She asked me to go with her to Taunton
assizes. I consented to go with her. I had upwards of 34
and Harvey had I/. We went by cart to Bath, and from
thence by railwa.y to Taunton. We went to a public-house
and took beds. I slept with the woman servant, and
Harvey slept with the landlady's daughter. We accidentally
saw John Daniels at Taunton. I had known him for
twelve months. I bad not passed as his wife. William
Brown, who was a stranger to us, came into our room.
Daniels frequently came, but he did not sleep with me. We
stayed at Taunton about a fortnight. We then all four started
for Frome. We walked all the way—forty miles. We were a
day and night doing it. Harvey and I went to the Pine-
applc• public-house. On the night in question I recollect
the two prisoners going out of the Pineapple, at eight
°Meek. They returned again about half-past ten. As the
landlady would not allow us to sleep there that night, we
left the house. Daniels left us. The three then walked
about during the night. Brown said, the steam is up,
and I must be off.' Harvey said, ' I'm afraid the sp-ons
will break the glasses of the spectacles.' Brown then pull
if ed
some spoons out of his pocket. He asked llarero so.n
would meet him in the morning, and she promised .
She said to him, Mind, Brown, Ishfeattelh.e,xpßecrtowanpatihreonf
boots out of the money the spoons
went away. Soon afterwards. she told me she had been to
her grandfather's house that night. The door was open, she
pulled off her boots, and went through the house. Her uncle
wa's there paying some rent. She waited till the servant
went to bed. She then vent to the parlour cupboard, ex-
pecting to find some money, but there was not any. She
took the spoons. She then went to the door and opened it,
and called Brown, who was standing outside. He came in,
and she asked him to put the spoons in his pocket, which he
did. She then gave him some bread and cheese, and took
some herself, and then they went away and returned to the
Pineapple. After she had told me this I took her to Mary
Bishop's. After Brown was in custody, he said he had been
led into a pretty scrape through two b----s. Harvey bad
gone into the house, and had brought out the spoons and
given them to hitn."
For the defence, it was urged upon the jury that the whole
case rested upon the evidence of the vromanSnu.th, and that
it was impossible they could believe her.
Witnesses were called who gave Brown a good character,
and it was stated, with regard to Harvey, that she had been
living with her grandfather and had conducted herself well
until just before the Taunton assizes.
Mr. Justice ERLE, in summing up, told the jury that there
was no evidence upon which they could convict the pri-
soner, except that of the woman Smith; therefore the whole
question was whether they could place any credit in her
testimony.
The jury, after a very short consultation, returned a ver-
dict of Not Guilty.
Thomas Collard was indicted for cutting and wounding
Thomas Burston, with intent to • kill and murder him, or to
do him some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Salmon conducted the case for the prosecution.
Collard and Burston were inmates of the Wellington union-
workhouse. On the 18th of April Burston asked the prisoner
to give him up a steel which belonged to him, but he refused
to give it up. Burston then took the prisoner by the collar,
and gave him a good shake. The prisoner then drew a
knife from his pocket ; another man, who was standing by,
had a stick, which Burston took from him,' and gave the
prisoner a couple of cracks below the knee. Burston went
indoors, but returned again, and met the prisoner at the door
still holding the knife. Burston begged him to put it up,
but he said he would not, as he would try to do for him ;
and then he commenced an attack upon him with the knife,
and inflicted several wounds Oil his arras, hod, aid 49uider,