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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY WEVENING, JUNE 21, 1860.

Startled Fawn embarked 261 men of all ranks, 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. 13,, 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.

THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW.

The following are the regulations adopted by the
police to prevent obstruction and preserve order in
Hyde-park and the approaches on Saturday next :

HYDE-PARK.

1. All the gates will be opened during the day for persons
on foot.

2. From 12 o'clock the gates at Hyde-park-corner, the
Marble Arch, and in Park-lane will be closed, except for the
admission of carriages with persons having tickets coloured
red, red and white, and orange, for admission to the galleries
erected in the park.
Princes-gate, the Queen's-gate, and Victoria-gate will be
open for carriages, which will remain only on the road from
the respective gates to the barrier at Albert-gate and that
on the road leading to the Marble Arch.
3. Persons on horseback may go through Albert-gate into
the Ride.

4. The approaches to all the gates will be kept free from
obstruction, and, if necessary at any point, the carriages
will be formed into line by the police.
Carriages, after setting down company at a gate, will be
required to move off quickly, and wait where directed by
the police, or go away.

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.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE—June 20.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)

TOLMAN AND WIFE V. JOFINSTONE(CLERK).
Mr Huddleston, Q.C., Mr. Prentice, and Mr.
Laxton appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Ser-
geant Ballantine and Mr. Henniker for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff in this action, George Tolman, was
a footman in the service of Lady Stevenson, at
Hampton Court, and he sued the defendant, the
Rev. Edward Johnstone, the vicar of Hampton, to
recover damages for an indecent assault upon his
wife, on the sth of April, 1858. The trial occupied
a largeportion of yesterday and this day, and in-
volved details of a most extraordinary character, a
great deal of which is unfit for publication. We
therefore give only a condensed outline of the case
as proved in evidence.
It appeared that in the year 1857 the plaintiff
and his wife were servants in the same family, and
an intimacy there sprang up which ended in their
marriage, in the month of December, 1857. She
then went to live with her mother-in-law, at a
cottage at New Hampton, where her husband, who
had obtained a situation at Lady Stevenson's, at
Hampton Court, used to visit her on a Sunday after-
noon. The plaintiff and his wife had formed too
intimate an acquaintance before marriage, and the
result was that she gave birth to a child on the 9th
of March, 1858, a very few months after her mar-
riage. On Easter Sunday, April 4, she attended
at Hampton Church and there was " churched," the
defendant, the vicar of the parish, being the officiat-
ing minister. The next day, April the sth, the
defendant called at the cottage, and, according to
the evidence of a person named Moon, a tailor, who
lived nearly oposite, he entered the cottage without
knocking and remained there for about a quarter
of an hour. Mrs. Tolman, who was a young woman
of rather interesting appearance, stated that she
was sitting alone in her bedroom with her baby in
her arms, her mother-in-law being in the yard,
when she heard some one coming upstairs, She
said she heard no knock, and the defendant
walked into her room and said, " How do you
do ?" She got up as he entered, and the de-
fendant sat down in the chair where she had been
sitting. The defendant stroked the baby down
the head, said it was a fine baby, and asked if she
was quite sure it was not a gentleman's child, and
that her husband was the father of it ; to which she
