The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-05 00:00:00

S N, APRIL 5, 1848.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Kingston, April 3.
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
TURNER V. ATERYWEATRER.
This was an action to recover damages for a libel
.pub-
lished by the defendant in the form of a pamphlet.
e Mr. Sergeant Shoe, Mr. L. Gurney and Mr. Fish were
for the plaintiff; Sergeant Channel!,, Mr. Pearson, and
Mr. Henneker for the defendant.
Mr. Fan opened the pleadings. The declaration
charged the defendant with publishing a pamphlet, in
which he accused the plaintiff of having induced his
brother, William Turner, to make a certain will and co-
dicil when he was of unsound mind, and incapable of
understanding what he was about, and also with obtain•
ing from him cheques for large sums while he was in
that state. The defendant had pleaded a justification.
Sergeant SREE stated the ca,e. The plaintiff in this
action was Mr. John Turner, a gentleman at a ve-y ad-
vanced period of life, being eighty-six years of age,
and he was compelled to adopt the present
proceedings to vindicate his character from one of
the most serious libels that had ever, perhaps, been
brought to the notice of a court of justice. Plaintiff
was formerly a member of the firm of Turner and Sons,
gold refiners of the city of London, but retired, with his
brother, Mr. W. Turner, :from the business with an
ample fortune in 1827, and in 1829 Mr. W. Turner died,
leaving one daughter, Mary Anne, who was the wife of
the defendant, Mr. William Steven Meryweather. After
the death of the first wife of Mr. W. Turner, he married
a Miss Ethersey, who had been the governess of his
daughter, and, as the young lady did
not live on good
terms with her stepmother, shewas placed in a boarding-
school at Brighton, at which placed she became ac-
quainted with the defendant, and ultimatelymarried
him without the consent, and, indeed, against the of
her father, who would never sanction the marriage, and
although he afterwards did behave courteously to his
daughter's husband, it app4ared quite clear from his
subsequent conduct towards him that he never looked
upon Mr. Meryweather with a favourable eye. The
marriage took place in 1808, and for some considerable
time afterwards Mr. W. Turner was very indignant, and
declared that he would not give his daughter any mar-
riage portion, but after some years he consented to pur-
chase a reversion, to which his daughter would have been
entitled, and gave the defendant 2,5001. for it, and after.
wards advanced him 6001. upon his note of hand, but
this was the whole extent of the pecuniary aid he would
ever afford him. Mr. Turner did, however, allow his
daughter 2001. a year, and although he would not have
any intercourse with her husband, he was on vary
friendly terms with her, and he also provided liberally
for his grandchildren, the issue of the marriage with the
defendant, and sent them to college, and paid the neces-
sary expense for one of them being called to the bar.
Mr. W. Turner lost his second wife, and after that event
he continued to reside upon his estate at Woodeote
Lodge, Carshalton, until 1829, when he died, and at this
time Miss Ethersey, a sister of his second wife, and some
of his grandchildren were residing with him. A short
time before this period, at the suggestion of Mr. Robin-
son, who was his confidential solicitor, he had executed
his will, and he should satisfy them clearly that at the
time he did so he was in a perfectly sound state of mind,
and that the clauses of the will were carefully considered,
and were submitted to and approved by counsel before
they were executed. By this will the plaintiff, Mr. John
Turner, Mr. John Hornblow Turner, two of his nephews,
and another gentleman, were appointed his executors,
the only legacy to the plaintiff being 100/, and the whole
of the remainder of the property teing left to his exe-
cutors upon certain trusts, and the jAry would see that,
by the provisions of the will, Mr. W. Turner had carried
out the determination he had always expressed, to pre-
vent the defendant from having any control over his
property. After bequeathing 1001. to each of his exe-
cutors, he gave a legacy of 5001. to the defendant's wife;
he also directed that she should be paid an annuity of
5004 a year, but this money was specially stated to be
for her sole and separate use, and not in any way sub-
ject to the control or debts of her husband, and at the
death of her husband, and not before, she was to receive
an additional annuity of 5001. a year, and the whole of
the residue of the property was devised to the grand-
children, but they were not to come into the pos-
session of it until they arrived at the age of
five-and-twenty, and the executors were directed
to allow a certain sum for their education, and eo
notice whatever was taken of the defendant. A codicil
was subsequently added to the will, by which the
testator gave some small sums to his servants, and also a
legacy of 4001. to Mr. John Hornblow Turner, and again
in this instrument no notice whatever was taken of
defendant. About this time it would appear that the
testator, upon one occasion, told Mr. Hornblow Turner
that he was much indebted to him for his kindness, and
that it was his intention to give him a thousand pounds,
and having already by his will left him 5001., he handed
him a cheque for 5001. to make up that amount. He
begged to remind the jury that the plaintiff took nothing
by this will except the 1001. left to him as executor. He
did not require it—he was himself a man of fortune,
and the loot. was not given as a legacy, but no doubt
merely as a testimony of the affection his brother enter-
tained for him. Shortly after this will was made, Mr.
W. Turner, who was then a very old man, became much
worse in health, he was suffering from a dropsical affec-
