The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-06 00:00:00

BOW-STREET-THIS DAY.

The further examination of the prisoners charged
with personating females took place to-day before
Mr. Flowers, the sitting magistrate, at Bow-street
Police Court. The Court was crowded to excess
long before the examination commenced, and amongst
those on the bench were the Marquis of Grahame,
Lord Verulam, and a great many other privileged
persons. Outside the Court the excitement was so
immense that the traffic was for some time altogether
stopped, owing to the crowd that had assembled to
see the prisoners step from the prison van. It was
fully expected that they would appear in their
female costume, but such was not the case. The
prisoners wore the ordinary fashionable morning
dress, and it must be said they bad a peculiarly
effeminate appearance.
The names given by the prisoners, it will be recol-
lected, were Earnest Boulton, 22, 43, Shirland-grove,
Paddington ; Frederick William Park, 13, Bruton-
street, Berkeley-square ; and Hugh Alexander Mun-
dell, 158, Buckingham Palace-road.
Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. Pollard, from the
Treasury, appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Straight
defended Park ; Mr. Besley, Boulton ; and the Hon.
Chandos Leigh appeared for Mundell.

Mr. Poland said since the last examination the
prosecution had been taken up by the Crown, but
the solicitor had had but one day to get up the case.
As it was obvious to the police that the two defen-
dants had not assumed women's clothes for the pur-
poses.of a lark, as they should- bring forward evi-
dence to show that they had appeared in women's
clothe s in a great many parts of the country for a
long while, and bad conducted themselves very un-
favourable to the inference that they had merely
assumed the disguise for a lark. He proposed on
the present occasion to admit Mundell as a witness,
and to ask for a remand at the conclusion of his
evidence.

