The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-24 00:00:00

Ensign E. C. Strutt, by Lieutenant-General Knollys.
Viscount Sudley, by his father, the Earl of Arran.
Major H. L. Talbot, by Lieutenant-General Knollys,
commanding division, Aldershott.
Lieut. W. Tatham, by Colonel Bingham, Royal Artillery.
Lord Taunton, by Viscount Palmerston.
Lieut. George Leo Le Mesurier Taylor, by Colonel P.
W. Taylor.
Lieut. W. H. Thomas, by Lieutenant-General Knollys.
Lieut. Samuel P. Townsend, R.N., by the Hon. Captain
Denman, R.N.
Captain Edward Winterton Tumour, by Lord George
Lennox. _ _

Captain T.T. Turton, by the Secretary of State for India.
Colonel Richard Howard Vyse, by General Viscount
Gough.
Dr. David Walker, late of the Fox Arctic Expedition, by
Sir Roderick Murchison.
Captain William Claye Watson, by Major-General
Wylde.
Lord Gordon Watson, by General Wynyard.
Lieut. and Adjutant H. J. Webb, by Lieutenant-General
Knollys.
Major Gould Weston, by the Secretary of State for India.
Lieut. G. Webber, by Lieutenant-General Knollys.
Mr. G. W. Wheatley, Vice-Consul for Honduras, by
Lord John Russell.
Lieutenant-Colonel R. Herbert White, by his Royal
Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
Captain It. Whigham, by Mr. Elliott Lockhart, M.P.
Mr. Justice Williams, of Victoria, by the Duke of New-
castle.

Ensign E. Williams, by his father, Mr. Justice Williams.
Captain Wise, R.N., A.D.C., by the Duke of Somerset.
Mr. John Woodford, by General Sir Alex. Woodford.
Lieut. T. C. Wray, by Lieut.-General Knollys.
Rev. Harry Wright, by the Bishop of Llandaff.
General Wynyard. by his Royal Highness the Duke of
Cambridge.
Mr. Allen Young, on return from the Arctic Expedition;
by Sir Roderick Murchison.

LA IV INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 23.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.
Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord
Chief Just ice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)

COLONEL DICKSON V. COLONEL WALKER.-LIBIV,

This was an action brought by Lieutenant-Colo
nel Latham Dickson, formerly of the Line, and
latterly of the Tower Hamlets Alilitia' to recover
damages against Colonel Walker, for a libel
published by that officer in eollnirn's United Ser-
vice Magazine, and complained of by the plain-
tiff, as reflecting upon his honour and credit as a
gentleman, and as calculated to injure his reputa-
tion in the estimation of his friends, unless retracted
and atoned for.
The incidents of the action were similar in all
respects to those which formed the ground of the
action brought some time ago by the plaintiff
against the Earl of Wilton, in which the jury, after
several days spent in trying the case, gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff.
The defendant in the present action pleaded,
first, not guilty; and, secondly, that the libel was
true in substance and in fact, and upon those counts
the parties joined issue.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C.,
and Mr. Coleridge appeared for the plaintiff; Mr.
Sergeant 13allantine, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Milward
conducted tha case for the defendant.
The Lord Chief Justice acid, as he understood
the matter, Lieut.-Col. Dickson did not owe any-
thing to the mess now, he having paid up every-
thing that was due by him. The whole case was
very lamentable and very painful, and it was much
to be regretted that in a matter which had already
been publicly tried and disposed of, Lieut.-Colonel
Dickson's name was again dragged before the
public.
Mr. Sergeant Ballautine said imputations had
been cast, in a military publication, upon the cha-
racter and credit of Lieut.-Col. Walker and his
brother officers, and hence it was that he wrote the
letter in question.
The Lord Chief Justice—The regiment was sud-
denly disembodied, and there were liabilities due
by the officers to Lord Wilton, which they might
not have felt themselves in circumstances to settle
at the moment ; but they did not say that, and in.
stead of saying that they threw the whole blame
upon Lieut.-Col. Dickson. lie really thought there
could be no difficulty in finding some other and
amicable way to settle the matter than that which
was now being pursued.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said he would not for a
moment oppose any honourable course calculated
to settle the differences between those gentlemen.
Mr. Edwin James said he was ready to agree to
any course worthy of tiae character and position
of Lieut.-Col. Dickson, and of a nature to extend
to him that just meed of redress to which he was
entitled.
The learned counsel then conferred together, and
ultimately left the court for the purpose of more
freely discussing the terms of settlement. On
their return into court,
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said he need scarcely
acknowledge that he received with great pleasure
his lordship's intimation that it was desirable to
settle this matter in a fair and friendly spirit, and
his intimation that he felt anxious that justice
should be awarded between those two gentlemen,
who were both meritorious officers ; and he thought
it would be conceded by every one who heard the
trial as far it had gone that iieut.-Col. Walker
had been very seriously injured in his feelings, and

