The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-15 00:00:00

not believe it. She did not say to Mrs. Godfrey
that she wished her niece to learn millinery and

Liressmaking.
Ite-examined—She told Mrs. Godfrey she did not
think it was proper. for her niece to remain in the
house after the r. Godfrey to her
and the other servant.
Harriet Lewis, a married woman, deposed that
she nursed Mrs. Godfrey during her confinement.
She went to his house on the 14th of March, 1858.
Dr. Godfrey came to fetch her in a cab. He had a
young lady with him in the cab. It was 12 o'clock
at night. She did not know this young lady, and
had riot seen her since. Dr. Godfey's coachman
drove her off in his carriage. A young lady, a
sister of Mrs. Godfrey, was staying in his house
while witness was nursing Mrs. Godfrey. Upon one
occasion he came into witness's bedroom, while she
and this young lady were there, with nothing but
his nightgown on, and he danced and capered before
them. The young lady was very much shocked ;
they both remonstrated with him, and he
went out of the room, but returned in a short time
and acted in the same manner, and the young lady
called out to Mrs. Godfrey and requested she would
call him away, and asked whether she had no con-
trol over her husband. Jisfore this occurred Dr.
Godfl-ey complained of a pain in his loins, and she
went into his bedroom to put on a plaster, and he
askedlisca. to undress him, and to pull off his drawers.
She refu.sed to do so and left the room, and he called
to another servant and told her to come in, and
added, " You are the one for me." The witness then
stated that on the first occasion when she accom-
panied Dr. Godfrey to his house in the cab he be-
haved in an indecent manner to her.
Cross-examined—The young lady was in the cab
at the time Dr. Godfrey acted in the way she
described.
Several witnesses were then examined, who
stated that they had for a great many years heard
rumours of the immoral conduct of Dr. Godfrey,
and one of them stated that he had attended upon
his wife, and in consequence of something she told
him relating to Dr. Godfrey he paid him and dis-
missed him, and would not allow him to come into
his house any more. It was also stated that Dr.
Godfrey's conduct to women had been rumoured
for a great many years to be of the most gross and
bestial character.
One of the witnesses who deposed to these facts
was asked by Sergeant Parry, in cross-examination,
whether he had not shaken hands with Dr. Godfrey
since these proceedings had been instituted.
He replied that he saw the doctor one day acci-
dentally, and he admitted that he shook hands with
him, but he denied having had any conversation
with him, and he said he could not have had any
because Dr. Godfrey was busily engaged in conver-
sation with a Scripture reader and tract distributor
at the time. (A laugh.)
Two respectable married ladies were then exa-
mined, and they stated that theyhad also repeatedly
heard rumours of immorality of conduct on the
part of Dr. Godfrey.
This closed the case for the defendant.
Sergeant Parry then called the following wit-
nesses to give evidence in reply to that of the
witnesses for the defendant.
Mrs. Mary Godfrey said—l am the wife of Dr.
Godfrey. I remember the witness Lydia Owchin
coming into our service. I hired her myself, Her
aunt was present at the time. She was only en-
gaged for a short period, until I could procure
another servant. My husband gave her notice to
quit, but 1 was not present when he did so. She
never made any complaint to me of Dr. Godfrey
having miscoaducted himself towards her. When
she left, her aunt gave as a reason for her doing
so that she wished her to learn the dressmaking
business. Mrs. Lewis never complained to me of
any misconduct of my husband, and I never heard
any 'such complaint from my sister. I remember
the girl Harwood being in our service, she left in
consequence of an observation that was made by
my mother as to her appearance. She went away
while I and Dr. Godfrey were out for a ride. When
we returned we asked the reason she had left, and
Owchin gave some answer, but afterwards contra-
dicted herself and said something else.
The Recorder asked Mrs. Godfrey if she recol-
lected what the witness actually said ?
Mrs. Godfrey—At first I think she said she did
not know the reason for Harwood leaving, but
afterwards she said that there was a reason.
Sergeant Ballantine declined to put any ques-
tions to Mrs. Godfrey in cross-examination.
Mrs. Godfrey, upon leaving the witness box, ex-
claimed with great earnestness, " My husband, I
wish to say, is the best of husbands, and not a
word ought to be said against him."