Mundell having left the dock, and been sworn,
said—l live at 158, Buckingham Palace-road, and
am 23 years of age. I was taken into custody last
Thursday week at the Strand Theatre. lam willing
to state fully on my oath the circumstances connected
with my first acquaintance with the defendants.
I know the two defendants. Boulton I knew as
" Stella," and by no other name until I was in the
Strand Theatre. I first made his acquaintance a
fortnight ago at the Surrey Theatre. Both prisoners
were there in the dress circle. I never saw either of
them before. They were dressed something as they
appar now. I was at the theatre alone and occupied
a place in the stalls. I was taking some refresments
at the bouffet, and my attention was called to them as
being dressed in men's clothes. I believed
at that time that they were women. They went
outside to the public-house to have some refresh-
ment, and I followed them. I did not speak to them
in the theatre. I followed them. After this they
went back to their seats. They waited until the
farce was over, and then they went out to the public-
house again, and I followed them. They then said,
" I think you are following us," in a joking
manner ; and I replied, " I think we are."
There was a person with me, but he was
a perfect stranger. I told him of my
suspicions about the people, and he went out
with me. I don't know him. The persons then went
back to their seats, and we got into- conversation ;
and a few minutes after I asked them whether they
would like to come behind the scenes. They said
yes, and I then asked permission of Mr. Shelley, the
lessee, and the two defendants and myself went. We
were there but a short time—it might be 10 minutes
to a quarter of an hour, as the time passed luickly.
We went back to our seats in the front and
sat the piece out. We all three leaned
over the back of the boxes. They asked me,
as they had lost the thread of the story by going
behind the scenes, whether I would visit the theatre
with them again. I don't recollect which spoke. I
said I shall only be too happy, but that I could not
go before Tuesday, as I was engaged. We then left
the theatre, and walked over Waterloo-bridge, where
we parted. While we were walking along, there
was a little bit of chaff, but I did. not go
very far. I believed they were both women.
I told them, when they walked, they ought to swing
their arms a little more. We parted at the corner in
the Strand. They went towards the City, and I in
the opposite direction. I don't remember whether
at that time they had told me their address or not.
I should not like to say positively. I did not at that
time know either of their names. I made an appoint-
ment with them for the next Tuesday, the 26th. I was
to meet them at the Surrey Theatre. They behaved
themselves very well when I first saw them. I was
told that they were women by some person. I be-
lieved it, and was led away by it. I don't know
what became of the man who told me they were
women. The appointment was made for the Tues-
day, and I have never communicated with them, nor
they with me by letter. They said they would take
a private box, and I was to meet them there. I
cannot recollect positively. I think they both said
it. On the Tuesday, about half-past eight, I went
to the Surrey Theatre. I was there first. I was
leaning over the back of the boxes when they ar-
rived,-dressed in female attire. Park came up to
me and said, " Will you come into our box ?" I
went with them, as they were both together. I took
with me two flowers. I presented one to each, and
then went out to fetch their pins to pin the flowers
in their dress. I came back, and then Boulton gave
me a letter. I read it outside the box, as it
was too dark to read it within. The letter
was torn up. Boulton suggested that I
should go out and read it. I returned after having
read it, and said, " It is a good joke, but I don't be-
lieve it." Boulton took the letter, but it was not
torn up on that occasion. The letter looked like a
woman's handwriting ; but I have not had much ex-
perience iu that kind of correspondence. (Laughter.)
The object of the letter was to inform me that they
were two men, but I did not believe it. I cannot say
whether or not there was a signature to it. They
said it was quite true, that they were men ; and soon
after that the conversation dropped. We went into
the saloon for refreshment, and whilst we were tak-
ing it Park got into conversation with a young man.
I cannot say how the conversation began, but I know
" she" began talking to him, and then " she " asked
him to go into the box. Park said he had seen this
person before. We all returned to the box and saw
the piece out. I never saw the fourth person
before. I then knew Boulton by the name
of Stella, and Park went by the name of Jane.
(Laughter.) Boulton, at the conclusion of the play,
asked me to go and send a man after Jack, the
driver of their brougham. I sent a man, who
brought it. I told the man to go for "Mrs. Graham's"
brougham. Park went by the name of Mrs. Graham.
I went back to the box, offered my arm to Stella, and
conducted her to the brougham. The stranger con-
ducted the other, and it was settled we should all go
to the Globe and have supper. We went there and
had supper in the public room. I paid for the supper
at first, but the other gentlemen insisted on paying
half, and did so. After supper the gentleme❑ left
us, and then both asked me whether they could drive
me anywhere, and they drove me to Ebury• bridge,
Pimlico, where I left them. Whilst we were having
supper, Mr. Park gave me his address, as Mr. Park,
13, Bruton-street. We left the Globe about 12 or
half-past.

Mr. Poland—How did you treat them at supper,
as ladies?

Witness—Yes ; Stella, whenever I made an ad-
vance, kept me off. (Laughter.)
Mr. Poland —What did you do ? (Laughter.)

Witness--I put my arm round her neck, but the
gentleman coming into the box stopped me.
(Laughter.)

