The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-25 00:00:00

TUE HENDON MYSTERY AGAIN.

SATURDAY.

It will 'be remembered that a young governess was
found in ;he early part of last summer on the Midland Rail-
way Cor npany's line near to Hendon, having a rail-
way ticket in her pocket, but being insensible for some
weeks, how she came there was a matter of surmise
for • a long time. However, the young lady
turned up as plaintiff in an action to recover
damages for injuries against the Midland Railway Com-
pany, tried before Mr. Justice Blackburn and a special
jury, who gave her £5OO damages. To-day Mr. Overend
Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Wills), now moved for a new
trial, on the ground that the damages were excessive. He
stated that the plaintiff's medical witnesses deposed to
injury to the the right arm and leg, and concussion
of the brain, which might be permanent. On
the other hand the defendant's testimony was
that she would soon recover. He contended that as the
young lady, who was a nursery governess with £l4 a year
and living with the family, had received a great deal too
much, as £5OO would represent £25 per annum for
life, and she would have the £5OO at her
death. Mr. Justice Blackburn said the witness
gave her evidence clearly, and his impression
was that she would recover.—The Lord
.Chief Justice
said their lordships were of opinion that this was not a
mere question of pecuniary loss, for it must be borne in
,hind that it was also a questien of altered health and en-
joyment for life. There was nothing startling in the
damages to call upon the court to interfere with the
damages given by a special jury.

THE BRIDGWATER BRIBERY

PROSECUTION.

SATURDAY.

To-day, in the Court of Queen's Bench, Sir John
Karslake, Q.C., moved for a rule calling upon the
Attorney-General to shew cause why there should not be a
new trial, or for a verdict for the defendant in the "Queen v.
Dr. Hamilton Kinglake," recently tried before Mr.
Justice Hannen at Taunton, when Dr. King-
lake was convicted of bribery and conspiring to
bribe the electors of Bridgwater in 1868, to procure
the return of his brother, Mr. A. W. Kinglake, the
historian of the Crimean war.

Sir J. Karslake said the principal ground for a new
trial, was that Mr. Lovibond (against whom an informa-
tion had been jointly filed with Dr. Kinglake,
but which afterwards received a free pardon),
had given evidence on compulsion, and he ought
not to have been compelled to give evidence
as it tended to criminate him in actions then pending, the
penalties of which would amount to £5OO. On the learned
counsel raising the question at the trial, Mr. Justice
Hannen determined that Mr. Lovibond might be called
as a witness.

Mr. Justice Hannen ; If I had had the power I should
have reserved the question ; but I did not think I had the
power to refuse the evidence.
Sir John Karslake said, as the jury had given the ver-
dict generally on all the counts, it would be necessary to
go into the facts of the case at the trial. Mr. Lovibond
proved that he had had a conversation with Dr. King-
lake about a week before the election, and that it would
be necessary to be prepared with a um of money,
but that proposition went off, and nothing further was
said of it ; but on the day•of the nomination Dr. King-
lake was said to have been at the house of a person named
Prior, a banker, at Bridgwater, and credit was
arranged for £l,OOO.
The Lord Chief Justice : I suppose we may assume
without going through the details that Mr. Lovibond's
evidence was essential to the conviction ?

Sir John Karslake : Yes, my lord.
The Lord Chief Justice : The question then is whether
Mr. Lovibond, being compelled to answer, vitiated the
conviction.

Sir John Karslake said he wanted a rule to enter a
verdict upon particular counts. Dr. Kinglake gave Mr.
Prior a cheque for £l,OOO on the eve of the election; but
at twelve o'clock on the day of the election, the cause of
Mr. Kinglake looking hopeless, Dr. Kinglake went to Mr.
Prior and cancelled the cheque, saying, "This transac-
tion is at an end ; and nothing must be done on it." Dr.
Kinglake never intended to bribe ; but his advisers had
told him that money was required. The case was
so hopeless at twelve o'clock that Mr. Kinglake went to
London, and Dr. Kinglake returned to Taunton. It ap-
peared, however, that at three o'clock Mr. Kinglake's
chance was looking up, and Mr. Lovibond, who did not
intend to bribe, appeared to have then given a
note to a Mr. Mogg, which he took to Mr.
Prior, who gave him £5OO, which was given
to a Mr. Allen. The learned counsel argued that
at any rate Mr. Lovibond was prima facie not bound to
criminate himself, and though he had a pardon as against
himself for that particular transaction, still it vitiated the
conviction of Dr. Kinglake. The learned counsel then
went into the cases bearing on the argument, and sub-
mitted that a rule might be granted in accordance with
his motion. _ _ _

