The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DERBY, AUG. 1.
Nisi Prius Court.—(Before Chief Justice Erie and
a Special Jury.)

CRESSWELL AND OTHERS V. JACKSON AND OTHERS
-EXTRAORDINARY WILL CASE.

Mr. Macaulay, Q.C.,Mr. Mellor, and Mr.
Field, for plantiffs;
Mr. Sergeant Hayes, Mr.
O'Brien, and Mr. Flowers, for the defendants.
Mr. Field opened the pleadings.
Mr. Macaulay stated the plaintiffs' case. The
cause, he said, w as a very serious one, and as far as
the characters of five gentlemen and the pecuniary
interest of many persons were concerned its import-
ance could hardly be exaggerated. The real ques-
tion was the validity of certain codicils to the will
of Mr. George Nuttall, who originally by business
was a land surveyor. Some venty-eight years
ago he settled at Matlock, where his grandfather
resided ; and after a time, though possessed of con-
siderable property, he carried on his business as a
surveyor, and died in 1856, leaving property worth
£2,000 a-year. Towards the latter part of his life
he did not carry on his business as a surveyor, but
was occupied principally with the affairs of the
parish as surveyor of the highways. Mr. Nuttall
was to the fullest extent a man of business, and oc-
casionally made the wills of persons with whom he
was acquainted. Notwithstanding, however, the
fact that his solicitor was also his intimate and per-
sonal friend, to him was maintained that reserve
and privacy which distinguished all Mr. Nuttall's
dealings as far as his own circumstances were con-
cerned, and the only disclosure he made was an un-
true one, when he said he was heavily in debt. To
Mr. Newbold, his professional friend, he gave no
notice of the distribution of his property, but he
often applied to him for skeleton wills, with which
he was supplied. In 1854 Mr. Nuttall's first will
was drawn out in a fluent style of handwriting by
himself, and was executed in the presence of two
of Mr. Newbold's clerks on the sth of September,
1854. Mr. Nuttall was suffering from a tumour on
his back, and from the above date till his death
Mr. Newbold knew nothing more about the distri-
bution of his property than the mere execution of
the will witnessed by his two:clerks. On the Sun-
day, or the Monday, in the week of his death, Mr.
Nuttall was seized with a fit of paralysis, and on
the Friday died. His mother had formerly lived
with him, but being dead, a woman named Cathe-
rine Marsden, who appears to have had numerous
relations, lived with him as his housekeeper, for
many years. The Marsdens, who were cousins ;
Mr. Mellor, living at Brampton ; Mr. John Nuttall,
of London ; the postmistress of Matlock ; Mr. Job
Knowles, of Matlock ; and Mr. Newbold, appeared
to be the only persons who could be said to have
been intimate with him, with the exception of
Mr. Else, one of the plaintiffs. Mr. Else was
married to one of the Marsdens, and he might take
it that the assumption of Mr. Nuttall's preference
for Mr. Else was found expressed in the codicils.
When he was a boy Mr. Nuttall took him up and
taught him accounts, and gradually advanced him
till he made him collector of the highway rates,
and afterwards assistant surveyor for Matlock and
for Darius and no one doubted that Mr. Else
would be largely benefited by Mr. Nuttall's will.
A few days before the 7th of March, 1856, Mr.
Nuttall was seized with the fatal attack from
which he died on the Friday. On the evening of
his death Mr. Newbold was sent for, the object
being to search in the deceased's bedroom for the
will, In the bedroom was a large cupboard, in
which, In a bundle of tithe receipts, was a gummed
envelope, which was found to contain a duplicate
of the will executed in Mr. Newbold's office, and
in the presence of his two clerk. Mr. Robert
Cresswell, Mr. john Marriott, and Mr. John
Nuttall were executors, and the two first-named
were sent for, as they lived In the neighbourhood.
The door of this room was then locked and the
key taken away by Mr. Marriott. In consequence
of a statement made by Mr. Job Knowles a further
search was made in the cupboard on the day of the
funeral, and either Mr. Marriott or Mr. Cresswell
found in a printed book a duplicate of the will exe-
cuted in September, 1854, and on the paper which
enclosed the will were these words," This is my
rigt will," and of that mis-spelling probably more
would be heard in the course of the case, as his
learned friend, Mr. Sergeant Hayes, intended to
object to the validity of the codicils on the ground
of some orthographical mistakes which would be
pointed out. The grounds upon which the codicils
were disputed imputed nothing less than
conspiracy, forgery, and felony against four
attesting witnesses and against other gentle-
men, including the executors and professional ad-
visers. In one of the duplicates would be found an
interlineation giving £lOO a year to Mr. John
Else, and £5O a year to Miss Marsden, and this,
Mr. Newbold's clerks said, had not been shown to
them, and therefore it was without effect. After
the second duplicate had been found, in conse-
quence of Mr. Knowles making a further observa-
tion, another search was made in the cupboard,
but nothing was found. Mr. Else, who afterwards
occupied the house in which Mr. Nuttall had lived,
being out of town, the contents of the cupboard
were sent to Mr. Newbold's office. In the deceased's
bedroom there was a large desk containing some
bundles of papers, which were sent to Mr. Else's
house without his knowledge, by Mr. Newbold.