Witness continued—l had asked them myself
where they lived, and the only address I got was
that given by Park. I asked " Stella" when I could
come and see " her," as I still believed Boulton to
be a woman. He said I should meet him on Thurs-
day at Park's lodgings, and " she" would come there.
It was arranged that I should call on Thursday, the
28th, and on going to Bruton-street I sent up my
card by a little girl. I was shown into a room, in
which both Boulton and Park were there in men's
attire, the same as I had seen them at the
Surrey Theatre. They were playing the piano
when I went in. They then asked me if I 'had
got the letter with me. I cannot say who. I said I
had, and they asked me to give it to them, but I
refused. We had a bit of a tussel for it, they did not
get it, but I gave it up. They then tore it into pieces,
but I refused to take it back. There was a tremen-
dous row in the house, caused by the music and other
matters, that the person living next door sent in word
to be quiet. Park told me he expected a gentleman
to call. Two men came in and I was introduced.
I forget the names. After this their conversation
turned upon going to the Strand Theatre,
and we three went out, and in Bond-street
Park took a box at Mitchell's, in the name of Mr.
Graham. After this we went to Chancery-lane, as
they said they wanted some one to go with them to
the theatre. I then left them, but met them again
in Oxford. street, and, having accompanied them
we returned to Bruton-street, and I arranged to meet
them that night about eight o'clock. I paid for
none of the purchases—the cab or the box at
the theatre. I went to the Strand Theatre, asked for
Mr. Graham's box, and on being shown it I went in
and remained there some time alone. After I had
been there a short time the prisoners came in, and
we remained until the " St. George and a Dragon "
was over. The gentleman I have referred to left a
short time before we three did. The defendants at
the Strand Theatre behaved themselves really as
ladies.
Mr. Flowers—And so it was befroe all the ad-
vances were made by the witness.
Witness continued—l told the gentleman who
was with us previous to his leaving the theatre that
I had great doubts about the sex of the prisoners,
that I was in a muddle about it, but I felt certain
Boulton was a woman. The name of the per-
son I have spoken of I believe is Gibson, and
he resides in Bruton-street. When the police
took the prisoners into custody, I was told I
could go. I refused, and said as I had been out with
them I should not leave them, as I might be of ser-
vice to them in getting bail. I was finally hustled
into the cab, and on arriving at the police station
the two prisoners were taken inside, but I was left
sitting in the cab. After some time the police came
out, and I was taken into the station. I gave my
correct name and address when asked. He never
was at 13, Wakefield-street.
We shall give the conclusion in our later Edition.

THE SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH LIBEL

CASE,

THURSDAY.

To-day, in the Court of Queen's Bench, the rule nisi
for a criminal information for libel against the Sheffiela
Telegraph came on for argument. It will be remembered
that the libel complained of was one of those " going
the rounds of the papers " in reference to the
rumours of the Prince of Wales being again likely
to appear in the Divorce Court : but the Sheffield Telegraph
had gone more circumstantially into the matter, and
added the names of the Earl and Countess of Sefton. It
was as follows :—" Startling Rumour.—The Prince of
Wales likely to appear in the Divorce Court again.—lt is
stated in Westminster Hall that the Prince of Wales is likely
to be again mentioned in the Divorce Court as a co-
respondent in a case in which a countess is the respon-
dent. The case is said to be one by the Earl of Sefton
against the Countess.;
Sir John Karslake, Q. C., and Mr. A. Wills appeared
in support of the rule, and
The Solicitor-General (Sir John Coleridge) with him
Mr. Kemplay, now shewed cause against the rule being
made absolute. He said there was no doubt
that a libel had been inserted in the Sheffield
Telegraph, and that the proprietor, Mr. Leng,
was responsible for it. He wished in the first
place to remove a misapprehension that some difficulty had
been experienced in serving the summons upon Mr. Leng.
That was entirely a mistake, for Mr. Leng never
put any obstacles in the way of the process being
served. He had the affidavits of Mr. Leng, the
proprietor, and the sub-editor, Mr. Reddy; and he hoped
that when he read them the Court would deal leniently
with the case. Those affidavits she wed that Mr. Leng
had been a proprietor of a newspaper for a great
length of time, and that this was the first
occasion that he had ever had an action or any legal pro-
ceedings taken against him, and that he had used his very
best to prevent anything personal appearing in his paper.
Mr. Leng occupied a very good position in the town
of Sheffield, and he had been instrumental in getting the
Royal Commission to inquire into the " Sheffield
Outrages," for which service he received a testimonial
from the inhabitants.

Mr. Justice Blackburn said that could not be made a
set-off for an obvious libel . .

