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

LA IF INTELLIGENCE—June 20.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
TOLMAN AND WIFE V. JOHNSTONE (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 large portion 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 hoard the mother-
in-law coming upstairs he 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. Tho 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, I beg you will not take
the liberty of doing so again, for what she has told me I
am quite surprised at a person in your capacity ever doing
such a thing, for your conversation was quite disgusting
and disgraceul 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. ToLmA.N, 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 earn.stly 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,—I 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. lam 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. " 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 he 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 he
(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
he 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 him.
Mrs. Tolman, sen., was called, but she was so