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

SUIT FOR BREACH OF PROMISE

IN ST. LOUIS.

A breach of promise case of a very interesting
character has just been concluded in St. Louis, in
which the plaintiff recovered the unprecedented
sum in damages of 100,000 dols. The plaintiff is a
New York lady—Miss Effie C. Carstang, a daughter
of the Rev. Gideon 'Carstang, for many years a
Methodist preacher in this city and Brooklyn. The
lady, who is botween 25 and 30 years old, it appears,
removed to St. Louis some years ago, where she
resided with her aunt and sister. Here she made
the acquaintance of a very wealthy gentleman
of about 65, named Henry Shaw, who paid her very
marked attentions for two years, and finally pro-
posed for her in marriage, and was accepted. For
some reason or other, however, he changed his
mind and broke off the engagement, whereupon
she brought a suit against him for 10,000 dols.
damages ; but subsequently, by the advice of her
counsel, laid the damages at 100,000 dols., the
entire amount of which the jury thought she was
entitled to upon hearing the evidence. The de-
fendant put in as a plea the character of Miss
Carstang, which he alleged had been bad during a
previous residence in Charleston, S.C., and more
recently in St. Louis, but he failed to sustain the
allegation by the testimony. He also offered a
letter of the plaintiff's written to him in the
spring of 1858, which he claimed was a release
from his promise to marry. The Court would not
receive the letter in evidence ; therefore it made no
part of the proceedings ; but as it details a perfect
history of the courtship and conduct of Mr. Shaw,
we give it here:—

LITTER OF MISS CARSTANG TO MR. SHAW.
" When I last saw you I said that I would see you again
to write to you, but delayed doing either, as I hoped your
own sense of right would lead you to seek an interview with
me. I write to you now, not because it is a pleasz.nt task,
nor do I do it to annoy you, for I believe I am so constituted
that it is my disposition always to heal rather than wound ;
but, at the same time, I consider myself, under all circum-
stances, as bound to protect and defend my own person,
honour, and reputation, let who will suffer. I write now to
remind you that by your attentions the last two years to
me, and our engagement, and your subsequent desertion of
me, you have attacked and compromised all three. It is
unnecessary for me to say that I am much put out and dis-
satisfied, though perhaps you think I ought to have had
better sense than to have believed you. It is over two
yea:s since you sought my acquaintance and requested per-
mission to visit me, and offered me references as to your
character and position, and very soon after came your
proposal to marry. You said your wealth and business did
not answer for company ; you were very lonesome; that your
mother was too old to live with you ; that your single sister
would probably die, even before your mother, and Mrs.
Morisse had her husband for company. After delaying some
time to test the sincerity.of your offers, becoming satisfied
that you really desired me for your wife, I accepted you,
and from that time you were a constant visitor. You sent
me flowers and fruit, and made me presents from time
to time, and frequently invited me to ride, and seemed to
desire that our relation should be made public. You invited
me to meet friends at your house in the city, and to ride out
to your country seat. you sent me a piano, and desired
that I should employe telcher. You told sister that you were
gqing to take me away, and finally named the time when
we would marry, and I madepreparations forthe same. The
time arrived and you postponed it on account of your desire
to perfect your arrangements in relation to the botanical
garden. You removed the piano to your own house under
the pretenee that you desired it on account of a musical
party to be held there. Finally you cease to visit me, and
when I become solicitous for fear you are ill, and call at
your house, you insult me with a proposition which any
true woman would reject. During our engagement I have
avoided general society, and declined the attentions of
others, and have endeavoured to please you in every way.
Your attentions have been remarked by many, and I amnow subjected to all the unhappiness and mortification
arising from your desertion of me. Had you called on me
treatment,
reasonabyloeueicfrocusmetfhisor
this
to release
en-
gagement, and assigned no reason, I trust I should have
simply asked
ekreedd
m anye
a
and offered
o r gentleman,si ly
had too much pride not to have complied at once ; but your
I desertion, as it is, deserves whatever punishment the opi-
nion of a just public may visit upon its author, and you
may rest assured that if my counsel so advises, such repa-
ration shall be demanded of you as our laws grant to my
sex under the circumstances.