The Solicitor-General did not intend it as such. How-
ever, the sub-editor had also been presented with a testi-
monial before leaving Dundee to take his position on the
Sheffield Telegraph. Mr. Leng had been suffering for
some weeks vast from bronchitis, and was unable to attend
to the supervision of the paper. The libel appeared on a Mon-
day morning, and on the Saturdayprevious Mr. Leng left Mr.
Peddy to look after the news. On the evening of that
day their chief reporter returned from London, where he
had learned the rumour about the Earl and Countess of
Sefton. This was communicated to Mr. Peddy, who
added on to a telegram from the Press Association
the names of the Earl and Countess. Both Mr. Leng
and Mr. Peddy extremely regretted what had been done,
and they immediately took steps to contradict the rumour
to which they had inadvertently given currency. Mr,
Leng and Mr. Peddy wrote letters of apology to Lord
Sefton, and explained that the rumour first appeared in the
Echo, from which it was taken by the Press Association,
and that they had inadvertently put in the names, for
which they offered every apology. The learned counsel
then read the affidavits of Mr. Leng and Mr. Peddy,
deposing to the facts related above, and went on to say
that he hoped that Lord Sefton having got a
retractation and apology, and the defendant having
already been mulcted in a heavy punishment for costs,
the matter would be allowed to drop here.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said the defendant did not
appear to have done anything between the 4th of April
and the 16th of April to undo the mischief of the libel. It
was then that the process of the court was served upon
Mr. Leng, and thereupon he wrote the apology.
Sir John Coleridge said perhaps Mr. Leng thought the
least said about it the better. But, in fact, the rumour had
been contradicted by the Prince of Wales, and there was
no necessity for doing anything further.
Sir John Karslake, in reply, said the earl ans countess
had moved for this rule solely on public grounds, slid he
could not help remarking that if Mr. Leng had been as
sincere in his regret between the 4th and 16th of April ache
appeared to be now he would not have had the paper of the 4th
on sale on the 14th of the month, when the Earl's solicitor
bought one at the office of the Sheffield Telegraph. He
could not therefore accept the discharge of this rule, but
would leave it to the Court to deal with the matter.

Mr. Justice Blackburn delivered the judgment of the court.
Ile said the object of granting a rule for a criminal infor-
mation was to give the party to whom that rule
attached an opportunity of establishing his innocence.
In this case a vague slander had gone abroad about the
Prince of Wales, to which the defendant had added the
names of Lord and Lady Sefton. The Prince had denied
that there was any foundation for such slander, and it
was now urged that that might have been taken as an
apology for Lord and Lady Sefton in this particular caste.
If the defendant had established his freedom from blade,
that would have been a good reason to discharge the rule,
and without saying whether he had done so or not, they
would make the rule absolute to give the Earl and Coun-
tess an opportunity of placing the matter before a jury if
they thought fit. The rule would therefore be made
absolute.

THE SPANISH THRONE.—The Epoca refers to tho
contradiction which the
Ambassadorberiahasgivinen
ptoariitss statement
that that the Spanish
conferences with the Emperor Napoleon with
the view of raising a Prussian Prince to
the throne of Spain. The Epoca affirms
that it did not say Senor Olozaga had held conferences
with Napoleon in order to raise a Prussian Prince to the
throne, but that the Emperor of the French called the
attention of the Spanish Ambassador in Paris to
the secret negotiations initiated hi Berlin.
The Epoca readily acknowledges that the Protestantism
of Prince Charles William and his Princess would
prove an impediment to his election in Spain,
and a similar obstacle exists with regard
to Prince Alfred of England (who seems
to be the favourite candidate for vacant thrones.) It be-
believes that although Prussia would willingly see the
Duke of Montpensier elected, and would not
object to any other solution which would not
strengthen the links between France and Spain,
King William will, as much as possible,
avoid all intervention in the Spanish crisis. In conclusion
the Epoca is confident that the only hope of a successful
issue is to be found in calling Prince Alfonso to the
throne.

THE PLOT AGAINST THE EMPEROR.

(REUTER'S TELEGRAM.)
The following appeared in our Third Edition of yester-
day:—

PARIS, May 5.

