The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-14 00:00:00

TRADESMEN'S FOUR-OARED RACE.

The first four-oared race of the Prince Albert Aquatic
Club was rowed yesterday afternoon, from Putney to Chis-
wick, for money lorizes, with the following results :
Blue
Mr. James Fenton. Mr. J. Nelems.
• Mr. Alfred Hill. I Mr. Woolley.
Mr. Johnson, coxswain.

White
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Finlaison.

Mr. Clair.
Mr. A. Fenton.

Mr. Hopkins, 2oxswain.

Red

Mr. Moore. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Barber. I Mr. Dismore.
Mr. Shipway, coxswain.

It was an excellent race throughout. Thcy got off well
together, Red taking the lead, followed by White, all three
being very close up to the Ciab Tree, when Blue passed
both crews ; a fine race going on to Hammersmith-bridgb,
Blue drew away, White being second, and only one length
separated each crew at coming in.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

THE QUEEN ON TIIE PROSECUTION OF DR. GODFREY

V. WILLIAM NEWTON.

This was an indictment for libel that stood ()vex
from a former session. The defendant pleaded not
guilty generally, and also jivtification as to a por-
tion of the alleged libel, and that it was published
for the benefit of the public.
Sergeant Parry was specially retained, with Mr.
Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Paland, to conduct the
prosecution. Sergeant Ballantine, also specially
retained, with Mr. Sleigh an&Mr. Giffard, appeared
for the defendant.

This indictment arose out of the extraordinary
case of seduction that wis tried in February last,
in which the present prosecutor was the defendant.,
and a publican in the Whtechapel-road, named
Gardner, was the plaintiff, and it will be remem-
bered that the jury, a special one, after a very long
investigation upon that occasion, returned a verdict
for the defendant. The defendant, Mr. Newton, is
the proprietor and editor of a cheap publication
circulating at the east end of the town, called the
East London Observer and Toner _Hamlets chronicle,
and the present charge arose cut of an article which
appeared in that publication:having reference to
the trial for seduction, in which he impugned the
verdict of the jury, and arguel that they had come
to a wrong decision, and that the rumours in the
neighbourhood relative to thegrossness of character
and bestiality of conduct of Dr. Godfrey upon other
occasions confirmed the opinion that he was guilty
of the act imputed to him, aid it was upon these
allegations that the present indictment was sought
to be supported.
Mr. John Godfrey, the solicitF for the prose-
cution, produced the newspaper containing the
article that was the subject or the prosecution, and
he also proved that the defendant admitted that he
was the publisher of it.
Dr. John Godfrey, the prosecutor, was then exa-
mined, and he said that he hid been in practice as
a physician for 22 years, and was married in March,
1857, and he had a child km in the month of
March in the following year. He was the defen-
dant in an action for seduction tried in the Court
of Common Pleas in February last, and the jury
upon that occasion returned averdict in his favour.
His wife was examined as a witness at the trial.

. _
In cross-examination, the prosecutor said that he
practised as a general practitioner in Mount-place,
Whitechapel, - and he had a private residence in
Finsbury-square, where he practised as a physician.
He had not been married bebre his marriage with
his present wife. He knew person named Lydia
Owchen, and he attended upon her as a patient
in August, 187, and soon afterwards she came
into his service. She was engaged by Mrs. God-
frey, and witness did not engage her before she saw
his wife. Witness told her to go and see his wife
and arrange with her about entering into the ser-
vice. She remained in his, service two or three
months. Would swear that he never attempted to
take any liberties with this girl or another servant
named Harwood. He never chased them round the
kitchen, or attempted to kiss them. He found that
Harwood left his service without giving warning,
but he would swear that he had never heard that
she had made any charge of his having attempted
to take indecent liberties with her. He would
swear that Owchen did not say, in the presence of
his wife, that he knew the reason why the girl
Harwooi had left. His wife did tell him that
Owchen had told her that he had said he would get
Eliza Harwood in the familyway before the spring.
Before this occurred he had given Lydia Owchen
notice to leave, on account of her telling lies; and
his wife also complained that she was impertinent
to her, and had put sand on some chops. (A laugh.)
He would swear that his wife never told him that
the servants charged him with having committed
acts of indecency towards them. The witness was
then questioned' with regard to various acts of
indecency which he was alleged to have committed
towards these two girls, and he denied most posi-
tively having acted in the way suggested. The
girl Owchen was taken away from his house by her
aunt. He heard something said about this girl
having made a statement that in a house where she
had formerly lived as a servant seven or eight ser-
vants had left in the familyway, and he cross-
examined her upon the subject of this statement in
the pantry. (Laughter). The pantry was a place
where he kept some of his medicines. (Renewed
laughter.) He knew a girl named Jane Marshall.
He attended her mother during her Confinement.
Jane Marshall was a young girl under 14 years of
age. She used to come to his surgery for medicines.
Would swear that he never kissed- this girl,
or attempted to do so, or that he took any in-
decent liberties with her. It was a base lie and
fabrication to state that he had ever acted in
such a manner towards this girl. He did once give
Jane Marshall a shilling. This was while he was
attending upon her mother. He would swear that
he never promised to take this girl to a pic-nic. in
Epping Forest. He knew a woman named Harriet

