The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-19 00:00:00

least, as the want of opportunity to cross-examine Mr.
Denison and his witnesses permitted. The Hon. Col. Octa-
vius Duncombe, M.P., Mr. Astell, and Mr. Paull did me
the favour to attend as witnesses on my behalf. Col. Dun-

combe was examined, and distinctly Corroborated my evi-
dence, 'confn ming my statement of the treatment I had
been subjected to, and he was complimented by the judge
in his summing up on the gentlemanly view 'he had taken
and expressed, as recorded in notes of the proceedings of the
board which I had been allowed to read in evidence. The
evidence of Col. Duncombe rendered it unnecessary to
trouble Mr. Astell or Mr. Paull. Mr. Pvm and others
would also have attended ou my behalf but for illness. The
judge especially directed attention to the questions whether
it was in any way my duty as secretary to the Great Northern
Railway to have checked or recorded the amounts for which
I signed the warrants, or in any way to have acted as secre-
tary otherwise than I did. Baron Bramwell stated—
" I was reminding you of the practice of the other com-
panies, and I was reminding you of what his own duties
were. He says the duty of the secretary was not to check
accounts. One's own notion of a secretary's office is, that
it is not his businees. Then you are to bear in mind that
this fraud could not have been committed without the care-
lessness or connivance of Redpath's clerk, and the careless-
ness or connivance of the accountant, Mr. Reynolds.' Then
you have Mr. Denison's statement that Mr. Mowatt was
not to blame in this matter, and be took his part ; you have
Mr. Grinling's statement to the same effect; and, as I said
before, you have no witness called on the part of the defen-
dais ts, to show you that either it was the natural duty of the
secretary, if one may say so, or, that he was even specially
or particularly enjoined to perform it. You have his oath
that it was not his natural duty, and that nobody ever told
him to perform it; and you have his oath that after Mr.
Denison, a most competent person to form an opinion on
the matter, knew sufficient of it to express an opinion of it,
he did not express an opinion that Mr. Mowatt had been
wron g.'
"The jury, without hesitatyn and with entire unanimity,
after a most close and unremitting attention to all the cir-
cumstances of the case, gave their verdict in my favour,
expressing their clear opinion 'that there was a dismissal;
that there was no cause for .the dismissal; that it was un-
reasonable, and without Justification.' The jury were
directed upon this, that the only damages they could by law
give were confined to the amount of the mere quarter's
salary, which became due at the end of June. I was aware
dthaamtatgheiss wbouutldtebepsroes.erlve character;brougbtmy action, not to recover
and I only advert to
the point here lest in any quarter it may erroneously be
supposed that £2OO formed an adequate measure of the sense
entertained by the jury, either of the conduct of Mr. Denison
and his party among the directors, or of the injury which
by reason of that conduct I was likely to sustain.
" Ladies and gentlemen,—l have now laid the facts before
von, and I have done so in the discharge of what I feel to
be a public duty. I was, and always considered myself to be,
emphatically the officer of the shareholders. My views of
the functions of the secretary are that he is in an especial
manner charged with the guardianship of your interests. It
is you alone who are empowered by Act of Parliament to fix
his salary. Mr. Denison himself has recorded his opinion,
on oath before the Lords' Committee, that It is desirable the
secretary should act as a check on the proceedings of the
directors. It is for you to say whether you approve or dis-
prove of such treatment of an officer who for 14 years has in
this capacity served you well and faithfully; who, within a
few months of his dismissal, had been entrusted by the board
with the uncontrolled possession of nearly a quarter of a
million for the purpose of buying up the stock fraudu-
lently over-issued, which operation he had brought to a
successful close and reported to the board the very day
' (January 19, 1858) on which Mr. Denison proposed his
condemnatory resolution ; to whom Mr. Denison himself
had proposed and carried a vote of thanks, and of whom,
speaking with a full knowledge of all the facts, he declared
not a year and a-half ago, " I never knew a better officer
in my life," and regarding whom, at the moment of my
most active exertions in the Redpath matter, he had actually
inquired whether I was disposed to go on to the direction.
If his testimony as to my value as an officer was true at the
end of May, 1857, was it less true at the end of March,
1858; if true at both periods, why was I dismissed? Con-
trast the treatment I have received with the principle of
action mowed by Mr. Denision when he declared at the
general meeting of March 12, 1857
" ' I want you to forgive and forget every omission ex-
cepting the commission of forgeries by Redpath. Do not
look back, but look forward. Do not accuse any man of
being negligent, sinless you find he has been fraudulent,
and then hang him if you can.'—(G. N. R. Report, p. 2g.)
" This letter, though many facts of great importance are
necessarily omitted, has extended to a length not contem-
plated. I have been compelled in the course of it to intro-
duce the names of several individuals; but I have done so
only where it has been essential for the purpose of elucidating
my real position as your late officer, disclaiming all other
intention or object.
" I know that you cannot undo what has been done, but,
at all events, you can record your protest against it; that
protest, which to me would be more valuable even than the
verdict of the jury, is the only justice I ask at your hands,
the only retribution you can make or I can receive for 14
years hard service, suddenly put an end to by an abrupt and
groundless dismissal."
Mr. Mowatt states that since the discovery of the forgeries
it has been ascertained that before Redpath enteredlthe
service of the Brighton Company, where he bad been satis-
factorily engaged for a short time, and from whence he
received a character for capacity, be had "misapplied the
funds of a firm by wham he had previously been employed.
He had become a bankrupt under highly discreditable cir-
cumstances a few weeks after his marriage, paying 2s. Gd. in
the pound, and he subsequently gained a living as a hawker
of rabbits and poultry about the streets of Folkestone."