The following is the text of the letter found upou
Beaury from Gustave Flourens, dated 20th April :
« Very dear Friend,—l have duly received your
three letters. I regret that you have addressed them
by this way, and not through Mr. Smalley, of the
New York Tribune, 13, Pall Mall, London, enclosed
in an envelope, with myChristian name ; butlhopewe
shall not have to write for long, and that next week
we shall see each other again in Paris, where all will
have ended well. You have received my letter of
the 19th addressed to Mr. Fleury, in which there is
one for my friend of the Bank. If he has duly re-
ceived it, and if this friend has handed to you by
Madame S. the sum of 400 francs, burn the en-
closed letter for him, and there is an end of it ; if not
send it to him to act immediately ; the 400 francs are
received ; there is not a moment to lose. The man
with the patent might go into the country, and all
will be delayed, but you will succeed. I reckon
upon upou you and your faithful friends. Only go
out at night or in a cab. Take care of the money and
don't be imprudent. I am heartily with you.
Do not fail. Possibly I shall be very soon at
Paris to assist you. Everything depends upon you.
Once more I repeat what I have already said to you,
either you ought not to have anything to do with it,
or you must be successful.—Yours GUSTAVE."

Another letter written, on the 20th April, by
Beaury to Ballot is as follows : " Monsieur the doc-
tor has ended in declaring in favour of amputation. He
deems it indispensable, and as he believes that
any delay would be bad, it should be performed to-
morrow at any price. Even should you have to em-
ploy violent measures towards the patient, who is not
very reasonable, his numerous friends are agreed that
that they must be taken. If you desire, therefore, to
be present at this painful operation in the cha-
racter of a friend of this poor sufferer,
you can come to his lodging, Rue Rivoli,
between two p.m. and four p.m. The various
expenses of this said illness having greatly exceeded
the anticipated amount, I find myself under the
necessity of claiming from your extreme kindness
an advance of from 100 f. to 200 f., a sum which is
quite requisite and indispensable to furnish tho
numerous preparations which such a chirurgical
operation requires. It is necessary to have many in-
struments and accessories. Requesting you to be
kind enough to remit this little sum to the bearer of
this note. (Signed) CAMILLE.' Received as an
advance from M. Ballot, the sum of 140 francs, 28th
April, 1870. CAMILLE.' The best friends of this
dear invalid will not fail to reimburse us this small
sum as soon as possible, as the operation is very
seriously determined upon ; for the stated hour you
will not receive any further notice."

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

NEWMARKET FIRST SPRING MEETING.
THIS DAY.

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
SWEEPSTAKES OF 10 SOVS.

Vo Pl.

SWEEPSTAKES OF 5 SOVS.

Igernac
Lady Grant
Little Princess

HANDICAP PLATE.

Playmate
Lady Highthorn
Eat°ld

Nine ran.
NEWMARKET STAKES.

Nobleman
Demidoff
Champion ..

Four ran

LATEST BETTING ON THE COURSE.
CHESTER CUP.
4to 1 agst Sabinus (offered)
11 to 2 agst Muster (taken f)
100 to 12 agst Starter (taken)
9to 1 agst Cherie (taken)
100 to 6 agst Paul Jones (taken)
100 to 6 agst Miss Sheppard ( taken)
20 to 1 agst Cecil (taken)
25 to 1 agst Vestminster (offered)
1000 to 15 agst Albany (taken)

NEWMARKET MEETING.—YEsTErwAr.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 10 `.OVS.
Void.
MAIDEN PLATE.

Tamara f
Lord Hawke
Aberdeen

Ten ran.
MAY STAKES.

Flyaway Jack
Old Sam
Orphan

Thirteen ran
HANDICAP PLATE.

Westward Ho
Brother to Ravioli
Dodona . ,

Five ran.
HANDICAP SWEEPSTAKES.

Tibthorpe
Venice
Lady Macbeth

Four ran.
ONE THOUSAND.

HESTER
FRI VOLIT Y
MAHONIA

Ten ran.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 10 SOVS.

Filon..,

Romance..

Four ran.
POST MATCH, 200 SOVS.
Void.
PLATE OF £lOO.