The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-26 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLLA S.

CRIM. CON.—BIRCH V. NEELE.
(Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.)
Cross-examined by Sir F. PoLLoca.—Told Mr. Birch at
the first meeting that she believed Mr. Neele was in her mis-
tress's room. Her master would not believe it. Witness said
that she was sure that she had heard her mistress's door shut,
but did not recollect that she had said it was bolted. Did not
say that clean sheets had been put on the bed, as herself and
fellow servant wished to say as little as possible. Had
said that she had seen a kindness on the part of Mr. Neele
which was not right. That he came often when Mr. Birch
was not at home. Had never said that she had seen Mr. Neele
cross over to her mistress's room. Had said that she was sure
Mr. Neele was in her mistress's room, though her mistress po-
sitively denied it. Had no reason for saying she was sure of
that, except the door being shut. Mr. Birch asked witness
why she was sure her mistress was with Mr. Neele, but did
not recollect what answer she gave. Did not recollect
any thing else that passed between them. Her mis-
tress and the witness had had a few words. Witness
said that she was uncomfortable. Her mistress asked her what
she was uncomfortable about ? The same night her mistress
told the circumstance to Mr. Birch, and witness and her fel-
low-servant were called into the parlour before her and Mr.
Birch, to explain the reason of her being uncomfortable.
Another meeting took place either in December or Ja-
nuary. Mr. Neele then said that she had told the
master that he had been in their mistress' room, which
he most positively denied,—and, upon witness attempting
to speak, she was prevented from doing so. Mr. Neele gene-
rally dined at her masters' on Sunday, and lunched generally
once or twice a week. Her master was sometimes at home
on those occasions, and sometimes not ; but he was not aware
how long he stopped. Mr. Neele had slept at the house since
July, when her master and mistress were absent. Mrs. Birch
left the Rectory in November. Mr. Neele was very popular,
very regular in his attendance upon the Church, very attentive
to the poor, and was thought very highly of.
Re-examined by Mr. PLATT—Witness told her mistress she
was uncomfortable. Her master, who was present, asked the
reason, when witness said her mistress knew the reason.
To which her mistress replied, she might tell her master all
about it, as she could fight her own battles. Witness
said she would not, as she did not wish to make them
uncomfortable ; the mistress insisted that she would tell all
she knew before she left the room. Witness said she would
not, unless her fellow-servant was present. Both Mr. Birch
and Mr. Neele assisted in administering the Sacrament.
Mary Blowes, who was examined by Mr. BROWN, corrobo-
rated the statements of last witness. Had left the Rectory
about seven months, and had been living with Mrs. Birch at I
Holloway.
On cross-examination by Sir F. Pou.oex, the witness stated
that one of the children was sometimes with Mr. Birch, and
at other times with Mrs. Birch. Had told Mr. Birch that
she had suspicions with respect to her mistress and Mr. Neck.
Re-exaramed by Mr. PLATT—Had conversed with Mr.
Birch upon the subject only once, when Mr. Neele was not
~,resent. Had always stated the same account.
Mr. John Williams resided at Hackney. Was a clerk in
t.c. Bank of England. Knew Mr. and Mrs. Birch before
they were married. Before residing at the Rectory Mr.
Birch lived at Mr. Lushington's. Mr. Birch was married
Mrs. B. in about fifteen months afterwards. They appeared
to live 011 terms of affection with each other up to 1833, when
Mr. Birch appeared in a distressed state of mind, and requested
itness to call upon Mi , Neele ; he did so, when that gentleman
sated he was guiltless of any criminality, for Mrs. Birch had
come to his bed room, and he felt surprised at finding a person in
bed; when he found it was Mrs. Birch he clasped her to his
bosom, but recollecting himself he jumped out of bed, and begged
of her to have the ro-,m. Witness urged him to leave the pa-
rish immediately. He afterwards called at witness's house,
where he was received coolly, and stayed only a few minutes.
Upon leaving, witness accompanied him to the door, when he
stated that he felt hurt at being received coldly by Mrs.
Williams. Witness said he could not be surprised at that,
for Mrs. Williams had only that day heard of the reports
in circulation. He asked witness what he would advise him
to do, when witness said he could give him no other advice
than to leave the parish, to which he made no reply.
Cross-examined by Sir F. PoLLoe lc—Witness called upon Mr.
Neele, in consequence of the ill feelings that seemed to exist be-
tween him and Mr. Birch. Witness did not know the cause of
the difference, but he advised him, if he could not agree with
Mr. Birch, to leave the parish. At another time, when witness
urged Mr. Neele to leave the parish, he said he could not do
so without having the whole matter enquired into, or it would
be a confession of guilt on his part. Witness had no commis-
sion from Mr. Birch to endeavour to persuade him to leave the
parish. Believed Mr. Neele made it a point of honour to stay in
the parish.
George Holland, examined by Mr. BROWN—Was a butcher,
residing at Lower-road, Islington. In August last assisted in
getting a female out of the New River. His father was with
him. Took her to Mr. Smith's, the nurseryman.

