The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-11 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT--(THIS' DAY)

OLD COURT.
(Before B , on Channell and Justice Keating.)

THE CASE OF THE REV. MR. HATCH.

The only additional evidence offered this morning was
that of George Donne, occasional gardener to Mr. Hatch,
who deposed that on the 25th August, he saw a lady and
gentleman walking in the garden with the child Eugenie;
they were in a low conversation with each other.

The deposition of Eugenie Plummer before the magis-
trate at Wandsworth was then read, which closed the case
for the prosecution.

Mr. Sergeant Shea then rose to open the case on the part
of the defendant. He said—ln the month of Decembar,
the prosecutor stood in the dock and was convicted of
an indecent assault on the defendant, and also
of the same ( hence upon her younger sister
Stephanie. The witness on that occasion, the prisoner,
was defended by a gentleman of brilliant talents (Sergeant
Ballantine), who was instructed by Mr. Lewis, a very
eminent attorney. A number of witnesses were called as
to character, which would be an honour to any man, but
they would be the last persons in the world who would be-
come acquainted with anything relating to the charge, and
he was willing to give him the benefit of that, but ho did
not call one single witness as to facts. The sentence he
received was four years hard labour. Degraded as he was
by that conviction, he was advised and determined to get
up certain statutory declarations, with the view ofobtaining
a pardon from the Queen and thus escape punishment. But
the authorities refused to grant a pardon, and the prisoner
was told that if he was innocent of the charge of which he
had been convicted, the only way to prove it was by an in-
dictment for perjury, and this trial was the consequence.
The charge, however it might terminate, as related to the
child, was a dreadful calamity, as she was now of an im-
portant age. It was also true that it was of the greatest
importance to Mr. Hatch, in fact he did not know to which
of the two it would be of the greatest moment. He was
willing to give Mr. Hatch every benefit he might deserve
from the character he had received. God forbid he
should attempt in any way to prejudge his case; he was
willing to give him the full benefit of everything that could
be considered in his favour, but while doing that he felt he
should clearly prove the truth of the assertions of the poor
lithe child. He should call witnesses to prove that every-
thing that had been stated at the first trial was true, and he
at that stage of the proceedings begged to assure the Court
and the jury he should not bring forward one word in evi-
dence which he did not believe to be true. He thought the
jury would agree with him that it was impossible that a child
of the tender age of eleven could invent such a statement
as the child had given in evidence. Did they for one mo-
ment believe that she could invent and relate it in open
court, and then be submitted to a minute cross .examina-
tion. Such wickedness, it was not for one moment to be
believed. Then they should be of opinion that she had not
invented the abominable wickedness against Mr. Hatch.
Another important point for their consideration would be,
how could such a child become so acquainted with the for-
mation of a man. Where could she have learned it. She
could not have learned it of her brothers, as she had none,
and the jury could not for a moment think that she
had learned it of her own father. Then again. was it pos-
sible that the same story could have been communicated to
the younger child, and that she could so relate it as to stand
a most rigid cross-examination. Such a thing was in his
mind impossible. What could have been the motive for
such a charge being made by the child against Mr. Hatch.
There was no evidence to show that the child was discon-
tented with the treatment she received, was crossed in any
of her desires, or had been denied anything she wished for.
He had done his best to discover through the whole mass of
evidence any motive for making the charge, but had literaly
failed to discover any. Oa the contrary, it appeared from It
that Mr. and Mrs. Hatch had acted to the children in such a
way that the fondest parents could not have done more.
There could not therefore be any motive in the mind of the
child, nor was there in the minds of Mr. and Mrs. Plummer
against Mr. and Mrs. Hatch. The whole facts of the case
proved the contrary. The parents of the children would
have been glad if they c arid have prevented the exposure
that had taken place. They had been urged by many of
their friends not to proceed against Mr. Hatch, because
it had been said that either way the result would
be ruination to the prospects of the child, but they felt
they had a duty to their parents, and they determined
that the whole transaction should be fully and publicly in-
vestigated. No father could have adopted any other course
after he had heard the statements of the children's mother
of the conduct that had been pursued towards his children.
He immediately wrote to the bishop, giving a full state-
ment of the whole proceedings, and the bishop instantly
communicated with Mr. Hatch. Mrs. Hatch made the most
pathetic appeals to Mr. and Mrs. Plummer not to proceed
against her husband. She stated that inevitable ruin would
bo the result of such an accusation ; but the charge
was proceeded with, an inquiry was ordered, and
then Mr. Hatch absconded. Was that a course
an innocent gentleman, a clergyman of the Church
of England, would adopt if he was totally guiltless of such
a charge. The learned gentleman then proceeded to com-
ment on the chief puinth of the evidence during the present
trial. The great stress had. he said, been laid on the hole
in the pocket of Mr. Hatch's trousers. Why, he was sure

it would occur to all the jury that the trousers worn by
clergymen were differently made from those usually worn
and it was quite possible for everything the child had
stated to have occurred without there being actually
holes in the pockets. It had been a great point
with the prosecution to prove that Mr. Hatch
never walked in the garden at all on the evening
the mother left Eugenie. But in that they had totally
failed, because Lucy Hatch, one of their own witnesses,
in her examination before the magistrate, swore that they
did so. [The learned gentleman here read a portion of the
evidence given by Lucy Hatch at tho Wandsworth Police-
court in proof of his assertion.] Then, again, plans of the
garden had been produced to make the child fix the certain
spot where her mouth was closed, but why was not such a
step taken when Mr. Hatch was on his trial ? Did they
believe that such a clever lawyer as Sergeant Ballantine,
and an attorney of the experience of Mr. Lewis, would
overlook such a point if anything could have been made
of it. The counsel for the prosecution had the right of
reply, and, after his (Sergeant Shee's) mouth was closed,
the only circumstance that could operate in favour of the
poor little child then before them would be the clear and
dispassionate summing up of the learned judge. The con-
duct of Mr. Hatch throughout the whole transaction, he
thought, was that of a guilty man. With the firm assur-
ance that they would confirm, by their verdict, the state-
ments made by the child before them, he would conclude
his address, and call his witnesses to bear out all he had
stated.

[The case was proceeding when we went to press.]

THIS DAPS MARKETS.