OF LIBEL.
This was an action for libel, and was brought by
the plaintiff, a surgeon, residing in the neighbour-
hood of Kingston, near Bromley, Kent, against the
defendant, a farmer, living in the same locality.
The circumstances which gave rise to the alleged
libel were of an extraordinary nature. It appeared
that the plaintiff, who is about 32 years of age, was
in the habit of attending upon Mrs. Osborne, who
is 54 years of age. He drove to her house in the
month of June, 1857, in a gig, accompanied by his
brother, a clergyman. The visit was paid in con-
sequence of a request that he should call upon Mrs.
Osborne, who was suffering from the effects of a
bad leg. He remained only about five minutes in
the house,during which time it was alleged by Mrs.
Osborne that he dragged her into the passage, and
that he had illicit intercourse with her against he r
will, although she struggled to oppose his purpose.
The plaintiff, after committing the alleged outrage,
joined his brother in the gig, and drove off. Mrs.
Osborne, however, did not mention the circum-
stances to any one for nine months afterwards,
when she told her husband, and when the
plaintiff was subsequently paying a profes-
sional visit to the defendant's wife, the defen-
dant taxed him with the commission of the
offence in question. The plaintiff denied the
charge. He, however, admitted that he had made
a special examination of Mrs. Osborne on the occa-
sion in question, in consequence of her having in-
formed him that she was suffering from a rupture;
that he had only employed his hand in the course
of the examination, and that the supposition that
he had taken advantage of the occasion to act im-
properly towards Mrs. Osborne was a mere hallu-
cination on her part, as well as her belief that she
was in the family way by him. So the matter
stood until last year, when the defendant told what
his wife communicated to him reputing the plain-
tiff to the clergyman of the parish, whose wife the
plaintiff was attending in her confinement. The
clergyman, therefore, called upon the plaintiff to
explain the matter; and as the charge obtained
circulation in the neighbourhood, the plaintiff was
obliged to bring this action for the purpose of clear-
ing his character of the imputation thus cast
upon it.
The plaintiff was examined, and denied, in the
most positive terms, that there was any truth what-
ever in the charge made against him by Mrs. Os-
borne, and attributed the story to hallucination,
arising from the state of her health, which was
peculiar to females of her age.
Other witnesses, medical and others, were exa-
mined in support of the plaintiff's case. The for-
mer deposed that the mode of examination adopted
by the plaintiff towards Mrs. Osborne, in reference
to the rupture, was a right one, and that it was no
uncommon circumstance for a female of the age of
Mrs. Osborne to be afflicted with the peculiar hal-
lucination attributed to her by the plaintiff.
Mrs. Osborne, on the other hand, appeared in
the witness-box, and gave evidence in support of
the defence. She deposed that what she told her
husband about the plaintiff was correct, that she
was not suffering from any hallucination on the
subject, but the whole story was true from begin-
ning to the end.
Mr. Sergeant Shee then stated the case fur the
defendant, urging that he had acted bona fide, fully
believing the truth of his wife's statement, which
would be established now by her evidence.
Mrs, Any Osborn, the defendant's wife, deposed
as follows .—Mr. Edwards was attending me for a
bad leg in July, 1857. When he came, upstairs he
asked me for the lotion, and I went upstairs to
fetch it. When I came downstairs he pulled me
along the passage. The witness here described, in
terms reFefit for publication, the committal of the
alleged act of violation, and proceeded to say :
The defendant told me not to call out, as somebody
would hear me. He afterwards went away, and.
said ;he would "send the lotion. I did not say
anything. I did not tell my husband on his return
what had happened. I did not like to say anything
about it. A month after this happened Mr. Ed-
wards came to me and asked me low I was. I said,
" Better, thank you." He said, " You are getting
quite fat. You are in the family way." I men-
tioned nothing to my husband until the 3d of
March. In th latter end of February I took ad-
vice from Mrs. Parslow, an old friend of mine. On
the 3d of March, 1858, I told my husband Mr. Ed-
wards called on the following Friday. On the 2d
of March Mr. Edwards called on me. I told him
he had hurt my feelings very much—that he had
told me I was in the family way ; and he asked
me if I would allow him to examine me. He said,
" I can't tell anything about it with your clothes
on. I will call again and see you in bed, for I can-
not tell unless you have your stays off." It was
on the next day, Wednesday, I told my husband.
Mr. Edwards called on the following Friday, and

said, " Mr. Edwards, I have told lily husband.
tie said, "It was in September, was it not ?" I
sa'd, " No •, it was in July :" and be said," It is
not I who have injured you." My husband then
came in, and I left the room. Shortly afterwards
my husband called me in, and said to me, " Did
Mr. Edwards interfere with you ?" and I told my
husband what Mr. Edwards had done, in Mr. Ed-
wards presence. Mr. Edwards said he knew he
had done wrong, and that he had interfered with
my husband. No more passed. My husband then
took him by the collar and shook him. He told
my husband not to strike him, and my husband
called him a blackguard.
Cross-examined by Sergeant Ballantine—l had
a rupture for several years. I have never had me-
dical attendance for it. Mr. Edwards did not at-
tend me for it. The plaintiff said nothing to me
before he used this violence. I resisted him as
much as I could. I called out as loud as I could.
He told me not to make a noise, as somebody would
hear me, and I was then quiet, but I said to him,
" Get away, do."
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—Did you know that he
drove up in a gig on that day ?
The witness here gave an answer she had given
several times before during the cross-examination
—" I can't hear you, sir, at that distance ; I am too
much flurried." Sbe was then placed on the floor
of the court near the learned sergeant, who again
put the same question.
Witness—No, he walked past the house. My
house adjoins other hsuses. I wish I had scratched
his eyes out, but I was too flurried. I had told
Mrs. Bowyer, my cousin, what had happened.
Bowyer called on me, and began to laugh. He
asked me to allow him to examine me. He put his
hand on my petticoat, and said it was no such thing,
and made a sort of laugh about it. lam 54 years
of age. Mr. Edwards told me two or three times
afterwards I was in the family way, and on one oc-
casion I said, You great stupid, you." (Laughter.)
It was enough to make me say so.
I never told
Mary Griffin to tell Mr. Edwards that I Wanted