George Smith, a nurseryman, saw Mrs. Birch after
she was taken out of the water, inquired who she
was, and whom she wished sent for? She gate witness
the name of Mr. Neele, for whom he sent to Shackel-
well. When he came, he was much agitated, and told witness
he was surprised she had done it, for she had a most indulgent
husband, and had everything she wished for in the world. Mr.
Neele stated to witness when he first received his note, that he
thought it was some person requiring spiritual consolation.
After some time he told witness it was no use disguising it,
and told him all, the parties begging him to keep it a se
cret. Mr. Neele had an interview with Mrs. Birch, after
which he fetched Mr. Birch, who appeared dreadfully affected.
Mr. Neele said that she had not suffered enough to prevent her
from committing a like offence. He called a witness on one
side, and asked him particularly whether he thought she meant
to drown herself, or it was only pretence.
Cross-examined by Sir F. Poeeocx.—Mr. Neele came
alone about six or seven o'clock. Mr. Birch and Mrs. Birch's
sister came in about an hour afterwards. Could not say how
they went away, as he had gone to bed. His servant and
daughter attended Mrs. Birch.
Several letters were put in and read, and this closed the
case on the part of the plaintiff.
Sir F. PoLLocx then addressed the Jury on behalf of the
defendant. It was no question for the Jury whether Mr. and
Mrs. Birch lived happily together, or whether Mr. Birch
was a fond and indulgent husband. Not a syllable had been
said against that; indeed the defendant himself admitted it.
Mr. Neele had pleaded not guilty, and he, as his advocate, un-
dertook to satisfy the Jury, that under the circumstances of the
case, it would be against all justice to find him guilty. If, as
had been stated, the union of Mr. and Mrs. Birch was
blessed with the approbation of both families, was it not singu-
har that no witness had been called who was a relation to any
of the parties ? He was at a loss to know why, when Mr. and
Mrs. Birch separated in November, their household was divided ;
in common one servant living with Mr. Birch fora certain period,
and then going to reside with Mrs. Birch, one child residing
with its mother, and after a certain period going to live with
its father and strange to say the two servants, the one residing
with Mrs. Birch, and the other with Mr. Birch, were the only
two witnesses to prove this singular case. It was singular
also, if Mrs. Birch had been guilty of that with which she was
charged, that Mr. Birch allowed their children alternately to re-
side with their degraded mother. All that was important to Mr.
Neele was whether the verdict was for the plaintiff or the de-
fendant, as it would drive him from the honourable profession
of which he was a member, and would send him forth a vaga-
bond without friends on the face of the earth. The amount of
damages was not what Mr. Neele dreaded—he feared the loss
of that which was more valuable, namely, the loss of his cha-
racter and station in life.

The Learned Counsel having concluded his address to the
jury on behalf of the defendant, the Lord Chief Justice
briefly summed up the evidence, and said the case was purely
for the consideration of a Jury ; but he trusted they would, in
their quantum of damages, be governed by a dispassionate
consideration. _ _

The Jury retired for about 20 minutes, and then returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 2001.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER

WRIGHT V. WOODGATE.

This was an action for libel. The damages were laid
at 5001.

