The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-16 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS. •
Lord DENMAN intimated that the Court considered
that rules for new trials ought to be granted in the fol-
lowing cases:—Davis v. Williams, Lyndhuss v. —,
and not granted in the following :—Halo v. White, Doe
Dem Davies v. Davies, Bermagem v. Vaugham, Roberts
v. Williams, Rawson, v. Anderson, Bett v. Ridley,
v. Bett.
LIBEL—THE QUEEN* V. THE REV. JOSIAH BARTLETT—
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.
This case was tried at the last Summer Assizes at
Hereford, before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
and excited considerable interest throughout the whole
county at the time. The defendant was indicted for a
libel on his wife's sister, Mrs. Tolzer, and with therefore
committing a breach of the peace. The jury found him
guilty of the charge. The case was subsequently re-
moved into this Court.
Slr F. THESIGER prayed the judgment of the Court
upon the defendant, who presented himself on the floor
of the court. _ _

Mr. Justice ERLE read the judge's notes of the evi-
dence adduced at the trial; and the defendant handed in
an affidavit, covering several folios, which was read by
the clerk of the court. It set forth that he had been
married fifteen years to his wife, that they had had six
children, and that during the nine years they had lived
together the greatest affection had subsisted between
them, which had continued undisturbed up to the time
the matters before the Court occurred ; that no misun-
derstanding would have arisen between them but for the
interference of his wife's relations, particularly of
Marianne Tolz-r, William Tolzer, her husband; and
Thomas and William Bett, her brothers, with the two
latter of whom he had some pecuniary transactions
early in his marriage, by which he had lost considerably.
He attributed much of this ill-feeling on the part of Mrs.
Tolzer to his objecting for some time to her marriage.
The affidavit then went on to state that the family of
his wife had done all in their power to estrange his wife
from him, that they had generated ill-feeling between
them, persecuted him, and annoyed him in various ways,
by printing and circulating bills and publishing an ad-
vertisement in the Times, offering 201. for his apprehen-
sion, which he believed were paid for and circulated by
Wm. Tolzer, and concluded by justifying whatever in-
solence he had exhibited, on account of the provocation
he had received. He denied that he had any other
object in view throughout the whole of the transaction
than an anxious desire to live in peace. He handed in a
second affidavit,replying to the affidavit filed byMrs:Tolzer,
in which he solemnly denied that there yip any truth in the
allegation which it set forth, that he had taken indecent
liberties with her, which she had indignantly repelled ;
he also characterised it as a scandalous and vindictive
document, and devoid of truth. He held that his counsel,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, had made an ample-apology at the

trial.
acquainted with Several other t:lffied aciveiftesn
dwaenrte.
wahlsiochrteeasdtififerdomthparties
from his eldest son,
and that he recollected his
defendant and his wife
statheadd
tlhi vaetdhhi
samp
etroagne
dtlifearlheOrlLliaed,
lived in harmony together,
ry
mother on one occasion speaking
the
rservants
tmo i gh t
haveh e
givenr, a
ht he or usgn h.ffivehe loud in order that
i tffather
edai did
onno. t ap -
The defendant, at the conclusion of the reading of
et the
children's e affidavits,a exhibitedTt to
etyh ewe
rwere Court
meantwo oi rn t harpepeear articlesan es.
wiloeulsdhosue led
as
tayoanneye onetha
that
theho was
thingsthe fwaethreer
not o a
such
familyto
as
were used in a gentleman's family. They were sent
him by his wife's friends, and could only have been sent
to insult him.
Sir F. THESIGER then handed in the affidavits of the
other side, which the clerk proceeded to read. In the
affidavit of Mr. Tolzer, he stated that he and the rela-
tions of the defendant's wife had been greatly annoyed
by the conduct of the defendant, who bad destroyed their
peace by anonymous and other communications which
he had sent to many of their friends. A letter which
the defendant had sent to his wife was then referred to,
,and the clerk was about to read it, when
The defendant objected, on the ground that it was
strictly private, that he had sent it to his wife with an
endorsement, stating that if it was not read by her it
was to be returned to him. It was intercepted; she had
never received it, and it could not be read without com-
mitting a gross breach of honour.
Sir F. THESIGER also had an objection to have it read
in a public Court, but that objection was based on moral
and not legal grounds. Perhaps it would be sufficient
if their Lordships would read it.
Mr. Bolt proved that the letter was in the hand-
writing of the defendant, and it was read in silence by
the Learned Judges, apparently much to the disappoint-
ment of a numerous auditory, who, thinking that it
would be read by the clerk, bent forward eagerly to
listen.
The defendant strongly denied that portion of Mr.
Tolzer's affidavit which stigmatised him as the writer of
certain anonymous letters.
The COURT havingconcluded the perusal of the letter,
The defendant proceeded to address the Court. He
admitted at the outset that both justice and law seemed
against him, because he could not but admit that he was
to blame, and that he had done that which did not be-
come him as a gentleman. But then he acted under the
greatest provocation ; he was irritated and harassed
at the conduct of his wife's relations, who on the
day before the letter complained of was written
came to his house, headed by Mr. Tolzer, knocked once
at his door, obtained admission by stealth, and, after
abusing him two hours, carried off his wifedeprived
him of her society—his children of their mother, and up
to the time he was addressing the Court he had been
unable to obtain access to her. He was respected by
his flock, respected by his diocesan, and admitted into
the best families of the country. He could not attri-
bute such -conduct on the part of Mr. Tolzer and his
wife's brothers td anything else, except that he was a
minister of the Church of England and they Dissenters,
Mr. Tolzer being a deacon of a Dissenting
chapel. They not only destroyed his domestic peace,
but they destroyed his credit, and ho was threatened, on
acount of their representations, to have proceedings
taken against him by the Hereford Bank for a small
account which he owed that establishment. But all his
creditors had been paid. Looking at the whole of the
circumstances of his case, he trusted that the Court
would consider that the smallest sum in the realm would
be sufficient compensation for the injury his wife's
friends had sust iined at his hands.

S,r F. THESIGER replied. He said the defendant had,
throughout his of lavits, persisted in his charges with
the worst and most vindictive feelings. He had spared
those in the Court the pain of having their ears polluted
by herring a letter written by the elefendaat-tcl his wife,