E. C. CARSTANG."
It was proved on the trial Eby the testimony of
one of the assessors that Mr. Shaw owned property
to the amount of a million and a half of dollars, and
this fact, no doubt, influenced the jury materially
in making up their verdict.

The banking-house of Messrs. Fuller and Co., of
Moorgate-street, is to amalgamate at the end of the present
month with that of Messrs. Sapte, Banbury, and Co., of
Lombard-street, Mr. Sapte retires in consequence of his
advanced years, and Mr. William W. Fuller from ill-
health. Mr. George Arthur Fuller will remain, and the
firm is henceforth to be Fuller, Banbury, Nix, and Mathie-
son, and will be conducted at 77, Lombard -street.
A special meeting of the Mediterranean Exten-
sion Telegraph Company is called for the 21st inst., " for
the purpose of considering the present position and future
prospects of the company, and also for taking into conside-
ration a concession obtained by the company from the
Neapolitan Government for uniting Malta with Sicily, and
the arrangement which her Majesty's Government has
assented to with respect to such line, and of determining
upon the expediency or otherwise of constructing the same,
and upon the best means to be adopted for raising the
1 necessary capital for this and other purposes of the com-
pany." The Malta and Sicily cable will cost about
£lO,OOO, and will involve no increase in the standing
texe-
penses, since the Sicily end will be taken chargte
theof by the
Neapolitan Government, whilst the
terminus will be performed by the
is n now out of
company's Malta and Cagliari line, which
that the
order. The British Government have consented
subsidy of £7,200 per annum clerksBi
Ceellalyed on the
old
to apply equally to the Malta and nn!icillyfolirenee when the betheh
one does not work.
hC m y bet
be laid by the SubmarinehaTeeegrap 0
made considerable pr grween
Folkestone and Boulogne The manufacture of thelcable which is about to
erties —streng-t- and lira i i
1-. d lii'l India.
—being con-
structed prop
unusual thickness, as may be gat erect from the
structed of .
This cable will present in an eminent degree thoseu.
• unity from the effects of such accidents as the
factthat its weight is 10 tons to the mile. The object is to
secure immunity
dragging of a ship'? anchor, which upon at least one occasion
caused the suspension of telegraphic communication on the
Dover and Calais route. lis point of " insulation," a vast
using a double
composition. A
cgoaainti
ngis
osft a tgEudttato
pberechaderianvedd tpharteounfh
soft bed for the iron wires is provided in the shape of hemp
well saturated in Stockholm tar. When this cable is laid,
the facilities for communicating between London and Paris
will be greatly increased , for the existing cable between
Dover and Calais consists of only four wires whereas the
new one between Folkestone and Boulogne will consist of
six wires—making ten in all. It is hoped that with the
change of Ministry the obstacles which, strangely enough,
have been thrown in the way of this important commercial
work will be obviated. With the exception of about forty
miles, the same company's cable destined to connect Nor-
folk with Tonning, in Denmark, is now manufactured.
When completed, it will be coiled on board the steamer
William Cory, now lying in the Thames, and the work of
submersion will commence.
SHOCKING HOMICIDE.—On Saturday evening'
several men were occupiid on a farm in the parish of Wool-
hope, between Hereford and Ledbury, in hosing beans and
potatoes. Among these persons was a young man of weak
intellect, named George Bull. Some altercation
took
kfillleien
between the parties, when words came to blows,
The assailed
idiot, excited into a state of frenzy, rushed at a felloe
man and struck furiously at him with a hoe. y anwork-
th' e blows as
retreated towards the hedgerow, warding.
off the
considerable
well as he could, though-not-without re
blowX he severed one of the
down his opponent, and with a
injury. The idiot still did not relax
then finding that he had to
ears from his head. The his endeavours to cut
a ' his brains about'
the
struck the idiot on the head, scatteringhim of
feet, and of course instantly depriving of
ground at his
fight for his life, seizedlarge_ stake, out of the hedge and
have not thought proper to apprehend him.
life. The man is himself so much injured that the police

RAILWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN.