Sir F. Pommel:. stated that
.the plaintiff in this case was
a young man, who, being entitled to a sum of 5001. per
annum, and a minor, was made a ward in Chancery. Ele
wished to marry before he was of age, and he instructed his
solicitors (the defendants) to make the necessary applications
to the Court. Shortly after his marriage he was displeased
with the manner in which they were conducting the cause,
and wished
,to put it into other hands ; upon which, they
addressed a letter to a Mr. Byrom, a solicitor, who had
been appointed as the next friend of the plaintiff, which
contained the alleged libels. After stating the particulars
of the cause, the defendant went on to say, " He (plaintiff )
was apprenticed a short time ago to a very respectable sur-
veyor, but his master gave him up his indentures, as he was
found to be worse than useless in the office. He was put un-
der terms by the Court of Chancery, to make a settlement
upon his wife when he comes of age. We told him that we
must see that done ; that the Court required us to do so, which
makes him anxious to get some other solicitor, in order to
avoid making any such settlement. These libels were imme-
diately sent to Mr. Jackson, the father.in-law of the plaintiff.
Nothing could be more annoying, nor might lead to such do-
mestic calamity, as such unfounded calumnies. He trusted the
Jury would give exemplary damages, and teach these solicitors
to carry on their business properly.
Mr. Byrom, a solicitor, residing at Liverpool, received a
letter signed " Currie, Horn, and Woodgate," which he had
copied, and sent to Mr. Jackson, the father-in-law of the
plaintiff.
Cross-examined--Had known the defendant for eight or
ten years, as an extremely respectable firm, with a large prac-
tice in Chancery.
Re-examined—He was appointed as next friend to the plain-
tiff in the suit in Chancery on the death of his master, who
formerly had the conduct of the cause. When he came into
the cause he found the defendants the London agents and legit
them retain it. The letter did not alter his opin,on of Mr.
Wright in any degree.
\lr. EAGLE for the defendant submitted that the declaration
h;d not been Droved, end ti tt the defon,Ldit wit; (.:'•
ul,ll for any trelenee.
Tbe CouaT overruled the objection. . .

Mr. EARLE then submitted that the communic.r.tion was a
ed otle, 4r., it was made to Byrom, who was the client
of the'detenciant—tlyrom being the party to whom they were
,0 look. for their costs, _ _ .

FES LORDSIIIF saved the point. He thought the whole of

THE STTN, LONDON, FRTDAY, JTTNE 26, 1P35

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Je2VR 25.

ie letter was a privileged communication, except that part
of it relative to the apprenticeship.
Mr. EARLE then addressed the Jury. He contended that,
taking all the circumstances in the case into consideration,
the letter was no libel, and that the defendants only did that
which it was imperative upon them to do in the course of
their duty.
After a consultation between Counsel, in consequence of
a remark made by the Judge, the plaintiff was nonsuited, and
leave given him to move the Court above.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at half-past three o'clock.
On the motion of Sir M. S. STEWART, the Gourock
Harbour Bill was read a third time and passed.
The East India Dock Bill was read a third time and passed,
on the motion of Mr. Clay.
Major BERKELEY presented a petition from the owners of
flys and vans, complaining of the duties upon their carriages.

DORCHESTER LABOURERS.
Mr. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets,
and Mr. AGLIONBY presented one from a place, the name of which
we could not catch, praying that a pardon might be granted
to the Dorchester labourers, on the ground that the Act un-
der which they were convicted was passed for quite a different
offence to that of %%Lich they were guilty.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition to the same effect from
Leeds.
Mr. POWER presented a like petition, but from what place
could Tv be hoard, owing to the low tone in which the Hon.
Member spoke.
TIMBER DUTIES.

Lord SANDON presented a petition from the ship-owners
and burgesses of Liverpool against any alteration in the duties
in foreign timber.
THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION.

The NOBLR Loan also presented a petition, signed by 2,500
persons, against certain parts of the Municipal Corporation Re-
form Bill, which are calculated to deprive them of many privi-
leges which they had hitherto enjoyed, and which, as freemen,
they consider themselves entitled to retain. Also one from the
Corporation of Liverpool, stating the manner in which the said
Bill was likely to injure the various local interests and public
bodies of the town of Liverpool. The petitioners did not express
any opposition to the general principle of the Bill, but they con-
ceived that their rights ought to be respected.
Mr. E WAR T would not contradict the allegations, or op-
pose the prayer of the petition, but he trusted that the House
would act in a manner consistent with its sense of public duty,
and in accordance with the universal opinion of the country.
NEW MEMBER FOR CARLOW.

