The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-28 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. ()ALLEY AND OTHERS.

This was a prosecution instituted under the direction
of th© law officers of the Crown, against Emma Calley,
Jane Jones, Anne Sullivan, and Elizabeth Hill, for in•
decently exposing their persons in the Regent's'-park,
and against Thomas George Gosling, for inciting them
to do so. • •

The case excited more than ordinary interest, from the

fact of the male defendant, Mr. Gosling, being Connected
with a wealthy, most respectable, and well-known
family.
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Stuart Wortley), Mr.
Bodkin, and Mr. Willis, appeared folr the prosecution ;
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, Mr. Roll, and Mr. Lewis, con-
ducted the defence for Mr. Gosling ; and Mr. Metcalfe
and Mr. Gifford held briefs for the female defendants.

The Solicitor General stated the case. The jury, he
said, would hav: understood, from bhe statement of his

learned friend 'Mr. Willis, the nature of the charge
against the defendants, and it would now be his
duty—and a very painful one it was—to lay before
them in detail a narrative of the caie, involving in,
its nature matter of the most important and grave cha-
racter, as affecting a gentleman who was connected with
one of the most respectable and wealthy families in the
' country, and who hitherto was regarded as himself bear-
ing a most respectable character. In the ordinary way,
a case ofsthis sort should be left to the ordinary tribu-
nals ; but when he informed them that there were
amongst the defendants four females who were charged
with a very serious offence, and a gentleman of wealthy
station, of education, and, up to this time, ashe believed,
of excellent character, they would be of opinion that the
cape was one which required to be investigated in the
most formal manner. Originally a complaint was made
of misconduct in the Regent'r-park. A report was made
to the'Government, and instructions were given to pro-
tect the parks against the indecencies alleged. A charge
was made against the defendants, and the case was
taken before the magistrates; and on the part of the de-
fendants the indictment was removed by certiorari to
the Central Criminal Court. When there, the Govern-
ment feeling that they were bound to see that justice
was done, deemed it advisable to have the services of
the Attorney-General, and under his advice the case
was again removed by certiorari into this court. The
nature of the offence charged against thenrwas a gross
and scandalous offence committed in one of the public
parks.
The learned gentleman here described the situation of
the alleged spot, and having gone through the details of
the offence, and described the parties charged with the
commission of it, the character and nature of it, and the
manner in which it was reported by the witnesses, he
concluded by calling on the jury to be guided by the
evidence, and to find their verdict accordingly.
Before the examination of the witnesses for the prose-
cution was finished,

Lord Campbell, addressing the Solicitor-General, said—
Mr. Solicitor-General, it appears to mo that this prosecu-
tion was most properly instituted, and has been most pro-
perly conducted ; but it appears to me, also, that there is
no-evidence on which the jury could safely convict the
defendants. With regard to the unfortunate girls, there
is no doubt they have been guilty of practices of prostitu-
tion ; but the fact of their exposing their persons, as
stated, rests entirely on the testimony of two persons,
Mitchell and Warren, of whose evidence there is no
corroboration whatever. As to Mitchell, he is clearly
an infamous person, and was watching, it might be, in
connection with those girls, in order to see if any gentleman
might pass by upon whom he might carry out his designs.
With regard to Warren, I thought very favourably at
first of him, and looked upon him as a most exemplary
person ; but when I heard, in cross-examination of his
antecedents- and especially in relation to the charge made
by him against a gentleman at Primrose-hill—l do not
think it would be safe to find Mr. Gosling guilty upon such
evidence.

The Solicitor-General—After your lordship's observa-
tions, I fuel it my duty not to throw auy responsibility
upon the jury, and I will therefore withdraw the case. _

Lord Campbell—Had Mr. Gosling been found guilty of
the charge, I should feel it my duty to inflict the severest
punishment upon him that the law would allow me to
impose.
Thus ended a prosecution which, throughout the pro-
ceedings, was watched and listened to with intense interest
by a crowded court.

COURT OF COMION PLEAS.

