The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

age
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 Tolzer, 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 considerbly.
He attributed much of this ill-feeling on the part of Mrs.
Tolzer to his objecting.for some time to her maryiage.
The affidavit then went on to state that the fanuly 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 va
rious 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
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 was 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.
Several other affidavits were also read from parties
acquainted with the defendant, which testified that the
defendant and his wife had lived happily together. Ono,
from his eldest son, stated that his mother and father bad
lived in harmony together, and that he recollected his
mother on one occasion speaking very loud in order that
the servants might hear, although his father did not ap-
pear to him to have given her sufficient provocation.
The defendant, at the conclusion of the reading of
the affidavits, exhibited to the Court two or three articles
of children's apparel. They were mean in appearance.
He should say any one who was the father of a family
would see at once that the things were not such as
were used in a gentleman's family. They were sent to
him by his wife's friends, and could only have been sent
to insult him.
Sir F. TRESIGER 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 bad been greatly annoyed
by the conduct of the defendant, who had 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 corn-
mitting a gross breach of honour.
Sir F. THESIGBR 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 having concluded the perusal of the letter,
The defendant proceeded to address the Court. He
admitted at the outs( t 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 wife—deprived
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 to 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 destroy( d his domestic peace,
but they destroyed his credit, and ho was threatened, on
account 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 sustained at his hands.
Sir F. TIIESIGER replied. He said the defendant had,
throughout his affidavits, 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 hearing a letter written by the defendant to his wife,
reflecting on the conduct of her sister. He was sure
the Court would hardly believe that such a letter—in
fact, that the whole of the letters on which the charge
was based—were written by a clergyman of the Church
of England. The offence of which the defendant had
been found guilty called for some punishment at the
hands of the Court.
Their Lordships having consulted,
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE proceeded to pass the sen-
tence of the Court upon the defendant in the most
impressive manner. He said—Josiah Bartlett, you are
to receive the sentence of the Court after a conviction
for the publication of a libel, charged on a criminal in-
formation, which was tried at the last assizes at Here-
ford, and you were found guilty. The libel consisted of
a letter which was sent by you to the wife of the prose-
cutor, Marianne Tolzer, and it is impossible for any one to
read that letter without seeing that it conveys imputations
upon the character of that lady such as would have
shown her to be valueless, because without virtue and
chastity woman is worth nothing. That letter was
sent to herself, at a time when she was from her hus-
band, and when she was in your neighbourhood with her
brother, and the occasion which had brought those per-
sons into that neighbourhood was a letter which you had
previously sent to your own wife, in which, after making
many statements of family unhappinesses, occasioned,
as you state, by the interference of your wife's rela-
tions, and in which you declared you entertained a
settled determination to separate yourself from her,
that letter contained no imputations against the
conduct of your wife in any other respect. It ap-
peared that she was the mother to you of
many children, and it spoke of some division that was
to be made with respect to the custody of those children.
In answer to that letter your wife stated to you that
her own family, to whom she had most naturally com-
municated it, had sent her sister and her brother down
to you for the purpose of protecting and advising
her. The cause, therefore, which brought the
prosecutria and her brother into your neighbour-
hood was not only perfectly justifiable, it was
quite a commendable interference on their part,
and nothing appears in the conduct which they then
pursued that could in the slightest degree justify any
illegal conduct on your part; but if there had been any
thing in their conduct, or in the mode in which they
conducted; themselves, I would put it to you,
if I thought that it was likely that you were
capable of entering into such a consideration,
properly whether anything could have justified the
writing of the letter.which you wrote to Marianne Tolzer.
It is true that letter was only written to herself, and it
was just possible that that letter might have been put
into the fire, and consequently seen by no other person.
But what could be expected from an innocent woman—
an innocent wife, but that, receiving a letter containing
such imputations as were there made, to show it at once,
and without reserve, with the boldness of innocence, and
in the confidence of affection to her husband ? It cannot
but be supposed that when you, as a reasonable being
in your senses, sent that letter you must have foreseen
that it would have been communicated to her husband, and
then it is impossible that you could be ignorant of the
misery which a letter of that nature might have caused
to the whole of that family. When this cause was
brought before the Court in the first instance, your
counsel, as you now state, retracted the whole charge,
and made, what you call, an abject apology. I think it
was impossible at that time for the counsel, on the
part of the prosecution, to do more thou he did
namely, to make the rule absolute. But the moment you
heard of this, whether it was that you supposed you had
now attained impunity, or for what other reason I know
not vet, although you had refused to adhere to the charge
you bad made in the public papers, you retracted that
apology. You, therefore, put it forward to the world
a second time as a charge upon the truth of which you
were contented to stand. The case went to trial, and it
is-not unworthy of observation that, in the course of
some of those letters which passed from you after that
time, having intimated to Marianne Tolzer that she
would be put into the box, and would be subjected
there to questions which it would have been
impossible for her to answer, it appears that she was
taken to the assizes for the purpose, but you did not
venture to call that person into the box and ask her any
questions.
The defendant—l was not there, my Lord.
Mr. Justice COLERlDGE—Maritinne Tolzer, OR her
part, has done everything that a woman could do to
avow her innocence of the imputations cast upon her.
It is always usual upon occasions of this sort, and most
justly, to see after the act has been once committed how
the party conducts himself—to see whether there is any
true repentance for what he has done—anything like an
appreciation of his guilty conduct ; or whether, on the
other band, he adheres to it with the same malice which
he manifested when he was first induced to perpetrate
the act. I regret to say that in every step that has been
taken by you since the day of your conviction, the same
distinct malice has been manifested on the one hand,
send the same amount of—l think I must call
it ernaning—a desire to shield yourself from the con-
sequences of your act most distinctly appears. One
particular letter written to your wife, and which oc-
casioned some ;I:Iay in the proceedings of the Court,
and which
not be read,
shows this
so very desirous should
I could think that thisthis more clearly. I wish
because you really repented ofacon your part was
the act of writing it, and
not that you were afraid of the consequences which it
might have upon you. The
Court
doubt, that the letter should be read, and
without a
at your own request, after the representations therefore eof
the nature of its contents, the Court have looked
pain of its appearinginto
it, and have spared the public the
in print. It is fit to say that, although that letter
contains nothing that
_could induce the Court to
believe the truth of what you state in it—that there is
nothing also in that letter which in the slightest de-
gree, tough so doubt the object of it was

~ 'r .. ~~~
,i~ L
1 ,l

~~~~
_/ ~~.

;;;I:.*IZY•1141.14