Mr. Sheriff RAPHAEL, who was introduced by Mr. O'Con-
nel and the O'Connor Don, took the oaths and his seat as
Member for the County of Carlow.
Lord SANDON resumed, and said that in reference to the
last petition from the Corporation of Liverpool, it prayed that
the House would provide securely for the payment of the
debts due by the Corporation, and that a sinking fund should
be provided out of the Corporation funds, before they were ap-
plied to other public purposes. They also represented
that there had been contracts for the improvement of the
town to a large amount, and as a security for these debts
they prayed that these contracts should be confirmed by the
provisions of the Act. They also prayed that the House
would provide for existing interests and inchoate rights. There
were many circumstances connected with the Ecclesiastical
establishment, which, as they would come before the House
in another shape, he would not make any observations upon.
There must be some provision made not only for the interests
of existing clergymen, who had accepted their situations upon
the faith of the continuance of a certain income, but a permanent
provision must be made to secure the services of future clergy-
men. There were other points on which it was necessary that
some legislation should take place, either by a separate Bill,
or by a clause in the Municipal Corporations Bill. It did
not appear to him which course would be the most convenient.
They also represented the state in which this Bill would place
the vast dock estates of Liverpool. By certain trusts a Com-
mittee was constituted of 21 persons in number, of whore 13
were numbers of the Corporation, elected for 9 years. This
provision would be inconsistent with the Bill before the House,
and unless some provision were made, the Dock estate would be
thrown into a state of great confusion. There were various
other parts of the Act inconsistent with the Corporation as it
at present existed, but he would not enter into it at present,
but would content himself with moving that the petition do lie
upon the table, and he called upon Hon. Members and the
Government, when it was printed, to give that attention to it
which the interests of so great a body so imperatively called for.
Mr. E WART said that many of the statements in that pe-
tition were very objectionable ; and if there were no other
ground for opposing its prayer, it might be found in the
discussion which took place in that House last night, when
it had been stated that a merchant of Liverpool had been
charged 1,4001. in one year, merely because he was not a
freeman of the town.—( Hear.) He regretted that the peti-
tion should contain a request to embody the provisions of a
local Act in the general Corporation Reform Bill.
Lord SANDON explained. The petitioners merely prayed
that a certain provision of that Act would be embodied in the
Bill.

Mr. EWART hoped the House would not sanction the
introduction of any particular provision for paying the clergy
totally and uncontrollably out of the funds of the Corpora-
tion.—(Cries of Hear, hear.) He hoped the House would
not interfere with the wholesome controul which existed
under the present system of voluntary payment, by the insertion
of any specific enactment. He would not enter further into
the subject at present, as he felt that this was not the propor
time. But so far as he could, he would prevent any attempt
to fix permanently upon the funds of the Corporation the pay-
ment of the Clergy, which had been previously voluntary.
Mr. THORNLE Y said a good deal of remark had been
made upon the risk of the bondholders. It was true the Cor-
poration owed a debt of 800,000/., but they had an income of
100,000/. per annum. The Dock Company owed a debt
of 1,400,0001., but they had an income of 200,0001.
There was not, therefore, so much risk to the holders of the
Bonds as had been imagined. He would support the Bill for
effecting a Reform in the Corporation of Liverpool with all
his heart.

Mr, BAINES thought that with an income of 100,0001. a-
year the Corporation should have been able to provide very
good accommodation. When the Noble Lord spoke of
them in terms of eulogium for having done this, he was only
saying what was just and true, and it proved that they had
applied these funds judiciously. He begged to ask the Noble
Lord a question with respect to the peculiar position in which
the clergy of that town were placed. When the subject had
been previously before the House, it was stated that certain
corporate funds were applicable to the payment of the clergy.
Now the question he wished to ask was, whether these funds
could not be applied to the support of the clergy, without having
recourse to the funds of the Corporation ? He thought that
would be an arrangement to which no possible objection could
be made.

Lord SANDON said it was a very difficult legal question
—he had no doubt the Clergy had an undoubted claim upon
the property in question—which was not much. Lately the
Churchwardens had petitioned to have the poor rates drawn
out of the Corporation funds.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said he must bear testimony to the fact,
that the money collected by the Corporation of Liverpool was
laid out in a very splendid, ornamental, and certainly very
useful manner; but it was a heavy tax upon the trade and
commerce of the country, and notwithstanding all the splen-
dour and taste with which it was spent, he could not
allow that those ships which did not receive any benefit from the
docks should be obliged to pay for them.
The petition was then laid on the table.
Mr. CAVEND IS H presented a petition from the innkeepers
of a place in East Sussex, praying for the better observance of
the Lord's Day.
Mr. WILK S presented a petition from a congregation in
Bristol, complaining of the vast number of beer-houses which
were licensed.

Mr. O'CONNELL said it would have been better had the
petitioners complained of the Clubs, and the drinking of
champagne.---( Laughter. )
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from Rutherglen re-
lative to the Imprisonment for Debt and arrest of wages in
Scotland.

Colonel WESTENRA presented a petition from Tulla-
more, praying for the abolition of Tithes.
Mr. FITZSIMON cordially aupported the prayer of the
petition.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from the mill-
owners of Keswick, praying for an alteration in the Factory
Bill.