Lewis, the aunt of Jane Marshall. She was en-
gaged as nurse to his wife during her confinement.
Two young ladies were staying at his house at
this time, and he was aware that efforts had been
made by the defendant to subpoena, these young
ladies. Would swear that he never made use of

indecent language to Harriet Lewis, or that one of
the young ladies referred to left his house in con-
quence of his indecent conduct. He did not think
that'this young lady asked his wife, in his presence,
" Whether she had not any control over her hus-
band." If she -er said so, it was not on account
of any indecene of conduct on his part, but as a
eit
joke. Would s% ear that he was never kicked out
of a house at Stepney. He was never kicked in
his life. He did have a dispute with a horrid brute
about fourteen years ago, but he did not remember
whether it was on account of his having complained
that he had made a brothel of his house. This man
did not discover him in bed with a young girl
girl named Peacock. The mq,n might have said
that he would not have his honk made a brothel of.
He was sorry to say that he had an interest in the
young lady referred to. This matter was talked
about in the neighbourhood. He did not know a
girl named Eliza Day or Eliza Ludford. A young
woman was here brought into court, and Dr. God-
fray said that he knew her, and he admitted that
he kissed her when she came to his surgery one
evening for some medicine. She was very young at
the time, and he was under the impression that he-
kissed her. He had been dining, and lie was not
aware whether anything further happened. Her
father and mother made a complaint, and asked
what he had been doing to their daughter,
and that if he did not give her some compensa-
tion the father said he would turn him out of
doors. At first he denied having done any-
thing to this girl, and she was called in,
and he then admitted that he had kissed her.
When the zirl was called in he asked her how she
could be so wicked as to say that he had done
anything wrong to her, and she said that he had
kissed her; and it was not until then that he ad-
mitted doing so, and said that he did not intend to
do her any harm. He could not state positively
at the present time whether he kissed the girl or
not, but he was under the impression at the time
that he did so. (A laugh.) This girl came to his
surgery while he was engaged in his professional
capacity as a medical man. Would swear that he
did not put his arm round the girl's neck and
throw her on the sofa. He would pledge his
solemn oath to this effect. To the best of his belief ;
so far as a man could swear, he would swear that
he did not, so well as he could remember. He was
not in a state of drunkenness at the time, but he
was " excited." He was certainly not downright
drunk. (A laugh.) Would swear that he did not
commit any other act of indecency towards this
young woman. From his own knowledge and
character he din not think he could have committed
such an act.

Sergeant Ballantine—Were you attending the
girl's family at this time ?
Dr. Godfrey—l was attending her mother.
Sergeant Ballantine—And at this time you kissed
her daughter ?
Dr. Godfrey—Y6.
Cross-examination continued—He did not believe
that she screamed in consequence of his conduct
towards her. He came to this conclusion from
what passed at the interview with her mother and
father, and from the fact that his assistant made up
the medicine she had come for. He was a friend of
the family of the young lady about whom the dis-
turbance took place at Stepney before they became
intimate.
Re-examined—Witness was cross-examined for
several hours by Mr. Edi Vin James at the trial for
seduction. Jane Marshall was shown to him upon
that occasion, but she was not called as a witness.
None of the other women were called as wit-
nesses. Miss Rush was one of the ladies
referred to in the course of his cross-examination.
She was his wife's sister, and she was subpoenaed
by Mr. Gardner at the former trial, but was not
examined. That lady never made any Complaint of
his conduct, and they were still on the most affec-
tionate terms. There was no improper intimacy
whatever between 'him and the young lady at
Stepney, but he sent her to Australia and paid her
passage, and gave her a cheque for £lOO. She
had a child, which witness provided &h. after
she left. The
.girl Ludford made a complaint of his
having acted mdenently towards her, but merely
said that -he had Missed her, and something was
then said about compensation, but he did not give
the father anything. The oceurrenee took place
nine years ago, and he had almost forgotten every-
thing connected with it. He had been connected
with the medical profession since he was fourteen
years old, and was at one time engaged as an
assistant-surgeon in the army. His practice was
among both the poor and the rich.
A number of gentlemen were then examined,
all of whom stated that they had known Dr. God-
frey a great many years, and that he had attended
their families professionally, and they placed con-
fidence in him, and had never heard any rumours
relative to his conduct such as those alluded to in
the alleged libel.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Sergeant Ballantine having addressed the jury
on behalf of the defendant, called the following
evidence _ .

