The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TritTRSDAY IrEVENING, JUNE 21, 1860

Startled Fawn embarked 261 men of all rapks, and
13 women and children, at Calcutta, on the 29th of
January last, and sailed the following day, the pas-
sage to the Thames being an exceedingly protracted
one of 140 days, including 11 days' detention at
the Cape of Good Hope—from the 4th to the
15th of April. The following officers arrived in
charge of the troops—viz., Captain R. F. Holmes,
89th Regiment ; Lieut. T. Gardiner, 98th Regi-
ment, and Assist.-Surg. S. Gibson, M. 8., 12th
Lancers. Major E. J. Ellerman, 98th Regiment,
came home as passenger from the Cape; and Lieut.
Allen, late of the 82d Regiment, who is undergoing
his sentence for having killed his servant in India,
likewise arrived in the same vessel.
Orders have been received from the Horse Guards
by the officers in command of the depot companies
of the 18th Royal Irish, 27th Enniskillens, and 87th
Royal Irish Fusiliers Regiment, directing 54 non-
commissioned officers and men of the 87th Regi-
ment to be held in readiness to embark for China,
to reinforce the service companies of that corps ;
135 men of the 27th Regiment to proceed to Bom-
bay to join head-quarters ; and 76 men of the Ist
battalion, Bth Regiment, to be held in readiness to
embark for Bombay, to join the service companies.
The 2d battalion 11th Regiment was inspected
yesterday on their barrack parade•ground by Major
General Lord W. Paulet, C. 8., commanding the
S.W. district.

which would no doubt develop a large residential
traffic. It was only four miles in length, and the
cost of construction would be but £50,000.
This measure was also sanctioned, and a vote of
thanks having been accorded to the chairman and
directors, the meeting separated.

deaf that for some time nothing could be made of
her by the officer of the court. At length the plain-
tiff was allowed to repeat the questions to her, and
she said she saw her daughter-in-law as soon as she
came downstairs. She then made a complaint, and
felt very ill and faint after the defendant had gone
from the house.

No question was asked this witless in cross-
examination,
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine addressed the jury for
the defendant, and said that as soon as these scan-
dalous rumours were spread abroad in his parish
the defendant wrote to the Archdeacon, and an
inquiry was instituted by the Rural Dean and
three clergymen. The result was that a re-

port was —made to the Bishop, who did not
think it his duty to interfere with the de-
fendant. A second inquiry was instituted by the
parishioners, and with a similar result. The fact was
that the plaintiff had been married by the defen-
dant, and when he saw that the woman came to be
churched within four or five months afterwards he
felt it to be his duty, as the clergyman of the
parish, to reprove and exhort her. He therefore
called her to remonstrate, but she treated his re-
proofs with levity, and her husband treated him
with insult. It was, however, a strange and un-
accountable fact, if the plaintiff's case was true,
that he had made no charge of assault against the
defendant. There was not a word about an assault

in the plaintiff's letters. He contended that the
language imputed to the defendant never could
have come from the mouth of a gentleman, and that
the conduct of Mrs. Tolman contradicted her state-