tion, and it was necessary to give him opiates, but there
was no doubt that nearly up to the last moment of his life
his mind was in a perfectly sound state, and he was quite
competent to manage his affairs, and to dispose of his
property. He died on the 18th September, 1829, and
immediately afterwards the defendant came to Wood-
cote Lodge and insisted upon taking possession of the
whole of the property in right of his wife who, he said,
was now its sole mistress upon the death of her father.
The executors were applied to, and they produced the
will and read it to him, but this had no effect, and it was
with great difficulty that he was at length induced to
quit the house, leaving his wife and the children sal /
fhere, and the next day he entered a caveat, as a fir: t
step to disputing the proof of the will. A bill in Chan-
cery was subsequently filed, in which the grandchil-
dren were made parties ; and in the course of these
proceedings the defendant and his wife put in an
answer, in which they admitted the validity of the will
and codicil, and since that period the annuity of
500/. had been paid to the defendant's wife. An
application was then made, through the defendant,
to the Master of the Rolls, and an issue was direcCed
to be tried, with a view to ascertain the validity of the
will, but just before it was to be tried the cause was
withdrawn. It was again set down for trial on a sub-
sequent occasion. A special jury was called to try it,
and again the defendant prayed to be allowed to with-
draw, and he was only permitted to do so upon making
an admission of the validity of the will and codicil, and
that fact was stated in the decree. The Learned
Sergeant said that it might have been thought that,
after these proceedings, the defendant would have been
satisfied with the opportunities that had been afforded
him of disproving the legality of the will, but on the
contrary he had resorted to various other legal pro-
ceedings, the nature of which was described by the
Learned Sergeant, and in the whole of which it ap-
peared that he failed to make out any case against the
validity of the will, and at length in March, 1846, the
Judge of the Prerogative Court made a final decree in
favour of the will, and probate was granted to the exe-
cutors. In the same year, and very soon after this deci-
sion of the Court, the pamphlet was published, which
proved the subject of the present action. It was entitled,
"Extraordinary Case in the Exchequer Court, by a
Barrister-at-law." And although one of the sons of the
defendant had admitted the authorship of this pamphlet,
he should show that the defendant was the real
author of it, and indeed he admitted the fact in an affi-
davit made by him in the course of some subsequent
proceedings. The Learned Sergeant then proceeded to
read the whole of the alleged libel, and it will be suffi-
cient to state that it charged in distinct terms the plain-
tiff, Mr. Robinson, the solicitor of the deceased, and Mr.
John Hornblow Turner, another of the executors, with
having induced the deceased to sign the will and codicil
in question when he was in a state of insanity, and that
they propped him up in his bed while he affixed his sig-
nature to the instruments. The pamphlet also accused
the same gentleman of inducing the deceased to sign
sixteen or seventeen blank cheques, and alleged that
they went into his bed-room at midnight, accompanied
by Miss Ethersey, for that purpose, and that one cheque
for 5001., so obtained, was placed to the private ac-
count of Mr. J. H. Turner, at his banker's. The Learned
Sergeant then proceeded to comment upon the aggra-
vated character of the libel, which, he said, went to the
extent of charging the plaintiff and the other respectable
gentleman , with conspiring to induce the deceased
to sign a pretended will and testament, when they
knew that he was in a state of insanity, and also
with obtaining large sums of money by most im-
proper and dishonest means. At the time this atrocious
calumny was published, the plaintiff was eighty-five
years of age. He had lived in honour and respectability
and enjoyed the esteem of a numerous circle of friends,
and he felt that he had no alternative but immediately
to take the only course that could be expected of him,
which was to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a
criminal information against the individual who had
avowed himself at that time to be the author of it,
Mr. Marcus Meryweather, a barrister, and the son of
the defendant. The application was made in the
Queen's Bench by his Learned Friend Sir F. Thesiger,
and as was usual in such cases the plaintiff made an
affidavit, distinctly denying that there was any foun-
dation for the !charges made against him. In the first
instance a rule was obtained, calling upon the defendant
to show cause, but he never did so, and the rule was made
absolute, and in due course the son of the defendant was
called up for judgment. Upon that occasion
several affidavits were put in by the defendant
in mitigation, and among them was one from
the present defendant, in which hedeclared that although
his son had acknowledged the authorship of the pam-
phlet, he (the father) had written every word of it hltni;
self, and was alone responsible. In the course of
proceeding in the Queen's Bench, the defendritt
upon himself to write a letter to Sir F. Thesiget.tee_
thet
Counsel for the prosecution, and in that
_loutte.r.
distinctly
only avowed himself again us the author,b
?tAdalintsit et,hlYe
Asserted that all the charges he had
plaintiff were true, and that was
duty prepared
this letter
machpred' to prove
them. Sir F. Thesiger felt it his
to the attorney for the prosecution, and that letter had
been placed in the present declaration._t Jn.addition to
these proceedings the defendant had ac tally indicted the