replied, " I should think so." The defendant then
began, and continued for about a quarter of an
hour, a conversation full of obscene suggestions and
language of the most filthy and disgusting charac-
ter. She said he took hold of her by the hand, ac-
companying all this with observations of the most
obscene and filthy character. It was about 2 or 3
o'clock in the afternoon, and he continued there for
about 20 minutes, but when he heard the mother-
in-law coming upstairs ho looked out of the win-
dow, and asked whose ground it was outside, and
went away almost immediately afterwards. Dur-
ing this time she was sitting on a chair near the bed,
with her baby ; and, in about five minutes after he
had gone, she went into her mother-in-law's room,
just opposite, and told her what had occurred, or
some of it. She also told her husband the next day,
Tuesday, April 6, what had taken place. She said
she was unwell directly after the defendant went
away, and for two or three days she was unable to
get up, in consequence of the defendant coming to
her and talking in the way he did. On cross-exa-
mination, she said she could not get up from her
chair without pushing between the defendant and
the bed, that she had her baby in her arms, and did
not feel that she could get up. When she saw her
husband she told him of what the defendant had
done to her—of the assault; that was before she
had seen Mr. Walton, who called to inquire about
what she had heard about the defendant. Her hus-
band (the plaintiff) wrote a letter to the defendant.
She gave the statement produced to Mrs. Walton
on the second occasion when she saw her. Mrs,
Walton took the paper away. The witness said she
wrote the statement herself; but she got her cousin,
who wrote better, to copy it, and then destroyed
the original. She wrote the statement to be laid
before the gentlemen, as she would rather write it
than go before them. [This was a committee of in-
quiry, consisting of the rural dean and three clergy-
men ; there was afterwards also a committee con-
sisting of seven parishioners, and it was stated that
the reports of both committees were in favour of
the defendant ; but as they were not admissable in
evidence, the documents were not read.] The wit-
ness, in continuation, said Mr. Kent (vestry-clerk)
called upon her, and she told him a few of the
words the defendant used—that the defendant
asked if it was a gentleman's child. She did not
tell him of the liberties taken by the defendant;
did not laugh and say it was all nonsense; did not
see Mr. Kent nor her mother-in-law laugh. The
child was born five or six months after marriage.
The witness said she was churched by the defendant
and positively denied that he called upon her to
caution her to be more careful in future, and not to
commit the same sin again. She did not say to
Mr. Kent, " Oh, its quite a fashionable thing ;
I have only done the same as my neighbours of
higher rank."
The statement given by the witness to Mrs.
Walton in 1858 was then read. It corresponded
almost exactly with the evidence given by her in
court to-day, and particularly.in reference to the
assault as well as the words attributed to the defen-
dant. It was stated subsequently that this docu-
ment had been laid before the committees, and that
it was now produced from the hands of the
Bishop's Secretary.
The witness, on reexamination, said she had
not seen the statement since the year 1858. Mr.
Kent was the defendant's attorney.
Throughout her examination the witness con-
ducted herself with great propriety, and appeared
to produce a strong impression in her favour.
George Tolman, the plaintiff, and husband of the
last witness, said he saw his wife a day or two
after the sth of April, and she made a communica-
tion to him. He spoke about the matter to several
persons, and on the 18th of April he wrote a letter
to the defendant. The letter was badly written,
and as badly spelt, so as to be scarcely legible. It
was read as follows :

