The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-01 00:00:00

as originally drawn up, but he would produce the
paper that had since been drawn up.
Mr. James said he would not have that.
His Lordship said there was no warrant in the
proper sense of the term, and Sir F. Kelly was
quite right in mentioning the document upon which
he relied.
Mr. James stated that what he wanted was the
warrant under which plaintiff was committed for
14 days.
Mr. Wm. Graham—l am now a student at the
Inner Temple. In January last I had taken my
B.A. degree. On such occasions there is very often
a festivity. I asked plaintiff to a ball at Shelford.
Thirteen or 14 other students had joined me in the
entertainment. It was to be a dance, music of
course, and a supper.
Mr. James—And what they call " negus," I sup-
pose ? (Laughter.)
Witness—Yes. I invited plaintiff to the party as
early as December. That was before the examina-
tion. I had first spoken to the plaintiff at Fenner's
concert in July or August, and I do not remember
having seen her again until I asked her to the ball.
I told her she could ask any one if she liked to
come with her. She said she could bring her little
sister, but she knew no other ladies. I said she
could bring some more if she liked. I hired the
omnibus. When Miss Kemp got into the omnibus
there was one musician and my brother inside. The
other undergraduates were to go in cabs. There is
not the slightest foundation for saying that I had
ordered breakfast at Shelford, or that these girls
were to stay all night. Nothing improper or indeli-
cate ever occurred between me and the plaintiff. I
never made any improper addresses to her. I never
saw anything about her to show that she was "idle,
disorderly, or loose" in her conduct. I did not treat
her as a woman of that character.
Cross-examined—Several times saw the plaintiff
about this party. She used to come and meet me
at Parker's-piece to talk about it. A portion of
the supper was ordered from Mr. Peeling, a con-
fectioner. There was no champagne, but there
was some wine—a dozen, I think. I never inquired
what the occupation of the girls was.
Re-examined—l never saw anything improper
on the part of Harriet Bell. There has been nothing
improper bets% een her and me. Milliners walk about
Cambridge the same as elsewhere. (Laughter.)
Mrs. Maris—My husband keeps the Freville
Arms at Shelford. It is the property of Mr. De
Freville, and was built for my husband to occupy.
We have lived there and in an old house which
was pulled down for 17 years, and there has never
been any complaint against the house. Mr. Graham
gave me orders for tea and supper for a party.
They had the club room on the ground floor, and
they were not to use any other room. We have
no private rooms. They were to leave by 12, for
we never keep open later.
Cross-examined—He gave me order for tea and
supper for a party of his friends, about 20. He
said his friends were respectable. I did net knbw
that there were ladies coming.
Mr. O'Malley—Would you have prepared your
room for a party of undergraduates and milliners'
girls ?
Witness—lf they had been respectable. Two
gentlemen and a lady did come. If they had not
conducted themselves properly they would soon
have been sent away.
Mr. Cockerell—l am attorney for the plaintiff,
and I am also clerk for the borough of Cambridge.
Miss Kemp consulted me about this action in the
second or third week in February. The plaintiff
is the only party responsible for the costs. I ori-
ginally brought the action in the Borough Court of
Pleas. The costs there would not have exceeded
£2O. Counsels' fees were not allowed there.
(Loud laughter.)
Mr. Edwin James—The principal defect in the
local courts. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined—The local court has unlimited
jurisdiction as to amount. The damages were laid
at £5OO. I have no expectation of being paid
from any other source than the plaintiff. There
has been a public subscription for an entirely
different purpose. I have brought three other
actions, but have only proceeded with this one.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Sir F. Kelly having addressed the jury for the
defence,
Mr. Edwin James said it was admitted that the
warrant was in court, and he asked that his lord-
ship should enforce its production. They had given
a subpoena to produce it.
The Lord Chief Justice thought that the con-
sideration of this matter had better stand over till
to-morrow, when, if he thought that the law was
with Mr. James, be would make the order for pro-
duction. He had, however, known one case where
the production of a deed was compelled, and the
consequence was that the trial was set aside.
Sir F. Kelly said that if such an order was made
he should of course nroduce the document, which
he had in court, but he submitted that such an order
would be a serious interference with the discretion
of counsel.
The Lord Chief Justice observed that he never
made an order which he would not enforce ; so
that if the order in question was not obeyed, all
he should have to do would be to send Sir F. Kelly
to the Queen's Prison. • (Laughter.)
Mr. E. James—He would have the consolation of
not having 14 days without being heard. (A laugh.)
Sir F. Kelly stated that the Rev. Mr. Woollaston
was in court, and he said he actually saw the Vice-
Chancellor fill in the form of warrant after the
case had been heard.
Witness continued—Mr. Denman had prepared
the second form of warrant. Nobody could have
filled in 14 days in the original warrant until wit-
ness had pronounced his judgment.
The further hearing of the cause was then
adjourned.
During the whole of the day the court was
crowded in every part, principally by gentlemen
connected with the university.