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

CIWTPAL CRThIINAL COURT.

OLD- COURT.
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF DR. GODFREY

V. WILLIAM NEWTON.

This was an indictment for libel that stood over
from a former session. The defendant pleaded not
guilty generally, and also justification 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. Poland, to conduet thq
prosecution. Sergeant Ballantine, also speciall
retained, with Mr. Sleigh and 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 Whitechapel-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 Tower Hamlets Chronicle,
and the present charge arose out 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 argued that they had come
to a wrong decision, and that the rumours in the
neighbourhood relative to the grossness of character
anti bestiality of conduct of Dr. Godfrey upon other
occasions confirmed the opinion that he was guilty
of the act imputed to him, and it was upon these
allegations that the present indictment was sought
to be supported.
Mr. John Godfrey, the solicitor for the prose-
cution, produced the newspaper containing the
article that was the subject of 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 httd been in practice as
a physician for 22 years, and was married in March,
1857, and he had a child born 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 a verdict 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 lie had a private residence in
Finsbury-square, where he practised as a physician.
He had not -been married before his marriage with
his present wife. He knew a person named Lydia
Owchen; and. he attended upon her as a patient
in August, 1857, 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
Harwood 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 &tiring 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 look 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 wows named Harriet