ments, for there was nothing to prevent her getting
up and leaving the room. Instead of that, she sat
for twenty minutes and submitted to his insults.
Mr. Kent called on her, in order to ascertain the
facts, and she made no allusion to any assault, but
treated the whole matter with levity, and said it
was all nonsense. The very existence of the defen-
dant depended on this verdict, and the learned
sergeant trusted the jury would find a verdict in
his favour, and so disappoint a party in the parish
who had determined, if possible, to drive the defen-
dant from his parish.
The Rev. Edward Johnstone, the defendant, was
then examined, and said—He had been for the last
15 years vicar of Hampton. Previously he was
chaplain to the cemetery in the Harrow-road. He
was 57 years of age, and had been married 11 years
ago to his present wife, who was then 19. He had
had six children, of whom four were living, and his
wife was now in the familyway. The youngest
child was a year old last December. He knew
nothing of the plaintiff or his wife before he married
them at the church, and did not notice her at the
time. She came to be churched, and the clerk called
his attention to the circumstances, so that he felt it
his duty to call upon her, He inquired where she lived,
and tapped at the door with his knuckles. No notice
was taken. He heard a child crying, and opened the
door, and went upstairs, following the noise of the
crying child. That noise took him to the door. He
knocked there again, and a voice said, " Come
in." He was sure of that. He raised the latch and
entered the room, shut the door, and found the
woman at home, with the child in her arms. She
rose from her chair and made a step in advance
towards him. The witness proceeded. I remarked
it was a fine, large child, and I added, " I hope it
is your husband's." She answered in a joking tone,
"1. suppose so." I was nettled at her seeming
levity, and assumed a tone of severity. I said I
called upon her in consequence of her having her
child baptised so soon, before it could have regularly
happened after her marriage. Again she made
light of this by her manner. She said, " Oh, it is
quite fashionable." I said, " Indeed, it is too true."
She instanced two cases which were familiar to me,
and I said to her sharply, " The very prevalence of
this sin among us makes it the more incumbent on
you to be guarded and careful in your conduct and
conversation." I reminded her that she had been
churched the day before, and to remember the ob-
ligation which the solemn office imposed upon her.
I pointed out to her that, having once fallen, she
would be more exposed to fall again, and that that
was an additional reason for care and circumspec-
tion. I felt that I had then delivered my message,
and rose from my chair. I heard a person in the
house all the time. I rose from the chair and in.
towards one window of the room, and to take off the
sternness which the visit had assumed. I asked
some commonplace questions abou t the gravelpits.
I then wished her good morning and departed. I
sat in a chair opposite the fireplace, and she sat in
a chair near the bed. (A model of the room was
produced. The bedroom was very small, as wide
as the length of the bedstead.) I did not ask her
if it was a gentleman's child ' • that was in her mind.
I did not ask if that was the bed. (The defendant
was here questioned as to the several obscene words
and acts imputed to him, and gave them a distinct
denial.) He said he did not lay his hand upon her
in any way, and that the husband's letter was the
first intimation he had about it ; and when he heard
of the rumours he applied to the archdeacon.
On cross-examination the defendant said he took
his degree at Trinity College, Dublin. He said he
had never represented that he had taken his degree
at Trinity College, Cambridge; but when he asked
whether he would swear that, he hesitated, and
said he had no recollection of anything of the kind.
He said he had made proposals to a young lady
many years ago, but he could not recollect whether
he had represented that he took his degree at
Trinity College, Cambridge.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn told the defendant
it was a matter he could not well forget.
The defendant then said, " No, I did not ;" and
added, " I declare I have no recollection." He was
also cross-examined as to other representations of
the like kind which it was suggested he made to
the lady's father, to which he answered that he was
" not aware," and had "no recollection" of making
them. He, however, said it was many years ago,
and wished to see the letter from which the learned
counsel was cross-examining him. The defendant
continued—" I mean to say I tapped at the door.
I was never charged with an undecent assault on a
female before this. There was a charge of inde-
cent words made by a woman named Caroline Wells,
and another relating to a woman falsely calling
herself Sophia Mason. That is the woman. I did
not say to her, &c. I reproved her for her sin.
She came to be confirmed when she was with child.
I did not show her a picture in a book. She
charged me with showing her an indecent book
and print. I never said she had enticing eyes."
Look at her, you see she has not." (Laughter.)
Caroline Wells also charged me with saying to her,
&c., and showing her a picture on the table in the
vestry. She came to me to give her a character,
which she required, to marry a soldier. I refused,
because she was a prostitute. That was why she
made the charge. I have only been charged with
two indecent assaults on boys, that I know of, and
one by rumour. Once I officiated for the Rev. Mr.
Barnard, at Colney, in Herts, for six or seven weeks
in the year 1854. A rumour has reached me that I
was charged with indecently assaulting a boy there
named Hasley. I know that from a letter which
I received from Mr. Barnard. (The boy was here
brought into court.) Ido not know that boy in
the slightest degree. The witness went on to de-
scribe circumstances of a very equivocal character
with one of these boys.
The defendant continued—Mr. Barnard asked me
to take some steps against the boy to punish him,
but I did not.
Four young boys, named John S waby, James
Sibley, George Culow, and Glasher, were here
brought into court and confronted with defendant,
and he was cross-examined as to solicitations made
to them to commit acts of indecency. He admitted
that he knew three of the boys, but he denied the
suggested indecency, and also the suggestion that
he had given them money. Two of the boys were
brought before the committee in 1858, but he had
taken no steps to punish them, because he was con-
tented with the decision of the committee, and had
placed himself in the hands of the bishop.
On re-examination the defendant said he took his
degree at Trinity College, Dublin. He was Mode-
rator in science, and obtained premiums in classics
and divinity. He had only heard of the two boys
a few hours before the inquiry. He had quarrelled
with Mr. Walton, who kept a boarding-school, and
he had married the daughter of a gentleman who
kept another school. The woman Mason had been
twice in the familyway, and he called upon her to
reprove her, and Wells was a common prostitute.
He also said he was stung in the dining-room at
Colney, where he was dressing, his wife and maid
being in the next room. He had had a disagreement
with Mr. Barnard because he left his servants in
the house. His wife was aware of the sting at the
time. The defendant gave an account of the two
nommittees which had inquired into the charges
against him. They had sent in their report to the
bishop, and he (defendant) had not from that time
been interfered with by the bishop, nor ceased for
one day to do !xis duty.
Mrs. Johnstone, the defendant's wife, was exa-
mined, and said she had six children by the de-
fendant.
The witness then proceeded to make a statement
in praise of her husband, but was stopped by her
counsel, who said he did not call her for that pur-
pose. She appeared in much anguish of mind at
not being able to give vent to her feelings, but at
length she was induced to desist, and, by the ad-
vice of her counsel, left the court.
Francis Jackson Kent, vestry clerk, said—l
called on the plaintiff as to the rumours which were
afloat. She said, " Oh, yes; a parcel of nonsense !"
I said, " It may be nonsense, but I have come to
ascertain the facts." She said it was a parcel of
nonsense ; he said it looked like the head of a gen-
tleman's
child. I asked what else he said, and she
laughed and said, " Oh, only my nonsense ; that it