Captain C. E. Mangles, M.P., the chairman of
this company, has addressed a long letter to the •
shareholders, giving the particulars of the dispute
respecting the Portsmouth line and traffic between
his company and the London, Brighton, and South-
Coast Railway Company, or rather between the
boards of the two companies. Several pages of
the printed letter are occupied with explanations
and corrections of the published statements and
assertions of Mr. Schuster, the chairman of the
Brighton Company, as to the matters in dispute.
With regard to one of those statements, Captain
Mangles informs the shareholders that " the South-
Western Railway Company had been exclu-
sively in possession of the traffic of Portsmouth
and the Isle of Wight, through Gosport, for
a considerable period before the Brighton Com-
pany had any concern with either ; that the South
Western Company had been first also, in 1838, to
propose the making of a railway to Portsmouth
itself; had also in 1845 been tho promoters of a
direct line by Godalming and Chichester to Ports-
mouth, and were, when in 1847 the two companies,
wisely and for their mutual benefit, determined on
the making of but one line between Cosham and
Portsmouth for their joint use, possessed of the
authority of Parliament, and of the means equally
with the Brighton Company, to make such a line to
connect their system with Portsmouth. It would
have been absurd to make two such lines ; and
although the South Western Company might,
pardonably if unwisely, have allowed their annoy-
ance at the Brighton Company's disturbance of the
South Western exclusive hold on Portsmouth to
postpone amicable arrangements with the Brighton
Company, it will, at all events at the present day,
be seen that each company acted with prudence in
the determination it came to. Mr. Schuster
claims that the Brighton Company made conces-
sions to the South Western Company at this time.
I might with justice assert the contrary posi-
tion. The truth is, the Brighton Company were
glad to receive our money for a joint ownership in
the line they were authorized to construct, and we,
forgetting the past, were glad to save the difference
between the sum we paid them and what it would
have cost us to make an independent line. Both
companies were gainers by the transaction, and
when the joint line was completed, and our share
in it conveyed to us and our money paid, each com-
pany was equally entitled to make the best of its
position, and each was wise in agreeing with the
other that their future relations should be relations
of peace. Accordingly, in 1848, an agreement be-
tween the two companies was made, the principles
of which, briefly, were to avoid competition and
to divide (after deduction of an agreed rate for
working expenses) the receipts by the two com-
panies from the traffic between Portsmouth
and the points (London and its neighbourhood)
to which both companies could afford railway
communication in certain proportions, viz., five-
eights to the South Western Company, and
three-eighths to the Brighton Company.
This agreement was made for a perpetuity.
In 1852, after some differences between the com-
panies, a readjustment of relations, at the instance
of the Brighton Company, took place; and, with a
view to the prevention of future jealousies, the new
arrangement embraced also the traffic between Gos-
port and London, and the proportions agreed on
for the future division of the aggregate receipts of
the two companies in respect of London traffic,
after deducting the agreed rate of working ex-
penses, were two-thirds to the South Western
Company and one-third to the Brighton Company."
The arrangement of 1852 was limited to 21 years.
The agreed rate of deduction for working expenses
had been fixed in 1848 at 30 per cent. In 1852 it
was reduced to 15 per cent., the latter rate being
less than the actual expense incurred. The accounts
of the making and the breaking of subsequent
agreements between the two companies are most
unsatisfactory features in the dispute. One
company, it seems, is quite as much to blame as the
other. Professions of friendship and of peace
were undermined by counter schemes of branch
lines into a district of country extending from