[PRICE 51).

' plaintiff for perjury, knowing full well that the .indict-
went could not b 9 disposed of for eighteen months., and,
Ito doubt, with the vindictive expectation that the plain-
tiff would depart front this world in the meantime, with
the ignominy of such a charge being attaehed to his
memory. The plainff now Lokily accepted the challenge
given like by the defendant, aqd, although be need not
have dune so, he had choten to hare the pleadings
in such a form as would not throw upon the defendant '
the onus of proving the allegations he had made, but he
himself would undertake to satisfy the jury that at the
time this will and codicil were executed by the de.cealed,
he was in a perfectly sound state of mind, and quite
competent to manage his affairs, and he at the same time
reminded the jury that the defendant had had a dezen
opportunities of making out his ease if he could have
done so, but that he had always shrunk from it, and he
feared that the defendant had purposely delayed making
these foul charges in the hope that the witnesses who 1
could have proved their falsehood would be no more.
This had happened in many ihstancts. The Rev. Mr.
Ferris, the rector of Beddington, who was on terms of
close intimacy with the deceased, was dead, Mr. Ro-
binson, his confidential solicitor, who had taken an active
share in the making of the will and codicil, and who
would have been a most important witness, was dead.
Miss Ethersey, the sister of his wife, was dead, and so
were Messrs. Fuller, Lambert, and several other int

mate friends of the deceased. During the former pro-
ceedings these witnesses were all alive, and ready to
testify to the perfect sanity of the testator, but the de-
fendant would not then try the question; but when they
were dead, he had disgraced himself by putting his son
forward as the author of this foul libel. With regard to
the amount of damages, of course money was not the
object of the plaintiff; he was a man of fortune, and
money was no consideration; all he desired was to vindi-
cate his character, and to defy his slanderer to prove one
of the allegations he had made. With that view the
amount of damages would be regarded by the world as
the light in which they viewed the conduct of the par-
ties, and if they should be of opinion that these foul
charges had been made solely from a revengeful and
malicious feeling, and that there was no foundation for
them, he felt satisfied that they would give such an
amount of damages as would have the effect of com-
pletely vindicating the character of the plaintiff.
A number of witnesses were then examined on behalf
of the plaintiff's case, and all the material facts opened
by the Learned Sergeant were made out by their evi-
dence.

_at
oe
cehlaerese.
edl.- 1i
theTowill,,
Counsel, and deceased,n e ,
and tal 11 eswophaor
thattwn aessrocomof
some
bsoulfrl .t
them
Robinson,dema,ws
oemree sstuthbaegmei
totsolicitorfed thetto
an opportunity of obpiipid:a
•,,,v
pi tph,
or
le,
egda r, db e
it: thee th e
yv will, proved
introduced mostdis-
tinctlyintoaantdaillle the
likewiseclauses t
stated
dit t
hiNa' et rdeurin .. sanctionedthe w
whole
ethe
f
perfectly of sound mind, cotcommunications upon this subject, so6far as he had
strengthen this viewtoof
cfbe case, other witnesses
exhibited no
the deceased, he appeared
.raenddt
ot ol ir be
tee 1
uwellt transactions,
a na
swaacrtei 0 n
s, whatin
some slight eecseen.vtericities of
rtee.dertohsast.
he was about.
were called, who spoke
have evinced a good deal
owhichexamination;
shr the deceaseddnes
s,
bauntd, a
although
appearance of any want
of mind.
The witnesses were subjected to a very
conduct were admitted, nothing at all was elicited
in any way affected their testimony upon the mai❑
question in the case.
Sergeant CHANNELL addressed the jury for the de-
fendant in a speech of considerable power. He denied
that the defendant was actuated by any malicious feeling
towards the plaintiff, and urged that all the proceedings
he had taken had no other object than to protect the in-
terests of his family and those who were dear to him.
lie then adverted to the position of the family, and said
that, under all the circumstances, the defendant had a
right to believe that his father-in•law was not in a com-
petent state of mind to make a will, and he had, therefore,
pleaded a justification; and it would be for the jury to
say, when they had heard all the evidence that would be
laid befere them, whether or not that plea cuuld be sus-
tained.

