The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-12 00:00:00

NICKELS V. ROSS, JUN.

Mr. BETHELL also applied for an injunction to restrain this de-
fendant, who also resides at Nottingham, from manufacturing, using,
or selling the braid. He stated this case to be similar to the pre-
ceding, but with the additional aggravation, that this defendant
knew that a verdict had been obtained against his father, with whom
he had been closely connected, for infringing this same patent, and
that the patentee had found on issuing execution, that the defendant
in that action had sold off, or removed his machines and furniture,
locked up his house. and left the town.
In this case, also, his Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR granted an
injunction.
Solicitor for the patentee, Mr. W. H. Ashtast.

ARCHES' COURT, March 10.
(Before Sir 11. JENNER FUST.)

THE OFFICE OF TILE JUDGE PROMOTED BT MR. BURDER V.
THE REV. C. 11. HODGSON..-JUDGMENT.

The arguments in this case occupied the attention of the
Court for several days in the course of the last term. It is a
proceeding by articles against the rev. defendant, the chap-
lain of the county gaol of Salisbury, for having been guilty
of improper conduct towards a boy of the name of Bcsant,
who had been convicted of purloining valuable property from
letters which passed through the Post-office, in which Besant
had been employed. The office of the Judge was promoted
by Mr. Burder, the secretary of the Bishop of Salisbury.
For some time the Court had thought that, there not having
been a preliminary conviction, it could not accept the letters
of requisition, but, in order to rid the Church of England of
such a scandal, he (Sir H. J. Fust) accepted them, so as to
give the party proceeded against the opportunity of deny-
ing the imputations alleged against him. The offences
charged were of a peculiar nature, and the case came be-
fore the Court under somewhat novel circumstances. The
Court would not enter into the disgusting details that were
of necessity referred to in evidence, and in the argu-
ments ; and should he (Sir H. Jenner Fust) be thoroughly
satisfied that the charges laid were fully proved the strongest-
sentence that could be passed must be pronounced. The
party proceeded against had been the chaplain of the gaol
from 1828 till 1843, a period of very nearly sixteen years,
holding also several offices in the Church. Did the articles
propounded against the Rev. Mr. Hodgson, and the evidence
produced in support thereof, show that-the crime alleged had
been perpetrated? The Court went over the articles in which
the alleged crime was referred to, a further allusion to the
nature of which cannot with propriety be made here. The
boy, Besant, was committed to gaol for a post office robbery,
and sentenced to transportation for life, but, through the in-
strumentality of the Rev. Charles Henry Hodgson, the sen-
tence was commuted. Undue familiarities between the rev.
gentleman and the boy (who was firm seventeen years of
age) have been alleged—that provisions and wine were given
by the rev. defendant to the lad, contrary to the regulations of
the prison ; but of this there was not any legal proof. There
was no doubt that thechaplain did interfere in order to obtain
a commutation of the sentence, as it was the boy's first
offence, and having come from respectable parents. There
was no secret about this. It may have been weak on the
part of the chaplain to have shaken hands with the boy—it
may have been foolish to have acted on his part as he had
done—but as chaplain of the gaol, and this boy being a
juvenile offender, the Court could not consider that such
ceonetdnuactstearried with it any suspicion of undue or immoral
purposes.hehr
The Learned Judge then went over the evidence
of y
respectsee principal
the
thelat t letters
witnesses
received(lalconvicts),lbyi
lr. Hodgson,antl held thatand
wa s deliveredany to the
improperboy,object
pinurvtiedwid
innottdheiscaotyteernttilolants there
were paid. As to th letter from the Secretary of State,
commuting the Sentence from transportation for life to
seven years, that was a puytehdeoculnent, and was of course
n.
h.The Court must
known by the governor
ing wrong on the
consider and presume that therepwrias:
part of the Rev. Mr. Hodgson in obtainingt
commutationtitleur
of so severe a sentence; on the contrary
express its conviction that the object was a most Court
muste
worthy one. But it was said that the attentionsra'asid-
by the rev. gentleman were more particular than to paid
other prisoner. The Court did not think this could be
made a charge, especially to support such a heinous offence
as that alleged. The rev. defendant might have been weak
in those attentions, but the Court could not infer that a crime,
such as had been alleged, had been committed, or that any
implication of the kind could by possibility be inferred. After
adverting to many other branches of the case, a detailed re-
ference to which, under the circumstances, ought not to be
given, the Learned Judge held that there was not any im-
proper partiality shown towards the boy Besant; that the
endearing appellations made use of, such as calling him " his
dear boy," showed nothing of guilt. The reverend defendant
was an old man, and made use of foolish expressions.
That this was the opinion of the Governor of the prison,
Mr. Dowding, there could not be any doubt. The Governor