The Lord Chief Justice then delivered judgment, and
said that the court was of opinion that a rule nisi ought
not to be granted in this case. Mr. Lovibond, whose
evidence it must be admitted, was essential to
the conviction in this case, was, under the cir-
cumstances, not bound to answer, but was compelled
to answer, and therefore, according '4o Sir J. Karslake,
the evidence was improperly received as against the defen-
dant. His lordship was by no means satisfied he had
any privilege whatever; on the contrary, he thought the
witness had no privilege, and was compelled to answer.
It was admitted on all hands that the pardon of
the Crown would protect Mr. Lovibond against any
criminal proceedings, but it was said that it did not pro-
tect him against liability to actions for penalties, which
were then actually pending against Mr. Lovibond. His
lordship had a very grave doubt whether the privilege of
the witness extended to answers to questions
which did not involve any penal conseoueiwPi
cue crmumu ; out hie wouia not ease his
judgment on that ground for the 35th section of the 17th
and 18th Vic., chap. 102, was sufficient to get him over
that difficulty. That enactment had made a witness
placed in similar circumstances to those in which
Mr. Lovibond stood not only admissible, but
compellable to answer, and though it was true
that it was only in reference to that particu-
lar action, and that it could not be carried
further ; yet his lordship thought the moment the
Legislature stepped in, and said that in such an action, or
an action in which he was a powerful party, he
might- be compelled to answer, there was then a
possibility that protection did not extend. He
should, however, rest his decision upon much
broader grounds, and he went the length of saying that
Mr. Loviband was the only person who could take any
exception to his being called upon to answer the quetsions.
The privilege was entirely his and not in any sense the
privilege of the party immediately in the proceeding
viz., Dr. Kinglake. Mr. Lovibond might have
refused to answer and might have exposed him-
self thereby, it was true, to imprisonment for contempt or
possibly for a fine, and he might or might not have been
with or without remedy in such a case. This was a
matter which entirely concerned the witness. If he chose
to give the evidence voluntarily, and made no objection,
it was clear that the evidence would have been
admissible. It was, therefore, plain that it was not
evidence illegal or improper to be receivedin any sense of
the word. if Mr. Lovibond had been willing to give evi-
dence, and took no objection, there could have been no possi-
bility of cause of complaint on the part of the defendant
for the reception of the evidence. That being so, what
difference did it make that coercion, which so
far as the witness was concerned, might have been impro-
per, though his lordship did not think, in the
present case, it was, had been improperly put upon
Mr. Lovibond. Mr. Lovibond might possibly have been
allowed to complain ; but there was no illegality in the
evidence and no irregularity or impropriety in its
reception. It seemed to his lordship that Mr. Lovibond
by answering in the way in which he did, avowing his
own criminality and exposing himself to the consequences
of the evidence he was giving, was the best possible test
of the truth of the statements he made. He could not see
any grounds whatever that where a witness was
compelled by the judge to answer—though the witness
might have cause to complain of compulsion—that that
was no reason for holding that the trial was vitiated by
the evidence.
The other learned judges concurred.

CURIOUS BEQUEST FOIL GOOD FRIDAY.—Peter
Symonds, by will dated 1586, left a sum of money that a
sermon might be preached every Good Friday in the
church of Allhallows, Lombard-street ; and at the close
of the service provides that a penny and a packet of
resins or plums shall be given to each of 60 of the younger
scholars of Christ's Hospital who shall attend such ser-
vice. This custom was observed on Good Friday. At
the close of the service several other children participated
in the gift, and a number of poor persons received gifts
of money and bread, The sermon was preached at St,
Dionis Baokchurch, Allhallows being under repair.—City
Press. •

THE MAILQUIS D'ANDELARRE.—siIo liazquia
d'Andelarre has sent the following letter to the Pays and
Parlement :—" I have just received an extract from two
letters which you published, both of which announce the
suicide of the Left Centre, and the request which I had
made for a place in the Central Committee of the Plebiscatar
Propaganda. This place, it is added, has been refused to
me in spite of the intervention of the Minister of Justice.
I offer the most unqualified denial to those statements,
and I challenge you, gentlemen, to produce
a single witness who could have authorised
you to publish them. You have been in too
great a hurry to ring the knell of the Left Centre,
and to mourn over the destinies of " restless persons "
whom you seem at present to accuse of not being restless
enough. lam not unmindful of the regrets which have
132 en felt by the Left Centre in consequence of the Emperor's
refusing its requests and through the resignation of
the eminent Ministers who represented it in the Cabinet.
But if, as you insinuate, certain persons were to cross the
Ministerial threshold, and to be called upon to fill up
the. vacancies in the 011ivier Cabinet, you may rest
assured, gentlemen, that you would not have to ask if
the Left Centre was still in existence."
Out of sixty girls taken from the Lthubeth Work-
house by the matron of the Industrial Home in Great
Ormond-street, only one has since become chargeable to
lie parish.

A correspondent in. Herepath's2vay journal
suggests that the various railway companies should
establish pleasure grounds and gardens for various classes
of tho puhlieL at thAttdistii444.4_