Till the 21st of April, nothing was known of any
other testatory paper except the two wills; but on
that day Mr. Newbold sent word to Mr. Else to
search among the desk papers for some vouchers,
and as he was doing so he found an envelope gum-
med up, and addressed, in the handwriting of a
gentleman who would be called, to " G. Nuttall,
Esq., Matlock," and when that was opened it was
found to contain a testamentary paper, which would
be called codicil number one, and an epitome of the
will, all in the handwriting of the deceased. The
epitome set forth that the executors were R. Cress-
well, John Marriott, and John Nuttall; and aho
contained a list of 30 persons to whom his red-
duary property was left, with " three fields at
Darley to J. E." They had, then, the remarkable
fact that with the epitome of the will was found
the first codicil, all in the writing of the testator.
Without knowing, what the case for the defendants
would be, lie took leave to say that the codicils 3,
2, and 1 must stand or fall together. In the ori,gi-
nal will of 1854, the testator had left the house of
his occupation to Catherine Marsden for life, and
the remainder to Mr. Nuttall, of Lontleis,
the codicil number one he devised it after
the life of Mr, Nuttall, to Mr, Else. Two
other persons were largely endowed by the
original will ; one of these, a Miss Shelden,
afterwards Mrs. Ashworth, had been in the service
of his mother, and another was a Mrs. Blackshaw,
but upon these legacies were annuities to Mrs. Else
and Mrs. Marsden. The codicil number one was
signed by two of Mr. Nuttall's men servants wno
witnessed it, and who notwithstanding any different
tale they might tell now, had told Mr. Newbold
that they saw Mr. Nuttall sign the paper before
they put their names to it, and they also made an
affidavit to that effect. This was necessary, as in
the attesting clause there was a slight impropriety,
inasmuch as it-did not state that both the attesting

witnesses were present when the testator signed
By these proceedings the men, like most of their
class, having become aware that there was a slight
imperfection in the codicil, entertained an idea that
a large property was dependent on their will and
pleasure, but at this tittle neither of them gave out
any intimation of any irregularity in the attesta-
tion. The names of these two men, who would be
called, were Buxton and Gregory. In June, 1856,
one of them reproached Mr. Else, by telling him
that a gentleman had asiciA him if :0100 would be
of any use to him it' he would say he did not see his •
master sign. Inquiries were made after that gen-
tleman, but he never appeared again. In Isl 7,
Gref;ol7, who was retaine4 iq thte fifyvic* of Mr.
41sg, 014 t 9 Mr. Fllso, ton being present, " It
is very hard we have had nothing for saying we
saw the paper signed." Mr. Else indignantly or-
dered him off the premises, and he had never been
on them since. When Mr, Else return94l AVM turn-
tlW gfc.nind, )AtixOn repeatecl
sgme-
thing h4e what gregory hikd .54414 and then Mr.
Else, believing Chet the two were conspiring
together, took the advice of Mr. Newbold and
the magistrates' clerk, but it was decided not to

prefer a criminal charge against them, and Bux-
ton was also that day discharged from Mr. Else's
service. The importance of this part of tire
case was immense. Two men had clearly signed
the codicil with their own hands, and after-
wards they sought to make money of their know-
ledge. He supposed that Mr. Hayes would not
contend that these men did not sign in the presence
of Mr. Nuttal, or that they signed it at Mr. Else's
dictation, but there could be no other objection to,
it. By this time Mr. Else had become the surveyor
of highways for Matlock, and wanting a bodk
which it was known Mr. Nuttall had possessed,
search was made for it among those conveyed to
Mr. Newbold's office. After some trouble the book
was found, and on being opened by Mr. Newbold,
jun., was found to contain a paper pinned inside
and endorsed " codicil number two." The proper
steps were taken to have this opened in the pre-
sence of the executors, and then it was found to be
attested by Mr. Job nowles and Mr. Adams, a
surgeon of many years' standing in Matlock. The
codicil No. 2 was dated 6th of January, 1856, and
wrapped in it was found a piece of paper, contain-
ing an extract upon a religious subject in the hand-
writing of the deceased. This extract it would be
proved the decceased read to a gentleman on the
very day the codicil was signed, and both Mr.