40 to 50 miles east and west between the
two companies's lines, which according to their ar-
rangements was not to have railway communica-
tion of any kind without the assent of both
companies. Fortunately for the public interests,
good faith in this respect was broken by both
companies. It appears that the distance from
London to Portsmouth by the Brighton Railway
is 95 miles, and by the South Western 941 miles ;
but by the new Portsmouth line the distance from
London to Portsmouth is 74 miles. The chairman
of the South Western contends that the new
Portsmouth line threatened the property of his
company, and therefore it was their interest to
secure it with a view to prevent further mischief.
The chairman of the Brighton insisted on his com-
pany becoming joint owners of the new Portsmouth
line, 32 miles in length, to which the South
Western Board objected in toto, while they had no
objection to divide the Portsmouth traffic with the
Brighton Company and give them their just share
of it as heretofore. They considered it very bad
policy to allow the latter company to become joint
owners cf a line in their district, and refused such
partnership accordingly. The South -Western
would in this case be working over about 140 miles
for joint purposes, while the Brighton Company
would still be working over about 100 for such pur-
poses ; and the South-Western state. that, while
claiming in division two-thirds only of the net joint
earnings, they would in all probability- carry a
considerably greater proportibn. They invited the
Brighton Board to join them in seeking powers from
Parliament to make the traffic arrangement, what-
ever it might be, binding, but to this proposition
the Brighton Board never replied. It seems to
puzzle the chairman and board of the South-Wes-
tern that Mr. Schuster, chairman of the Brighton,
and his board, should insist on joint ownership or
joint working of a line which he (Mr. Schuster)
described " as a single line of 32 miles, with gra-
dients of 1 in 80 almost all the way," as one
" which the Government would not use for troops,
whom they would always send by one or other of
the level lines," and as one " which would subject
its owners to an expenditure of £50,000 a year
before they could look for profit," &c. The
chairman of the South-Western assures the share-
holders that they have been advised to take the
Portsmouth line, not for its intrinsic merits, but for
protective purposes ; that they have been enabled
to work the Portsmouth line more satisfactorily
than they expected ; that Government had
despatched troops over it, and that there was not
the remotest cause for the alarm that £50,000 a-
,year must be expended before a profit could be
-realised. Captain Mangles, in conclusion, strongly
advises the shareholders to vote in favour of 'the
Portsmouth:Amalgamation Bill, and to carryout
that arrangement. With regard to the Brighton
Company he says, " Let us hold to the
.tone we
have latterly assumed, and continue to , tell the
Brighton Company that the Portsmouth line must
-be exclusively ours. Let us remind them that the
House of Commons has already declared this, and
that the House of Lords will, doubtless, take the
same view of the public interests, and within a
few weeks clinch our ownership. Let us not for
a moment attempt to use this ownership unfairly
against the Brighton Company; but, on the con-
trary, let us go on to obtain, by our pending South-
Western Bill, from Parliament, power to make,
legally, arrangements respecting the London and
Portsmouth traffic, and let us proceed, if the
Brighton Board will, to make just arrangements in
exercise of that power. Prospective arrangements
attempting to define territory cannot be made
legally or even, in my judgment, practically bind-
ing, so long as the action of third parties, who
have opposing or independent interests are (and
they must be) left unrestrained. But the good
sense and good feeling of the respective directions
may, if properly exerted, effect all that is in this
respect needful, and may, I believe, be better relied
on than specific pledges promising a defined course
of action under circumstances which can neither be
foreseen nor defined."

