The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-09 00:00:00

SUN OFFICE, Six o'clock.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(This Day.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice ViTighttnau.)

THE SECOND CHARGE AGAINST THE REV.
DR. VAUGHAN.

This morning the Rev. Dr. Vaughan, who was last
night acquitted upon one indictment, was placed upon
his tiial upon another indictment; charging him with a
similar offence as that upon ®hick the jury returned a
verdict of not guilty,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Clarke
prosecuted ; and the Attorney-General, Mr. Ballantine,
and Mr. Prideaux defended.
The defendant, who had been out on bail, having sur-
rendered and pleaded not guilty,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins stated that the ease he was
about laying before the jury was that of William
Beven, and if it rested upon the same testimony as that
of yesterday, he should at once withdraw it from their
consideration. He had never seen the witness Maltby until
he was in the witness box. He found no fault with the
verdict. They could not have come to any other.
Had he, the learned sergeant, known the infamous
character of that man, Maltby, he should not have taken
that case first. This was a clear one, and one he felt
no doubt about being able to establish. This did not
result from any party feeling or difference of theological
opinion, but the result of a painful conviction of the
guilt of Dr. Vaughan upon the minds of those originat-
ing this prosecution. The witnesses in this case were of
respectability ; and though he should again have to put that
infamous witness, Maltby, before them, the main evi-
dence would be that of the undertaker, Mr. Hayden,
whom they would find to be the witness of truth.
The learned counsel then briefly detailed the facts,
which were proved by the evidence to be these. In Sep-
tember, 1854, Mr. William Leven died of cholera at his
residence, Stockwell-grove, Kennington, and his death
was properly registered. This was out of the district of
St. Matthew, Brixton, but a child of his, who died some
few weeks previously, being buried there, it was the
wish of deceased and his relatives that be should lie
there also. This fact was made known to the Rev. Dr.
Vaughan at a personal interview, at the rectory at
Tulse Hill, between the rev. gentleman and Hayden, the
undertaker. Hayden saw Dr. Vaughan, and told him
the wish of the deceased and his friends, 'telling him
that the child had been buried there a short time pre-
, viously. Dr. Vaughan said he could not take the burial,
as it was out of the district. Hayden again pressed
it upon him, and he said if he took it he must take
double fees. Double burial fees had been paid in the
case of the child. Hayden gave to Dr. Vaughan 21.,
and he went in and wrote him a receipt (which was un-
fortunately not now in existence) for 354., the double
fee, and gave Hayden ss. change. Dr. Vaughan then
said, " You must not say anything about it ; and if any
one asks you where the funeral came from, you must tell
a lie and say it cause from Robert-street."
On cross-examination of the witnesses Hayden and
Maltby, who now gave the same account of the trans-
action, it appeared that they had given a different ac-
count before the magistrates. Hayden, the undertaker,
on his examination this day, proved that when he went
to Tulse Hill, Maltby opened the door, and Maltby also
gave the same statement, whereas, wben he was before
the magistrates he (Maltby) stated that he went along
with Hayden to make arrangements for the burial of
Mr. Raven. Hayden said he could not find the receipt
which he alleged Dr. Vaughan had given him. He
thought it had been burnt, with some other useless
documents.

The case for the prosecution haring clossd, the court
adjourned for a ahort time.
The jury having returned,
The Attorney-General proceeded to address the jury
for the defence, and in his opening remarks alluded to
the differences that existed in the vestry with respect to
the rev, defendant. He did not intend, in the observa-
tions he should make to-day, to go over the ground he
traversed yesterday. He thought that from the position
of the defendant—the father of a family—whose duty
it was to set a good example, the jury would not
for a moment hegitate to arrive!at the conclusion, that it
was impossible that Dr. Vaughan could, for the sake of
a few shillings, forfeit character and honour for such
paltry gains, and place himself at the mercy of such a
person as Maltby, who the prosecutor had admitted
to be a person without honour, honesty, and shame.
He then alluded to the case of Raven, when he,: com-
mented very severely upon the conduct of Maltby, and
contended that Dr. Vaughan, for the sake of Gs., would
not be likely to so far forget the character and language of
a gentleman, as to say to a perfect stranger. "You
must tell a lie," when it was more than likely that the
churchwardens would immediately become acquainted
with the fact. He thought they would say the state-
ment was too gross to be believed. It had been asserted
that Dr. Vaughan hid given a receipt for the money
received in the case of Raven ; but why was that receipt
not produced ? Was that circumeticce—the non-pro-
duction of the document—not strong evidence in favour
of Dr. Vaughan ? He thought that, after the admission
by the prosecution of the character Maltby possessed,
the statement made by him was not for one moment to
be believed in contradiction to that of Dr. Vaughan.
The learned Attorney - General then commented
upon the dfscrepany in the evidence of Maltby and
Hayden, which was most glaring and contradictory.,
The learned gentleman concluded a most powerful ad-
dress to the jury, by saying that he, for one. did not
doubt the conclusion at which they would arrive, viz.,
that the Rev. Dr. Vaughan was innocent of the charges
imputed to him, and that their verdict in this case would
be similar to that pronounced yesterday.
Mary Smith, housemaid to Dr. Vaughan, was then
called and examined by Mr. Ballantine. She was with
the rev, gentleman in 1854. Recollected Maltby, and
about the middle of the day she heard a knock, and went
up and opened the door to Maltby and an undertaker.
Maltby said they had come about the funeral of Mr. Wm.
Beven. The doctor said he could not be troubled with

it ; that they must go to the churchwarden Mere she
could deliver that message. The doctor followed her
out of the study, and delivered the message himself.
The doctor never gave any receipt. After he bad
answered them, he went back to his study. The doc-
tor's son, Joseph, was in the room, and also the two
young ladies, who were dressed to go out for a walk.
The doctor never spoke to Hayden at all. He never
said to him he must tell a lie.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins—There was
not a lad came with poultry whilst master was at the
door. Mr. Joseph Vaughan did not leave the study
upon that occasion. He went to a meeting, and re-
iuombered the name of Beven being mentioned. She
could not remember any other name. It was an unusual
thing for the undertaker to come with the sexton. Such
a thing had not happened. Some gentlemen had come
to the doctor's house. I did not see any of them at that
meeting. _ _

Lydia Brougham Vaughan, examined by Mr. Pri-
deaux—l am daughter to defendant. I recollect the
day in question, and was in the study. My sister and
brother were there. The servant brought in a message
about thefuneral, and he told the servant to say he could not
have anything to do with it. My father got up and went
cut, and told Maltby and Hayden they must go to the
churchwardens. My father did not come back to his study
until after they were gone. He did not say to them that
they must tell a lie, and say that the body came from
Robert-street. I recollect that the name was Beven,
because we knew a gentleman' named Beven, a clergy.
man. Her father never took any paper or gave any. I
saw Mr. Hayden at the police-court. I know him. He
is the brother of our butcher.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins cross-examined this lady at
some length, but failed to shake her testimony.
Miss Decima Vaughan gave similar statements.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, on hearing the young ladies'
statement, said that he could not resist the evidence, and
should withdraw from the prosecution, and, in justice
to those who instructed him, lie could only say that such
would be their sentiments, as they were actuated only
by a spirit of j'sstice. (Loud cheering followed this.)
Mr..Tustice Wightman, in ordering the defendant to
be discharged, said, that he thoughtichat the prosecutor
had acted entirely under a misapprehension.
The defendant was then arraigned upOn a third indict-
ment, which Mr. Sergeant Wilkins said he should with-
draw from.
The defendant then left the dock and was immedi-
ately surrounded by his friends, who were in the court
in great numbers.