" Hampton Court.
" Sir,—l take the liberty of writing to you, as lam in-
formed by my wife that you called on her and made use of
very improper language; and, sir, 1 beg you will not take
the liberty of doing so again, for what she has told Inc I
am quite surprised at a person in your capacity ever doing
such a thing, for your conversation was quite disgusting
and disgraceful for a clergyman to do. So, sir, Ido hope
and trust that you never attempt such things again, or I
shall be under the necessity of exposing you, sir.
" From your humble servant,
" G. TOLMAN, Hampton Court."
On the sth of May, he received the following
answer from the defendant :--
" George Tolman,—l am told that you continue to cir-
culate calumnies concerning me for the manner in which I
had occasion to reprove your wife, on my attention being
called to the proof of her incontinence—of her confinement
taking place within five months of your marriage.
" As you may not be aware of the consequences to which
you expose yourself by thus slandering me, I write to warn
you that if you are guilty of any repetition of this offence,
you will be liable to be proceeded against and dealt with as
the law directs.

" As a spiritual pastor, I would strongly recommend you
to study very earnestly the Epistle of St. James (especially
chapter 1, verses 14
15, and 26), and learn to bridle your
tongue, and not make your professions of religion vain.
" I am, &c., " E. JOHNSTONE."
To that letter the witness wrote the following
answer, the latter portion of which excited great
laughter :
" No. 2, Rothen-villa, Richmond -hill, Surrey.
" Sir,—l received a letter from you respecting what has
been said of you and your conduct to my wife, and I have
this to say—that you cannot deny that you did go to her
and make use of very disgraceful conversation. And if
you can deny it, and you feel the least annoyed, or you think
that you are belied, you may proceed in your threats, for I
have the same laws for me as there are for you. I am not
the least daunted at you. And that is for my wife, her con-
fined within five months of her marriage, that I consider is
no business of any one's except our two selves. There is
one thing it shows, a honourable part on my side, and I
sincerely trust that you will study your Bible a little more,
instead of that low slang you made use of to my wife, also
10th Commandment. I think that you need a little advice
instead of me. `4 From your well-wisher,
" G. TOLMAN."
The witness, in continuation, said the proceedings
in the parish continued in 1858 and 1859, and he
was bound over to keep the peace towards the
defendant. Whenever the defendant put himself
in his way he (witness) used to tell him lie was a
low, disgusting little blackguard. He told him
that twenty times, and challenged him in the road
to institute proceedings against him. The defendant
replied that he (witness) had better keep a quiet
tongue in his head, or it would be the worse for
him. That continued for nine or ten months, and
then he (witness) brought an action in the County
Court against the defendant, and the latter caused
it to be removed by certiorari. For some time lie
(witness) had no money to go on with the action,
till some gentlemen enabled him to do so.
On cross-examination, the witness said he saw
his wife two or three days after the sth of April,
when she told him of the particulars of the assault
He knew that what she stated amounted to an
assault, but he did not put it in his letter, because
ho was very busy, and bore it with contempt. He
wrote the letter on the Sunday, instead of going to
chapel. No one saw the letter. Saw Mr. Walton
a month or six weeks after the sth of April ; he
left word that he wanted to see hi m
Mrs, Tolman, sea,, was called, but she was so

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 than made a complaint, and
felt very ill and faint after the defendant had gone
from the house.
No question was asked this witness 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 AO 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,
J. 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 went
towards one window of the room, and to take off the
sternness which the visit had assumed. I asked
some commonplace questions about 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 ho 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 wabv, 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
committees which had inquired into the charges
against him. They had sent in their report to the
bishop, and be (defendant) had not from that time
been interfered with by the bishop, nor ceased for
one day to do kis 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

was the head of a gentleman's child." I said, " Did
he do anything else ?" She said, " He put his hand
upon my knee." I said, " Don't deny it ; lam an
old married man, the father of a family, and I
think I know all your husband's family; tell me
the truth." She said, " I told you it was ridicu-
lous ; he said it was the head of a gentleman's
child. This was on the 29th of April. The mother-
in-law came in and said, " La ! Mr. Kent, what a
funny set-out this is."
On cross-examination the witness said he went
because the vicar had spoken to him. He was
churchwarden. His son was solicitor to the vicar.
The witness said that on the 29th of April, when
to the plaintiff's house, he might have known that
the plaintiff had written to the defendant.
On re-examination he said he gave evidence on
the inquiry, and admitted that he had taken up the
matter for the vicar, having been consulted by him.
Evidence was tendered of the good character of
the defendant, but rejected as irrelevant. Evi-
dence was also tendered by the plaintiff in support
of the various charges suggested against the de-
fendant, but it was rejected on the same ground.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine having summed up the
evidence,
Mr. Huddleston replied, and commented upon all
the facts of the case, to show that, upon the evi-
dence the jury ought to find for the plaintiff.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn having summed
up at considerable length,
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and
after an absence of about two hours, they returned
into court, and said there was not the slightest
chance of their agreeing to a verdict.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said, if that was
the case he might as well discharge them at once as
several hours later.
Mr. Huddleston assented to that course, and no
opposition being made on the other side the jury
were discharged.