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

THE .RACHEL SCANDAL.

Two law cases have within the last few months excited
a large amount of attention—the Rachel Scandal and the
Convent Case. Both of them bid fair to hang about the
courts, and to give trouble to our judges for come time to
come. The case of " Saurin v. Starr and Kennedy,"
though it occupied such a long time in trial, is on its
way to come before the full bench at Westminster, and
is already moving in the Court of Chancery. The Rachel
case is ever cropping up at unseemly times in unexpected
places—then in the police court, again before the judge at
Chambers, and now before a common jury at the assizes.
Mrs. Borrodaile, the complainant at the Old Bailey, was
on Tuesday the defendant at the Kingston Assizes, in a
suit ,in which a Miss Sutton was the plaintiff.. Miss
Sutton sought to obtain from Mrs. Borrodaile the sum of
£l6O 18s. for services alleged to have been rendered in
respect of the Rachel trial.

The presiding judge was Mr. Baron Bramwell. Ser-
jeant Robinson and Mr. Philbrick appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. F. H. Lewis for the
defendant.

From the opening statement it appeared that the plain-
tiff, a middle-aged person, Miss Sarah Sutton, described
herself as a literary and monetary agertt 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 between 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 of Madame Rachel and her being sentenced to five
years:' penal servitude, she continued to act in behalf of
Mrs, Borrodalle. At length she set up the present claim,
and" sent in a bill of particulars of demand. 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 yon 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
£1,600. 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 10s.—To negotiations for a loan in your
behalf, £2s.—To time 'pent on your behalf relative to the
first trial of Madame Rachel, to watch the proceedings
and give Tru all the information I could, £5 ss.—To time
spent in the second trial, 10r."
In her examination the plaintiff said she had one time
been proprietor and editor of the London Rcriew (a paper
latelyideceased). She asserted positively that, although
in the4first 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,
ancta 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.
orrodaile 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
greatdool hundreds of times. [A letter of the witness
writtpn to Mrs. Borrodaile was here put in, in which she
stattd that she was overpowered at finding that she had
been arrested upon such a false charge, and said she was
soLisfied that she was a most virtuous and prudent
V .oman, 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
always 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 had a great many consultations with Mr.
Cridland, the family solicitor, about Mrs. Borrodaile's
transactions with Madame Rachel. He could not under-
stand the case at all. She did not act as a solicitor, but
sle endeavoured to make Mr. Cridland understand the
nature of the affair. For this and for other matters she
made various charges varying from one to ten guineas.
Miss Sutton was also cross-examined as to a letter she had
written to Mrs. Borrodaile after the conviction of Rachel. "I
would not see strangers. Lord Ranelagh is still prowling
about." She was pressed as to what she meant by that,
anditaid she had seen Lord Ranelagh in Piccadilly—all
she, meant was to warn Mrs. Borrodaile frorn 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 nothing at
all about him, except what Mrs. Borrodaile had told her—
namely, that he bad 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 bad not
been got up between her and O'Keefe, who, it was said,
she bad 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. Borrodaile 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
statedas to payment. Sheutterly denied that anything what-
ever wait said about paying Miss Sutton, and stated that Miss
Sutton had 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,
1868, refused to speak to her, which was aeimitted by Miss
Sutton. In support of these statements Mr. Cridland's
clerk and Mr. George Lewis (the present attorney
of I%lrs. Borrodaile) were called to spew that Mss Sutton
bad never given any material assistance. Mr. Cridland's
clerk said that so far as the su.rposed interviews
with him were concerned an attorney- would have been
repaid by £5. Mr. G. Lewis stated that Miss Stator. had
proffered her assistance, and had given him her written
statement ; but after that he had told lb that she could
be of no service, nor was she. Miss Stall tcnn said to Mrs.
Borroclaile on one occasion, " Why, you kr ow, I have never
made any charge, and have never sought to make any.
thing by you, and have done it all ul. of friendship.',
Mr. Lewis was very severely cross-ex.X.nined about his
statement that Miss Sutton had said. 'she never made
any charge for anything she had rciOne (which had
never beers mentioned before nor s b gested in cross.
examination of bliss Sutton), and was elicited that
tie had not Put it in the brief. nor conic-010 say that he had

mentioned it to his counsel in consultation. Mrs. Borro-
daile was called to confirm him, but she did not appear to
remember distinctly, and all she could say was that she
complained of Miss Sutton's interference, and that
Miss Sutton had said she had acted for her from
sympathy. Miss Sutton was then recalled to contra-
dict the statement of Mr. Lewis, and denied that she had
said, " I have never made any charge, and have never
sought to make anything by you ; " but she admitted she
said, " I have never worried you for money ; I have done
all I could do for you from sympathy."
This closed the evidence in the case, and Mr. Baron Bram-
well expressed a clear opinion that the plaintiff could not
maintain her claim for the supposed obtaining of money,
because no money had been obtained, and the negotia-
tions for it had been broken off and fallen through.
This, after some discussion, was assented to by Miss
iktton's counsel, and the counsel for Mrs. Borrodaile then
addressed the jury on the evidence as to the rest of the
case, representing it as fraudulent, and urging ihat Miss
Sutton's case was falsified by the .admitted fact that in
September 1868 Mrs. Borrodaile had actually complained
of her interference, and had tried to shake her off, and had
refused to speak to her. The counsel for the plaintiff
having replied, and the judge having summed up, the
jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for R 5.