Miss Sophia Gasken, a young lady, apparently
about 18 years old, said that her father and mother
were on intimate terms with Dr. Godfrey, and she
had known him all her life, and was in the habit
of visiting him. She was at his house at the
time Mrs. Godfrey was about to be confined, and
she remembered Dr. Godfrey going out to fetch
the nurse, Harriet Lewis, and he asked her to ac-
company him in the cab, and she did so. It was 12
o'clock at night. They waited some time for the
nurse, and she rode back to the house with her and
Dr. Godfrey, and she did not observe anything im-
proper on the part of Dr. Godfrey and Mrs. Lewis,
and she made no complaint whatever.
Sarah Davey said that, in January, 1858, she was
in the service of Dr. Godfrey, and she remembered
the girl Jane Marshall coming to ask for him. He
was not downstairs at the time, and she left a mes-
sage for him to go and see her mother, and went
away.
Sergeant Ballantine then addressed a few obser-
vations to the jury upon the additional evidence
that had been brought forward in support of the
prosecution, and said that the course that had been
taken by his learned friend had certainly not re•
lieved him from any portion of the pain and diffi-
culty he originally experienced in conducting the
case for the defendant. He could not, of course, tell
"whether it was the original intention of his learned
friend to call the unhappy lady, the wife of the pro-
secutor, but it appeared to him that he felt that the
evidence that had been given on behalf of the de-
fendant had caused the case to take a fatal turn for
Dr. Godfrey, and that there was no alternative but
to call his wife in order to make out that the wit-
nesses for the defendant had been guilty of perjury.
God forbid that he should add a word that could
add to the sorrow and misery of this lady, but he
had no alternative but to ask the jury to look at
the evidence and the demeanour of the witnesses
ilvho had been called for the defence, to the utter
absence of motive on their part for the accusations
they had made, and to say whether they would be
justified in branding with perjury several witnesses
who appeared to be of the utmost respectability,
upon the testimony of a witness who had so near
and dear an interest in the issue of the inquiry as
Mrs,Godfrey undoubtedly had.
,Sergeant Parry made a most powerful address
to the jury in reply upon the whole case. He said
that if language of the most violent kind, appeals
to the Deity, and every. argument of prejudice
that the ingenuity of counsel could devise, could
carry success, every one of these ingredients
had certainly been introduced into the present in-
quiry by his learned friend. With regard to the
complaint that Mrs. Godfrey had not been called,
his learned friend must have known that she could
not be called before. The issue was upon the de-
fendant under the plea of justification, and he was
bound to make out his case ; and, until those who
conducted the prosecution knew what evidence was
brought forward, they were not in a condition to
know what testimony would be required to rebut
it. He then referred to the alleged libel, and urged
that the defendant clearly had no right to repeat
the charge against Dr. Godfrey after the verdict
that had been deliveied by the jury who heard the
case, and that if such a proceeding were to be sane-
tioned no man would be safe,-if, although by the
verdict of a jury of his country he was declared to
be innocent of a crime, and that it was the result of
a foul conspiracy, it could be permitted that the
charge should be repeated and the verdict of the
jury declared to be erroneous. As to this portion of
the libel, therefore, he submitted that' the defendant
had not given any answer, and he trusted he should
be able to satisfy them that the evidenco that had
been adduced in support of the plea of justification
was not worthy of credit. He then reminded the
jury that Dr. Godfrey had gone through the ordeal
of a most searching inquiry in the Court of Com-
mon Pleas upon the trial of the action for seduction,
and the verdict of the jury exquerated him from the
charge that was made against him, and, to a certain
imgihgththhaavvee
extent, declared that it was the result of a conspi-
racy, and that there was no foundation for it. Dr.
Godfrey might
remainedr
ea ted
publication
witht is
verdict, he
contempt, but as it appeared to him, conscious of
rectitude, own his
• and of the absolute falsehood of
the charges that were made t he took
against him,
the course that Nvould be taken ahonest and
by every
honourable man, that f o preferrinc, the present in-
dictment, and boldly challen • "I
challenging the to
prove the truth of the statements made in the article
in question. The learned sergeant then proceeded
to comment at considerabl length upon the
evidence of the witnesses for the defendant,
4n. d he endeavoured to show that the testimony
they had given was unworthy of credit, and that it
had been trumped up for the purpose of dest • loying
Godfrey,
the reputation of Dr. (via he
concluded a
most eloquent speech by. earnestly entreating the
verdict that would have the effect
jury to return a effect
of restoring pr. Godfrey to that position in society
which he enjoyed before the commencement of these
proceedings.
The Recorder then proceeded to sum up the case
with great clearness and impartiality. After calling
the attention of the jury to the nature of the charge,