GRIFFITHS V. LORD GEORGE LOFT US.-BILL TRANSACTIONS.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1001.,
dated the 28th April, 1856, drawn by a person named
Milton, and accepted by the defendant. There was a plea
that Lord George Loftus had handed the bill to Milton to
get discounted, but that he had parted with it improperly,
and that the plaintiff had taken the bill with notice and
without value.

Mr. James said that he appeared for Lord George Loftus,
who had never received a farthing for this bill. He had
given it to Milton to get discounted, and to hand over the
proceeds to him, but instead of doing so, Milton handed
the bill to the plaintiff, who was an attorney, with distinct
knowledge of the circumstances. Lord George Loftus
being in want of some money gave this bill and another
one to Milton, who signed this memorandum ;—" I hereby
acknowledge to have received two promissory notes, one
for 1501. at three months, and the other for 1001. of the
same date, for the purpose of discounting ; and I hereby
undertake to return those two notes, or the money, less
discount, within a week from this date." The bills were
oinoeoyl. handedbilbill
had over
got
andnt into
into vwears returned,
subsequently
the hands of Mr. Griffiths, the plaintiff. It would be for
the plaintiff to show that he gave value for the bill.
no r a
found farthing
tha to ft
the
Mr. Grinithis---I am the plaintiff. I am an attorney
in Phillpot-lane. I never was a prisoner in the Queen's
Bench Prison. I know Milton, and have been profes-
sionally concerned for him on two occasions. In the
course of last year Milton owed me certainly 351., and
I think also 24/. 10s. costs. lam not sure whether
the second bill was then matured. This bill for 241. 10s,
was brought by Barret, the endorser, to me. As Mil_
ton was indebted to me for costs I discounted it, de-
ducting my costs and the interest. It was not paid, but
was returned, and a 301. bill given for it and some costs.
The 301. bill is dated January, 1356. This bill was
dishonoured when it became due in April, 1356. I sued
him upon another bill for 351., due in April, 1856, and
recovered judgment for 411. Gs. Si., That with the 301.
bill would make 711. 6s. 8d , but I only claim 681. 10s.
On the Bth May I had arrested him, and he was iu
Whitecro.,s-street. Afterwards Mrs. Milton called at
my office, and produced the bill now sued on, and of-
fered it te me if I would procure his discharge. I noticed
the bill was drawn on Lord George Loftus. I objected,
knowing that there was no such person, except by cour-
tesy. I knew there was Lord George Loftus, the infant
son of the Marquis of Ely, and I said if it is his it is worth
nothing. She explained that it was the marquis's
brother. She said that Lord George had known her
husband for a number of years, and to relieve him from
his difficulties had given him this acceptance. I in-
Etrueted my clerk to make the necessary inquiries. She
also proposed to
to take the bill and the order for the slates, and to give
give me 25 tons of slate, and I consented
him his discharge.. Afterwards I met Milton in Fleet-
street, and he asked me if I would give him 101. more
on account of the bill sued and the slates, which I de-
clined. The best offer I have bad fur the slates is a bill
at three months for 101. or 15/. Lord George called at
my office more than a month before the bill became
due. I did not see him. I directed my clerk to write
es wb earl .
had 0 nbtehe an t
ionic cparsoi
pone rLI
yo rodb
tGa
ienoerdg.e
Tn thianst a tew
ads t ht
ha
et
to him asking him to call again, but I never had any
answer.
intimation I had that Milton had not a perfect
right to part with the bill. That was five weeks after
T
I had taken the bill.he jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed, 681. 103.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27.
JAMES V. SMITH.
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged
libel.
It appeared that the plaintiff who had been for seve-
ral years a widow, resided at the Hot Wells, 'Bristol,
and was in au invalid state, suffering severely from
chronic diseases. She had been attended for some years
by a medical man living at Bristol, who had also at-
tended her husband during his lifetime. The medical
man was in the habit of visiting Mrs. James as many as
three times every day. This circumstance gave rise to
some calumnious reports, which reached the ears of the
defendant, who is a clerk in the Great Western Railway
Company's offices at Bristol. Hearing that the plain-
tiff called on the wife of a person who rented a house
of him, he wrote to the latter, stating that he would
not retain him as a tenant if he permitted such visits,
and at the same time described Mrs. James as a person