Evidence was then adduced for the defendant,
the principal witnesses being the children 91
Mr. Meryweather, who had been residing in
the house of the deceased. According to their
testimony, the testator William Turner," had, on
several occasions, been guilty of acts of great ex-
travagance ; that he had insisted upon one occasion, to
have a tea-kettle boiled in his carriage ; that he used to
tear up deeds, and bury them in the garden, and also
that upon one occasion he had twisted the sheets of his
bed round his neck, as was supposed, with the intention
of destroying himself. Some servants in the establish-
ment of the deceased also gave testimony of a similar
character, but the general effect of the evidence adduced
was very far from establishing clearly that the testator
had ever been in a state of insanity.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then summed up the case
to the jury, who, after a very short deliberation, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1,0001.

MIDLAND ClRCUl7:—Warwick, April 4.

THE QUEEN V, ,GUTTERIDGE.

This case was resumed this morning.
After the parcel was sent off yesterday proof was
gone into of the publication of the matters complained of:
The Bishop of Manchester was put into the box and
examined. His Lordship gave a history of his con
nexion with Birmingham, of his being elected to the
head mastership of King Edward's School, the hospital,
and other chariti,s ; but it was a mere reiteration of
what has so often been in print in the columns of the
public press.
The Bish.p was subjected to a cross-examination
upon almost every conceivable point, but nothing was
elicited that could in the slightest degree favour the de-
fendant's case.

Mrs. Lee, the Bishop's lady, deposed that she was
present on two or three occasions when he was charged
with being intoxicated, that he was not so in the slightest
degree; that in fact there was no pretence for saying so.
Several teachers in the Bluecoat School deposed to
Leing present when Mr. Lee preached to the boys of the
school, but did not observe the slightest symptom of
intoxication.

Mary Goodwin, a nurse at the Bluecoat SchoJl ,in
1844, attended upon the boy Baylis when he was ill,
and saw Mr. Lee come in. He prayed to the boy and
read a chapter from the Bible. Mr. Lee requested the
witness and a friend of the boy's to leave the room.
They remained out ten minutes. Mr. Lee when he came
out spoke to witness, asking her whether she thought, he
would recover. Mr. Foster came and went with him.
Mr. Lee was perfectly sober.
Other witnesses were called, who spoke to the pro-
priety of the Bishop's conduct in general, and at the
times expressed in the libels in particular.
The case fur the proscution had not closed when our
parcel left.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Six men were severally charged with having stolen a
mare, which had been sent to Epping Forest for country
diet, being in rather low condition. After the lapse
of a few months, the mare, which was blind of one eye,
and had some other disagreeable peculiarities, was
missed from the forest, and a few days ago as Mr.
Hopper, a friend of the owner, was passing through
Smithfield, he saw the animal open to the best bidder.
Having made an examination sufficiently accurate to
justify the suspicion of robbery against the person found
in possession, Mr. Hopper had the mare knocked down
to him for 51., and told the seller to call for payment at
livery-stables, in the neighbourhood of King William-
street, where a policeman soon acted as substitute for
the purchaser, and seized both man and mare the moment
they appeared.
Alderman SALOMONS, who sat for the Lord Mayor,
asked the first person brought before him to account for
the possession of the mare.
The first prisoner said he had made the purchase in
Smithfield-market for the sum of 41. 55., of a gentle-
man, who readily came forward to acknowledge the
sale, and declared that he had purchased the mare for
31. ss.

