The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-04 00:00:00

ASSIZE INT.ELLIV2NCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEWES, AUGUST 3.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn and a Special Jury,
GILL V. WRIGHT AND WIFE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recovee damages for slanderous words alleged to
have been spoken of her by the female defendant in
reference to her position as a schoolmistress.
The defendants pleaded a denial of the alleged
slander.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., and
Mr. Hannen were for the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill,
Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., were for the de-
fendants.
This action arose out of some very painful pro-
ceedings that were not inaptly described during
the trial as the Brighton school scandal. It will
be remembered that in the month of January last
a statement appeared in a London weekly news-
paper, headed " A fashionable school—high life
below stairs," in which it was represented four
young ladies, pupils at a fashionable school in
Brighton, had been sent home to their friends in
the family-way, and that a page in the family, 16
years old, was supposed to have been the author of
the mischief, and that he had absconded and the
school had since been broken up. This paragraph
was copied into other London papers, and also into
the Brighton journals, and it, of course, created the
most intense excitement at that time. Various in-
quiries were made with a view to discover whether
there was any foundation for the statement in ques-
tion ; at length the Mayor of Brighton felt it to be his
duty to convene a public meeting of the inabitants to
consider the matter, and resolutions were come to
that the statement in question was proved to be an
utter fabrication, and to have no foundation what-
ever. The newspapers that had published the
statement also contradicted it, and apologised for
having inserted it. The plaintiff in the present
action, Miss Georgiana Gill, is the proprietress of a
highly respectable school at Brighton, and she
brought the present action against the defendants
on account of Mrs. Wright, as she alleged, having
made a representation to a lady named Holloway,
the wife of a clergyman, who also keeps a school at
Brighton, that the paragraph in question related
to her school, and that she knew of one young lady
having gone home who had not returned to the
school after the Christmas holidays in consequence
of her condition of health. The defendant, Mr.
Wright, is a dancing-master at Brighton, and he
had been in the habit of instructing the young
ladies at Miss Gill's establishment, but it seemed
that last September he was discharged by that lady
on occount of several of her pupils' parents express-
ing a wish that a French mistress should be en-
gaged to teach dancing to the pupils, and it was
suggested that the slanderous statements had been
raked up, after the falsehood of the original publi-
cation was made ms n ifest, out of a revengeful feel-
ing on account of the dismissal of the defendant
from his position as dancing-master, with a view
to injure the plaintiff. The alleged slanderous
words imputed to the female defendant were that
in the course of a conversation that took place be-
tween her and Mrs. Holloway upon the subject of
the school scandal, she stated that the transaction
occurred at a school out west, not a hundred miles
from Brunswick-square, and that all fingers pointed
at Miss Gill's establishment, and that she knew of
one young lady who had not gone back to the
school on account of the state of her health. She
was also represented to have said that she was not
sorry for Miss Gill, as she had behaved very ill to
her husband, and had become very high-minded,
and it was a judgment upon her.
Mrs. Holloway, the principol witness in sup-
port of the plaintiff's case, was examined, and

;he deposed to Mrs. Wright having made the
statements above mentioned to her, and she proved
the time when they were made as being sub-
sequent to the public meeting, when the original
statement was proved to have been an entire fabri-
cation.

Upon being cross-examined Mrs. Holloway would
not state positively that she had not been charged
with having very much exaggerated w*lat Wright
had said to her, and it also appeared that Miss Gill
had threatened to bring an action against herself
and her husband if she did not write down what
had been said by Mrs. Wright. She also said that
Miss Gill was very much excited upon the subject
of her establishment being pointed out as the one
where these disgraceful transactions had occurred,
and that she was like a " chained lion," ready to
bring an action against anybody. After she had
given up Mrs. Wright as the author of the scandal
that lady accompanied her to Miss Gill's, and she
then denied having made some of the statements
that were imputed to her, and aiso expressed her
sorrow and regret that the transaction should have
been supposed to have taken place at Miss Gill's
school.

