The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-31 00:00:00

From the opening statement it appeared that the plain-
tiff, a middle-aged person, Miss Sarah Sutton, described
herself as a literary and monetary agent and an accountant.
She was in Whitecross-street Prison at the time Mrs.
Borrodaile was arrested for debt due to a Mr. Baur, a
West-end tradesman, for lace that had been supplied
during the transactions that were taking place between
Madame Rachel and Mrs. BOrrOdaile. An intimacy
sprung up betiveen them. The plaintiff for some time
interested herself in the Rachel matter from a feeling of
sympathy for Mrs. Borrodaile. She represented, how-
ever, that after some time Mrs. Borrodaile requested her
to continue to" act in her behalf, and under a distinct
promise to pay her for her services in that respect. From
this time down to the period of the two trials at the Cen-
tral Criminal Court, the result of which was the convic-
tion crf Madame. Rachel and her being sentenced to five
years! penal servitude, she continued to act in behalf-of
Mrs. Borrodaile. At length she set up the present claim,
and sent in a hill of particulars of dcmand. This docu-
ment contained some rather curious items :—" Intro-
duced to you on June 12, 1866, and made two
long copies of your transactions with Madame Rachel.
Arranged the same for explanation with your solicitor,
and made an account of the money advanced by you for
Lord Ranelagh and clothes left with Madame Rachel.
Employed on your business after your release, and found
you much disturbed at your position, when we both agreed
to your placing yourself in the hands of your solicitor.
You informed me that nothing had been done to
release you from the toils of the serpent—Madame
Rachel—and that you had been robbed, and that no
lawyer would take up your case without money
down, and that Rachel had so mystified every-
thing that you could not make them understand your
story, and wished me to do whatever I could to assist you.
You promised to give me £lOO, and I then employed
myself in your case, and spent 38 half days in arranging
your statements, and correcting them, 10s. each half
day—.£l9. On finding you were arrested, went for parti-
culars to the Sheriff's Office, in Red Lion-square, and found
that you were arrested on a bond to Madame Rachel for
81,600. Instructed your solicitor to set it aside. Suggested
that Madame Rachel should be treated with, and writing
to say that Mr. Cridland said he thought it would be
necessary to make' her a bankrupt. I immediately set
about to prevent it, and prepared a copy of an affidavit,
and engaged a solicitor to act in your behalf in case Mr.
Cridland, the family solicitor, should decline to do so. I
spared no time or expense to procure your release. Claim
for doing so, £52 IN.—To negotiations for a loan in your
behalf, £2s.—To time spent on your behalf relative to the
first trial of Madame Rachel, to watch the proceedings
and give you all the information I could, £5 ss. To time
spent in the second trial, £1010s."
In her examination the plaintiff said she had one time
been proprietor and editor of the London Review (a paper
lately deceased). She asserted positively that, although
in the first instance she acted from a feeling of sympathy
for Mrs. Borrodaile, it was clearly understood that she
was to be paid a sum equivalent to one guinea per day,
and a commission of 5 per cent. upon any money that she
might obtain from Mrs. Borrodaile upon loan, and for any
future services that she might render her. She
said that part of the services she performed for Mrs.
Borrodaile consisted in sending a gentleman, named
O'Keefe, to Paris, to make inquiries relating to Mrs.
Borrodaile. Mrs. Borrodaile had gone to Paris for change
of air, and Madame Rachel had been to Mr. Cridland,
Mrs. Borrodaile's solicitor, and informed him that she was
accompanied by "her William," and that they were
living together there. Mr. Cridland, upon hearing this,
said it was impossible for him to do anything more until
he had ascertained whether there was any truth in this,
and she requested Mr. O'Keefe to go to Paris and make
inquiries. She made the charge of 50 guineas for what she
did with reference to procuring her release from Rachel's
bond by special arrangement with Mrs. Borrodaile.
Mrs. Borrodaile agreed to give her that sum. She
did not apply to Mrs. Borrodaile for any money until
after the last trial of Madame Rachel at the Central
Criminal Court, and she received a letter from her in
reply, in which she said : " I am surprised that you
should ask me for money, when I have none for myself,
and if you gossip with lodging-house keepers, you must
expect to hear lies,
and that you were a very coarse and vulgar person, and no
friend of mine, and that you borrowed a shilling of them,
and wanted to take rooms in the house, but they would
not have you as a lodger."
In cross-examination she said that she was sent to
Whitecross-street Prison through becoming surety for
another lady for a debt, and as that lady did not pay she
was arrested for the debt. When Mrs. Borrodaile came
into the prison she thought she was a very foolish woman.
Witness was not a very sympathetic person. She was
rather annoyed with her, and told her that she was a very
Treat fool hundreds of times. [A letter of the witness
written to Mrs. Borrodaile was here put in, in which she
stated that she was overpowered at finding that she had
been, arrested upon such a false charge, and said she was
satisfied that she was a most virtuous and prudent
woman, and that she had been led into her present position
through her ignorance of the world and its wickedness.]