The Railway Companies' Association, at their
meeting on Thursday, unanimously resolved to in-
vite both companies to submit their differences to
them for arbitration.

OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVER-
HAMPTON.
The receipts of this company, including the Stour-
bridge Extension and Stratford-upon-Avon Canals,
for the fortnight ending June 5, have been £9,500,
whilethose for the corresponding fortnight amounted
to £3,731, being at the rate of 39.26 per cent.,
while that for the corresponding fortnight of 1858
amounted to £3,479, or at the rate of 38.79 per
cent. The aggregate receipts for the first 11 fort-
nights and 3 days of the half-year amounted tO
£98,054, as against £81,054 for the corresponding
11 fortnights and 4 days of the previous year,
showing an increase of £17,000. And the aggre-
gate expenses for the first 11 fortnights and 3 days
of the half year amounted to £42,104, being at the
rate of 42 93 per cent., as against £37,876 for the
corresponding 11 fortnights and 4 days
of the pre•
vious year, or at the rate of 46.72 per cent., showin
a decrease of £4,228 is Vie expenses, which, added
to the increase in the receipts, makes a total in-
crease of £21,228 in the net returns as compared
d f 1858.
'with the corresponding perio o

CHANNEL ISLANDS TELEGRAPH
COMPANY.
T:hei.:Arst half-yearly meeting of this company

was held yesterday at the central station, Lothbury
—the Hon. R. Grimston in the chair.
After the transaction of the usual formal busi-
ness the secretary, Mr. Gamble, read the report,
which stated that the sum of £30,000 has been
received on capital account to 31st March last, and
£25,495 expended. The sum of £3,820 has been
invested in the purchase of £4,000 Three per Cent.
Consolidated Annuities, and of the balance the sum
of £5OO has been placed in the hands of the Com-
mercial Bank of Jersey. By the terms of.the Go-
vernment contract (which bears date the 10th of
March last) the Lords of the Treasury undertake
to pay from the date of the completion of the line,
and so long as it shall continue in working order,
the sum of £l,BOO annually, or so much of it as
shall be necessary to make up with the other re-
ceipts of the company, fairly ascertained, including
the charge for Government messages, a dividend of
6 per cent. on the capital employed, not exceeding
£30,000 ; but in no case shall their annual pay-
ment be less than the sum to which the work per-
formed for them by the company would amount if
calculated at the usual tariff rates. The contract
is for 25 years. The line is worked by the Electric
and International Telegraph Company, at its actual
cost to the latter, and by the agreement that com-
pany allows a reduction of one-third of their
charges on all messages passing over their lines to
or from the Channel Islands' line.
The CHAIRMAN said it was not possible to over-
rate the value of the line. It was of great impor-
tance that the Channel Islands should be connected
by a link with France which would open commu-
nication with 26 important towns on the coast of
that country. The price of a' message from this
country to the Channel Islands was ss. It was
three times that slim for a message to any of the
towns on the coast of France. He then related an
instance of a gentleman sending a message from
one of the Channel Islands' stations to St. Main, in
France, having to go a roundabout way of 700
miles, when the real distance was only 30. The
message would have been delivered sooner had it
been sent by a rowing boat, as it had to suffer
many hours of delay, chiefly at Paris. If the
line to the French coast should be decided upon,
it would open a new field for thuir • opera-
tions. It was a matter that concerned the French
people more than the people in the Channel
Islands. Petitions would be got up in the 25 coast
towns mentioned, and be presented to the French
Government asking their sanction to the link be-
tween France and the Channel Islands. This was
a point upon which the prosperity of the company
depended. As there were not a sufficient number of
shareholders present to constitute a legal meeting,
the report was not submitted for adoption, but a
dividend of ss. 6d. per share, being at the rate of 6
per cent. per annum, free of income tax, was de-
clared for the 204 days from the completion of the
line to the 31st of March last. The meeting then
adjourned.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COU.RT.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)

THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF DR. GODFREY

V. WILLIAM NEWTON.

The trial of the above cause was again proceeded
with yesterday morning, at 10 o'clock.
I !Sergeant Parry, Mr. Tindal Atkinson, and Mr.
Poland again appeared for the prosecution. Ser-
geant Ballantine, Mr. Sleigh, and Mr. Giffard,
appeared for the defendant.
The following additional evidenee was given for
the defendant :