Adams and Mr. Knowles would tell the jury the
circumstances by which they were able to fix the
date of signing it. As the two codicils had been
discovered, the parties whose situations under the
will were altered by them were duly informed of
the fact, and no opposition was then expressed, nor
was any imputation cast by them upon the gen-
uineness of the documents; and if it had not been
for the surmises and hole-pickings of a professor of
writing who gets his living by throwing doubts
upon title-deeds, there would not have been any
Chancery suit or assize cause. Nine months after
the discovery of codicil number two there came to
light codicil number three, which did not make any
very material alteration in the position of parties
to the will, its effect being to make Mr. Else resi-
duary devisee instead of Mr. Nuttall, of London.
Some months after the death of Mr. Nuttall, Mr.
Else occupied his house, and at the back,
over a stable, there was a room which it was said.
Mr. Nuttall had used as a sort of a den for him-
self alone. Mr. Else employed a lad to clean this
room, which was very dirty and covered with cob-
webs. The window was a high one, and before
the lad commenced his cleaning, Mr. Else, in the
presence of the boy, attempted to open the window,
when the window board or seat came out, and he
nearly fell backwards. He was putting the board
back into its place, when the lad cried out, " What's
that ?" and on looking under the board in a narrow
recess they saw an earthenware jar, which they
took out. In the presence of the boy Mr. Else
took out of the jar a paper packet, around which
wrapped a canvas purse containing 20 sovereigns.
Mr. Newbold was sent for, and in the presence of
the proper parties the packet was opened, and
codicil three was found attested, as number two
had been, by Mr. Adams and Mr. Knowles, who
would prove the attestation without fail. Buxton
and Gregory would also be called, and would be
constrained to swear, as they had done twice be-
fore, that they signed the codicil number one. The
estates in the regular way were all put up for sale
by auction, when notice was given by the Nuttalls
to the purchasers not to compete. A suit in Chan.
cery followed, and the Court had ordered the issue
to be tried before a jury. A number of witnesses
were called in support of the plaintiff's case ag
stated above, which occupied the Conrt until itS
rising at eight o'clock in the evening.
AUGUST 2.
The case was resumed at nine o'clock this monns'.
ing, when
Sergeant Hayes addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendants. They had -to try the validity of,
three distinct documents, and to solve the questimi
as to whether or not two of these documents were net
in the handwriting of at least two individuals. Now
the question which the jury would have to decide was
whether the plaintiff, Mr. Else, was to be believed in
his statement that he found the codicil in a jar, or
whether they considered on the other hand that
they were not the genuine documents of the tes-
tator. Else must make out, if he could, that they
were the genuine documents of the testator. The
learned counsel then proceeded to analyse the
evidence brought forward on the part of the plain-
tiffs, beginning with the original will of the late
Mr. Nuttall, of London. He naturally gave his
house and furntiure to Ann Marsden, who had been
his housekeeper, and after her death to go to his
nephew, John Nuttall, of London. In the codicil it
was altered to be left to John Else and Ellen
Marsden, his wife. Thetestator had also a lease of
some mines at Motteram, in Cheshire, and these
were left entirely to John Else, assistant overseer
of the parish of Matlock, but were subject to paY'
hits,' several legacies as follows :—To John Nuttall;
of London, £4O yearly; Sampson Roe, £4O yearly;
Catherine Higleton, £4O; a legacy of £4O yearly to
Ann Dobson, and £4O yearly to Wm. Nuttall, of
Derby. His leaving these mines to Else showed
that he had a natural affection for him. There was,
also a devise of certain property at Ashover to Elizai
Blacksliaw, and at her death to go to John Nuttall,,
of London. There was also a devise of houses at
Ashover, to Miss Maria Treviss, assistant post-
mistress at Matlock. The next devise was a most
valuable ont ; it was property at Brockhurst, to
Sarah, daughter of Samuel Holmes, a servant of his
mother's. The property at Bonsall and Matlock4
Wensloy, and Snitterton, he left to Elizabeth Sheli
don; it appearing that he did not know whether'
her husband was dead or alive, Now the codicils
transferred, this valuable property to John Else ;
and he would say that that devise had been tam-,
pered with, and that the interlineation had been put'
in by some one and not by Mr. Nuttall. To the!
original will (A) he wished most particularly to call;
their attention. It was the beginning of this rays-.
terious ease. They had heard that Mr. Nuttall's
papers were all kept in the cupboard; it was there.
that the original will was found, but it was not there
that the codicils were found. Mr. Nuttall had been
dead some time when one codicil was found, and{'
afterwards there was the discovery of another one!
in the mysterious jar in the above hay chamber)
And here he would remark upon the fair way in
which Mr. Newbold had given his evidence ; but
every one who knew Mr. Newbold could not ex-
pect otherwise from a straightforward honourable;
man of business. Mr. Newbold saw him a few days!
before his death, when he attempted to get to tho
closet, but could not. He died, and in that closet
was found the will produced, but no codicils. But
in a week 'afterwards they have Job Knowles. Job
Knowles says, "There is something else to be,
found." He makes mysterious statements, andi
I directly afterwards a search is made and a codicil!
is found, on which is written, "This is my
will." The question for the jury to decide
wits
who put it there, and from what motive? In this
will there are interposed the words,
" s' abject to the
ready payment of £lOO annually *-o Job Else, and
£5O annually to Catherine
queathing the Matlock pr,. narsden," after bei
ei:t an Bonsall ro4
perty to Mrs. Sheldon
done such a thin,-. Would Mr.d ha
ve
done have
as" order 'a payment of £l5O
a year out of a lift interest ? The next event is
the via'',of Mr. John Nuttall, of London, whose
Plalaren h'e (Sergeant Hayes) represented. Mr.