Some banter took place between judge, counsel, and
witness about her being a monetary agent. It appeared
that she kept no books, and what she meant by so describ-
ing herself was hard to understand. In answer to
further questions put to her by Serjeant Parry, she
said that she had been in Whitecross-street Prison
three.'or four times upon previous occasions, but it was
almittys on account of her becoming surety for some one
else. Once (in 1867) she took the benefit of the Insolvent
Court. She went through the court also about eighteen
years ago. She bad a great many consultations with Dlr.

Cridland, the family solicitor, about Mrs. Borrodaile's
transactions with Madame Rachel. lie could not under-
stand' the case at all. She did not act as a solicitor, but
she; endeavoured to make Mr. Cridland understand the
nature of the- affair. For this and for other matters she
Cade various charges varying from one to ten guineas.
Miss Sutton was also cross-examined as to a letter she bad
written to Mrs. Borrodaile after the con viction of Rachel. "I
would not see strangers. Lord Panelagh is still prowling
about." She was pressed as to what she meant by that,
and sad she bad seen Lord Ranelagh in Piccadilly—all
she meant was to warn Mrs. Borrodaile from seeing
strangers. She had, she said, no intention to deceive her.
She was cross-examined also as to a letter which she had
drawn up and copied for Mrs. Borrodaile, • to be sent to a
person who, as Mrs. Borrodaile had said, had written to
her, proposing marriage. She said she knew nothillg at

till about him, except what Mrs. Borrodaile had told her—
namely, that he had proposed marriage, and that his real
name was Campbell. •
The evidence was corroborated to some extent by two
widows.
On the part of Mrs. Borrodaile it was represented that
the claim was exorbitant and absurd,.even if it had not
been got up between her and O'Keefe, who, it was said,
she had not
_ventured to call. Miss Sutton was vehe-
mently_ denounced as living by her wits, and as having
forced herself upon Mrs. Borrodaile, and concocted a claim
without any real foundation, as a kind of " female attor-
ney." Mrs. torrodaile herself was called and examined in
contradiction of the case for the plaintiff. She gave her
evidence with great clearness and positiveness, and some
sharpness of tone, and denied everything Miss Sutton had
stated as to payment. She utterly denied that anything what-
ever was said about paying Miss Sutton, and stated that Miss
Sutton bad herself offered such assistance as she had ren-
dered, and that it was but slight. Mrs. Borrodaile said she
had thought Miss Sutton's interference useless, and it
further appeared that Mrs. Borrodaile had somehow con-
nected her with certain paragraphs which had appeared
in the press about her, and that she had, in September,
1.663, refused to speak to her, which was admitted by Miss
Sutton. In support of these statements Mr. Cridland's
clerk and Mr. George Lewis (the present attorney
of Mrs. Borrodaile) were called to chew that Miss Sutton
had never given any material assistance. Mr. Cridlancl's
clerk said that so far as the supposed interviews
with him were concerned au attorney would have been
repaid by £5. Mr. G. Lewis stated that Miss Suttor. had
proffered her assistance, and had given him her wribten
statement ; but after that he had told her that she could
be of no service, nor was she. Miss Sutton said to Mrs.
Borrodaile on one occasion, " Why, you know, I have never
made any cbar,-_;.e, and have never sought to n;aLe any.
thing by you, 001
Mr. Lewis was c.
statement that M
any charge for anything she had (lone (which had
never been mentioned before nor suggested in cross•
examination of Miss Sutton),- and it was elicited that
r4e bad not put it i the brief. nor could he ors that he had

+ton bad

r mad(