John Pass deposed that he formerly resided in
Ocean-row, Stepney, and a lady came to reside in
his house as a lodger, and represented herself to be
a married woman. He remembered on one occa-
sion being fetched from his work, and in conse-
quence of what was told him he attempted to get
into the lady's room, but was unable, and he forced
the door open, and saw Dr. Godfrey in the room in
his drawers and shirt, and the lady was nearly un-
dressed. He told him he would not have his house
made a brothel, and Dr. Godfrey got away, but he
could not say whether he turned him out or not.
The matter was afterwards talked about in the
neighbourhood, and when the trial for seduction
came on he mentioned what had occurred. The
transaction took place twelve years ago.
Cross-examined—After the doctor had been
turned into the street, dre3sed as he had stated, he
came back and put his clothes on. All the neigh-
bours were pcesent. (A laugh.) He did not allow
the young lady to remain in his house after the
transaction. She was recommended to him by her
mother, who was a very respectable lady.
Re-examined—Dr. Godfrey, being a public man
in the neighbourhood, he, of course, knew him very
well.
Mr. H. Airey, a butcher, residing near the last
witness, deposed that about 12 years ago he saw a
man turned out of his house partially dressed, and
his clothes were thrown out after him. (A laugh.)
He afterwards recognised this person as Dr. Godfrey.
Sarah Day deposed; that about seven or eight
years ago she was living with her father in White-
chapel, and she was sent one evening by her father
to fetch some medicine from Dr. Godfrey's. When
she went into the surgery he shut the door, and
kissed her, and pushed her down on a sofa, and
behaved very indecently to her. She struck him,
and he opened the door, and said, " Good night,"
and she went away without answering him. Di-
rectly she got home she told her mother what had
occurred. She was 16 years old at the time this
happened, and Dr. Godfrey was attending her
mother at the time. A day or two afterwards Dr.
Godfrey came to her father's house, and her father
asked him what he meant by his conduct, and he
turned about and said there were prettier girls to
kiss than she was. Her father threatened to kick
him out of the house, and pushed him down two or
three stairs, and he got into his carriage and drove
off, and they SW no more of him.
Jesse Ludford, the father of the last witness, con-
firmed her evidence as to what occurred when Dr.
Godfrey came to his house. He asked him how he
came to act in such an ungentlemanly and brutish
manner, and he declared it was not true. Witness
sent for his daughter, and upon hearing what Dr.
Godfrey said she burst into tears, and said " You did,
sir." Dr. Godfrey blustered about, and said that
he was a "man of muscle," and he had better
not " cut any capers," and he told him to leave his
house, and as he was going down stairs he " helped
him along with his foot." (Laughter.)
Mrs. Mulford, wife of the last witness, proved
that her daughter told her of the manner in which
she had been treated by Dr. Godfrey the moment
she returned home. In consequence of what her
daughter told her she employed another doctor. A
day or two afterwards Dr. Godfrey came to inquire
why she had not sent for her medicine, and she told
him that it was in consequence of his having acted
indecently to her daughter. When she said this
he became very excited, and witness sent for her
husband.
At this stage of the case the trial was adjourned,
the defendant being allowed to depart upon the
same bail as that to which he had surrendered.

SUICIDE ON A RAILWAY.--Yesterday afternoon,
about two o'clock, a respectably-dressed man, who had been
observed waiting on the platform, near the goods depot of
the Eastern Counties Railway at Brick-lane, suddenly
rushed. on the line when a train was approaching, and was
instantly killed. His body was frightfully mangled.