At th:s stage of the case the learned judge sug-
gested that it had proceeded quite far enough to set
all the parties right in the estimation of the public.
It was admitted that there was not the slightest
shadow of foundation for the suggestion that had
been made, and if the defendants apologised for
having rashly made the statement in question, it
appeared to him that the trial might at once come
to an end.

The suggestion of the learned judge was not,
however, acceded to, and the case proceeded.
Miss Gill, the plaintiff, was examined, and she
stated that she had kept the school for 14 years and
Mr. Wright acted as dancing master to the young
ladies until last Michaelmas, when she dismissed
him, and engaged a French lady, named Madame
Michet, in his place. She said that upon receiving
a communication from Mrs. Holloway she called on
Mrs. Wright, and asked her to give up her autho-
rity for the statements she had made to that lady.
She denied having made some of the statements im-
puted to her, rnd with regard to others she said,
that if she had to give up her authority she should
say " all Brighton," for the matter was talked of in
every quarter. The plaintiffadmitted that when Mrs.
Wright came to her house in company with Mrs.
Holloway she expressly denied in her presence
having made several of the statements that she
imputed to her, and she also said that she was very
sorry for the reports that had got into circulation
respecting Mrs. Gill.
In cross-examination Miss Gill said that she first
heard of the scandalous rumours that were in cir-
culation in January, and she was also aware that
her school and several others were mentioned in
the town, but so long as the accusations were ge-
neral she said she treated the matter with contempt,
and it was not until she heard that her school had
been specially alluded to that she took any steps to
discover the author of the calumnious report.
Mr. Bovill, in his address to the jury, for the
defendant, and it appeared to him that the plaintiff
had been very ill-advised in bringing this action,
and in again bringing forward such painful mat-
' ters, when it was clear that it had been established
that there was no foundation for the statement that
had been made originally, and not the slightest im-
putation had been cast upon the pLiintiff's esta-
blishment. He then urged that the evidence of
Mrs. Holloway could not be taken as strictly accu-
rate, and that there could be no doubt that the con-
versation which she represented to have taken
place in February actually occurred in January,
when it was admitted the rumour was in every-
body's mouth, and he said he should show that was
actually said by Mrs. Wright differed very mate-
rially from the interpretation put upon it by Mrs.
Holloway.

Mrs. Wright, the defendant, was examined, and
she stated that she had certainly had some con-
versation with Mrs. Holloway upon the subject
of the " school scandal," but in the first instance
she was unwilling to say anything upon such a
disagreeable matter, and only did so upon being
pressed by that lady. She said, however, that she
merely mentioned what was the general topic of
conversation in the town, among all circles, and
denied positively having made many of the state-
ments deposed to by Mrs. Holloway in her evidence.
A young lady named Churchman, the niece of
Mrs. Wright, was also examined, and she confirmed
her evidence in several particulars.
Mr. Justice Blackburn, in summing up the case,
said that there was one matter for congratulation in
connection with this inquiry, which was that it
now appeared to be admitted on all hands that there
was not the slightest foundation for the very seri-
ous charge that was originally made. The only
question for the jury, however, was whether it was
made out to their satisfaction that the female de-
fendant had made use of the slanderous language
that was imputed to her, and upon that point the
evidence of the defendant and that of Mrs. Hollo-
way was directly contradictory, and they would
have to say which story was most entitled to credit.
The jury, aftet a short deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £25.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DERBY, AUG. 3.
(Before Chief Justice Erle.)
CRESSWELL AND °TILERS V. JACKSON AND OTHERS.
plratleVhlLedL
EpXaTrlic
eAIO R
waD I NdsAeußs
yesterdayour
wit-
nesses were calledin;
case, and Mr. Macaulay having replied upon the
whole case,
The learned Judge summed up. The simple ques-
tion which the jury would have to decide w
ther the codicils were those of the testatoars., wThhee
case was of considerable importance in
:Loney, and also to the character and futurepo point
tntoef-
rests of a number of gentlemen who were connected
th
en
certainly it. If the jury found for the defendantsn
certainly forgery had been committed, perjury had
been committed, and a conspiracy entered into
against a great n-amt,er of people. His lordship
having commented on the evidence at some length,