Jane Marshall deposed that she was 13 years old,
and lived with her parents at Chelsea. In 1857 she
was living at Stepney, and a child was ill in the
house, which Dr. Godfrey attended, and witness
used to go to fetch medicine from his surgery.
Upon one occasion Dr. Godfrey asked her how old
she was, and she told him 12, and he then said that
she would soon be 15, and then he would teach her
a grand secret. He also told her that he should like
her to nurse his baby when it was born. Witness
took money for the medicine, and Dr. Godfrey gene-
rally gave her a shilling or a sixpence out of it. In
the early part of 1-858 witness's mother was ill and
was confined. Witness went to fetch Dr. Godfrey
at his house in Finsbury-square, and he came into
the room to her, and she told him her mother
required his attendance. He locked the door, and
came up to her and tried to pull her on his knee,
and behaved in a very indecent manner to her. She
struggled, and at last got away from him and went
to the door. Daring the struggle D. Godfrey said
he would not hurt her ; he loved her too much to
do that. After some time he allowed the door to be
opened, and he then said he had tight boots on, and
he wanted her to ride with him in a cab. As they
were going along he offered her two fourpenny
pieces, and also said he was going to have a pic-nic in
the forest, and that Miss Gardner and other young
ladies were going, and he wished her to go with
them. He also promised to make her a present.
Two or three days after her mother was confined
Dr. Godfrey gave her 25., and he also gave her
mother a smelling-bottle, and when she thanked
him for it he said that was not the present he in-
tended to make her.
Cross-examined—Witness's mother was barmaid
to Mr. Gardner, and she was acquainted with Miss
Gardner. She had never been to a dance at Mr.
Gardner's. There was no room for public dancing
at Mr. Gardner's, but occasionally he had a private
party to dance, but witness was not present on any
of these occasions. She was present at the trial of
" Gardner v. Godfrey," but was not called as a
witness. She did not hear Miss Gardner examined,
and was not aware that she made Ilse of the same
expressions alleged to have been made use of by Dr.
Godfrey—that he would not hurt her, and that he
loved her too much to hurt her. Harriet Lewis, the
person whose name had been mentioned in the
course of the trial,was witness's aunt. Witness was
acquainted with a young girl named Caroline
Booth, and also with another girl, named Lavinia
Pratt. The latter was barmaid to Mr. Gardner.
Witness did not go about during the former trial
to get witnesses for Mr. Gardner. Witness had
never been seen by Caroline Booth sitting upon the
steps of Dr. Godfrey's house. She knew Caroline
Booth, and had spoken to her, but she never asked
her to go to Gardner's house with her and have some
beer. She asked Caroline Booth what her name was
by the direction of Mr. Daley, the clerk to Mr.
Gardner's solicitors. She would swear that she did
not ask Caroline Booth to come forward and give
evidence at the trial for Mr. Gardner. She went
to Dr. Godfrey's house two or three times after the
indecent conduct she had described. Her aunt
went into Dr. Godfrey's service after the doctor had
acted in the way described to her.
Sarah Marshall, mother of the last witness,
deposed that she was attended by Dr. Godfrey
in her confinement, in February, 1858, and she
used to send her daughter for medicine. About
the time of her confinement she observed a great
change in her daughter's conduct towards Dr.
Godfrey, and she appeared to avoid him. A day or
two after she was confined Dr. Godfrey gave her a
smelling-bottle for her, daughter, and about the
same she gave witness two shillings and said that
the doctor had given them to her. In consequence
of the manner in which her daughter behaved to
Dr. Godfrey she asked her some questions upon the
subject, and she then made a communication to her.
_ Cross-examined—When Dr. Godfrey gave her
the smelling-bottle he said it was his birthday, and
he wished her daughter to have the bottle in re-
membrance of the day
Lydia °wewas a patient o
ll' l I iID
re.pGoosdedfrethya,st,
ainndAafugteurt,alrBdss7w, she
t
into his service at his request, and she did not see
Mrs. Godfrey until afterwards. She remained in
his service 12 weeks. Another . rpl,r.nGamodefdreyAfnize-
Harwood, was also in his
uently went into the kitchen, anddi
ah
sent: tried to
slapped
opkpiesds
her, and on one occasion when he
his face. (A laugh.) She also usedtno
usmsnodtthnerchhasime
somethingthat i f
mi h e
e could
n
with water to avoid the kissin.% u
her round the kitchen table. (A laugh.) He did
this several times, and once he slid
not have what he wanted by fair_ means he wouldnu te his
fin-,
s
bygfeorult,haautdwtohualtd he
wouldher
off in
a few
put
and she would not know what had been done to
her. Anne Harwood left the house while Dr. God-
frey and his wife were out, and when they came
home the doctor asked why she had left, and she
told him he knew the reason. Upon one occasion
the doctor behaved in a very indecent manner to
her in the kitchen, and the next day slw wrote to
her aunt and communicated what had taken place.
Her aunt came on the following day and She wished
to go away with her then, but at the
request of
Mrs. Godfrey, as she had no servant, she consented
to stay till the following Monday, and then left.
Cross-examined—Dr. Godfrey did not attempt
to kiss her until she had been six or seven weeks
in his service. Witness was not hired as a
regular servant, but merely to oblige Dr. Godfrey,
and she was to have £1 a month. She had for-
merly been in the service of a relative of Mrs. God-
frey. She had no warning to leave Dr. Godfrey's
service. -Witness did not know Mr. Gardner, and
she never saw Mrs. Marshall until the present
trial.