Alderman SALOMONS then ordered the first prisoner
to take upon himself forthwith the character of a wit-
ness, and evidence was accordingly given which com-
pletely exonerated him, but threw the onus upon the
individual who made so prompt a confession, and who
accordingly was obliged to take his place at the bar.
Alderman SALOMONS (to the man at the bar)—Well,
what have you to say about this mare—where did you
get her?
The second prisoner—The man is present of whom I
bought her for 21. ss.
" Here am I," said an old fellow with a white head.
" I sold her to the gentleman at the bar, and no mis-
take."--(A laugh.)
ive for
Alderman SAl.omorts—And what did you g
her?
Witness—l bought her of that man
(pointing
person in another uart of the Justice-room) for ato a
pound.—(Great laughter.)
It was proved by a salesman's books, kept in Smith-
field, that an old mare, dark in
one eye,and otherwise
defective, had been sold morew aydthasi: twlitcealsoor
appeared
ereind
Smithfield within a very fe
that she had been sold in the first instance for half a
pound, for the payment of the expenses incurred by her
in wandering from the forest, for which she was deposited
in pound. discharging all the poor
Alderman SALOMANS, in
fellows brought before him, said he regretted that they
had been put to such trouble and inconvenience, as there
was not the slightest ground for suspecting any one of
them of dishonest intentions. On the contrary, it was
evident that they had acted with integrity, for in their
possession the poor animal had improved in value from
10s. to 51.

GUILDHALL.
A genteel looking female, about 27 years of age,
wearing a gold watch and gold WEI t(.11-guard, named Mary
Taylor, was brought before Alderman Wilson, charged
with picking the pocket of a young woman who sat next
her in a Blackwall omnibus.
The complainant, Small Fisher, of Bristow-place,
Poplar, stated that she got into the omnibus at Black-
wall on Monday afternoon, to ride to the west end of
the town, and she had 17s. wrapped up in a bit of paper
in her pocket. The prisoner got into the omnibus at

,-i
/
the east end of St, aul's Church
the end of Farri *don-street.
witness deemed it prudent to 16
safe, as the prisoner had been sits.was astonished to find her pocket
her money gone. She had not ft
.0
thing to excite her suspicion. She
...,
of
10757,.;
to her fellow-passengers, who advised her to get out
and follow the lady. The conductor said- he saw
her go down New Bridge street, and witness went
in that direction, and met the prisoner coming towards
her, as if from the bridge. Witness told her she
had lost her money, and -asked- her if she had not
taken it. The prisoner said, "No ; she had
plenty of money ; she was a very respectable person,
and witness might accompany her home, and see
that such was the fact." Witness, however, declined
heing satisfied in that why," and gave her into custody.
Prisoner had. herparse-in her hand when witness came
up with her. At the station she was searched, end she
had in her purse IBs. in silver, and 5/. in geld. • .
Mr. Althrman WILSON asked when she last saw her
money safe ? Witness replied she felt it just befbre the
prisoner got in.
Mr. Alderman WILSON asked if she carried her pocket
handkerchief in the same pocket? Witness said she did.
It was hanging- from her pocket when she missed her
mo.') ey.c.
e
sptsao:::lb.she'eeal
einstesgicadtpefhiererte:i
Kith
sisho.
pritntt:oei,eitiirrii.
leols,,,yerbh.,,
,reef.
vgaii4g,tioiaCiuN,d(olse, 1
tol::(.o:l:ll.,46raeaGpfts
jt4l,
s,itt:ll)
gtb:h,irio):(r,witness
.d.
ia.hneiilo.
slittast,sonef
felt
ilhftt .she_atitd}loileair,ilitit(dy
ni,egti,d,ounst
nal.iniireietodey;
wit-
ness replied others got ous, bit •they had not sat on the
rii
a
tho last lilt her incney safe at Black .‘.all.
City policeman .
into the prisoner's respectability, and found she had
given a false address, No. 4, Great Union-street,
Borough.

Mr. Alderman WILSON asked the prisoner where she
really did live, and whether she was single? She said
she was. She lived at No. 2, Bronte-place, East-lane,
Walworth.

Mr. Alderman WILSON said he believed she had com-
mitted a very serious offence, and he suspected from her
dexterity that this was not her first trial. He should,
therefore, remand her for further examination on
Friday.

LAMBETH.
Mr. Sidney Foster, secretary and Treasurer at the
Surrey Gardens, and upwards of thirty servants in the
employment of Mr. Tyler, the proprietor of that popular
place of amusement, attended before Mr. Elliott to be
sworn in as special constables. Large placards were
also extensively circulated throughout the parishes of
Lambeth and Newington, announcing the fact that the
magistrates will be in attendance at this court, and
at the vestry-hall, Lambeth, on the mornings of
Thursday and Friday, to swear in all housekeepers in
those parishes, who wish to join in the preservation of
the p üblic peace, and the protection of the property of
the inhabitants.
In the parishes of Camberwell and Newington, the
county magistrates have been engaged in swearing in
specials, and by Saturday next the most perfect organi-
Zation of the tradesmen of the various parishes will be
effected.