Sarah Cooper deposed that the last witness was
her niece, and she corroborated the statement made
by her relative to her having written to her com-
plaining of the conduct of Dr. Godfrey towards
her. Witness went to the doctor's houne, and was
about to take her niece away immediately, but
Mrs. Godfrey requested her to allow her to remain
for a day or two, as she would be without a servant
altogether if she did so.
Cross-examined—She made a complaint of Dr.
Oodfrey's conduct to Mrs. Godfrey, but she would

not believe it. She did not say to Mrs. Godfrey
that she wished her niece to learn millinery and
dressmaking.
Re-examined—She told Mrs. Godfrey she did not
think it was proper for her niece to remain in the
house after the behaviour of Dr. 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 not 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. Before this occurred Dr.
Godfrey complained of a pain in his loins, and she
went into his bedroom to put on a plaster, and he
asked her to undress him, and to pull off his drawers.
She refused 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 misconducted 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
who 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 delivered by the jury who heard the
case, and that if such a proceeding were to be sanc-
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 evidence 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
tdbeactla rea
of a most searching inquiry in the Court of Com-
mon Pleas upon the trial of the action for seduction,
zind the verdict of the jury exonerated him from the
charge
Godfrey was
tmadehat i
at gwa ianss tt him,he re saunl
td ,otfo
aa certain
extent,
conspi-
racy, and that there was no foundation for it. Dr.
might have remained satisfied with this
verdict, he
might have treated this publication with
contempt, but
as it appeared to him, conscious of
his own rectitude, and of
the absolute falsehood of
the charges that
taken
were made against him, he took
the course that would be by
preferring
honourable man, that ofever ho'nestta nd
in-
dictment, and boldly challenging
the defendantpresen to
prove the truth of the statements
made in the article
in question. The learned sergeant then proceeded
to comment at considerable length upon the
evidence of the witnesses for the defendant,
and 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 destrovincr
Dr. the reputation of he concluded-
Godfrey, and
a
most eloquent speech by earnestly entreating the
effec
t
of to return a verdict that would have the -
of restoring Dr. Godfrey to that position in •
society
which he enjoyed before the commencement of these
proceedings.
The Recorder then proceeded to sum up the ease
with great clearness and impartiality. After calling
the attention of the jury to the nature of the charge,