Nuttall examined the property, and left the manages
ment of matters to Mr. Else, but unfortunately Mri
John Nuttall, who waa engaged by Sir Joseph Pax-',
ton to erect a mansion a long way off, died in the
April following in Paris, leaving six young child-
ren. Soon after another codicil was found, with
particulars of property at Bonsall and epitome of
his will, all gummed up in an old envelope. Mr.
Nuttall was a business man. Why did he not god
to his closet in his bedroom, take out the will;
and attach the codicil to it ? [The learned ser-
geant read the codicil, which gives an annuity of
£5O to Mr. Newbold, and property to Mr. Thos.
Newbold, son of Mr. Newbold, solicitor, and,
leaving legacies to John Else and Catherine.
Marsden.] Who (said the learned counsel) found
the codicil ? Else. Who benefits by it ? Else and,
Marsden, and the two Mr. Newbolds. If that was'
a genuine document, why should a large
young Newbold be left to yOun Newbold ? Why did he leave £5O
a year to Mr. Newbold ? If he had been desirous
to leave those gentlemen legacies, why not include
them in that long list of annuitants who had been
mentioned in the original will? The motives of
the writer of the codicil, in inserting Mr. Newbold's
name therein, was is get that gentleman's interest
in endeavouring to prove that the codicil was the
genuine document of the testator. Who was the
witness to this codicil ? Job Knowles, to whom a
legacy had been left. The learned counsel then
()ailed attention to the handwriting of the codicil,
and to the bad spelling of the same. Was it con-
sistent to think that Mr. Nuttall, a man of intelli-
gence and business, could possibly make such mis-
takes ? He (Sergeant Hayes) unhesitatingly said
it was impossible that he could have written that
document. The first codicil was proved by Buxton
and Gregory, and there was no doubt that they
have made two statements. He (Sergeant Hayes)
had examined them in the Court ofChancery, and
they both said they did not see Mr. Nuttall sign it,
and' that afterwards they received £2O each from
Mr. Else. He contended that evidence given by
men who told two different tales could not esta-
blish the validity of a codicil even if they swore—*
to use a familiar but a vulgar term—" until they
were slack in the face." He (Sergeant Hayes) was
not there to convict any one of forgery, but he said
the codicil was nor the genuine document of the
testator. Gregory and Buxton were .
bad
of persons that could be induced to a Jast the sort
ssist in such
matters, but from the various statements they made no reliance c 9.1111 be placed upon them. In

passing on to notice the second codicil he would re-
mark that the plaintiff's witnesses admitted that
they were not written in the style of handwriting
usually adopted by Mr. Nuttall. Besides the papers
found with the first codicil, it was stated that what
was called an epitome was also found. It appears
that this opitome was written at two different times.
The first part was a summary of the will, and the
name of every annuitant. It gives the names of
executors, R. Cresswell, J. Marriott, and John
Nuttall. But, stuck in a corner, and evidently put
in afterwards, was "Y.E. G. odel." And lower
down the name of an original legatee had been
erased, and the word "J. E. Newbold" inserted.
It was perfectly conclusive that it could not have
been written by the testator, but it was put along
with the codicil, in order to give a colouring of
genuineness to it. With regard to the second codi-
cil, why was it not with the will ? Why was it not
with the first codicil ? The learned sergeant then
alluded to the mysterious finding of the second
codicil in a highway book by Mr. Else at Mr.
Newbold's office, and pinned in the book along with
a pie,:e of patper, on which was written a religious
sentiment. The absurd tale of the finding he left
for the jury to say whether they believed or not.
Else stood about in Newbold's office for about an
hour, when all at once they pick up a book, and
exclaim, " Bless my soul, it is a codicil !" He agreed
with his learned friend, that all these codicils must
stand or fall together; they were all found in the
same miraculous manner, under the same mysterious
circumstances, and composed of the same wretched
orthography. In this wonderful codicil the word
contiguous is spelt " contigaous." Would Mr. Nut-
tall, an educated man, write thus ? The learned
counsel called the attention of the jury to the wrong
spelling of the words in this codicil. This codicil
was discovered on the 16th of December, in the
year following Mr. Nuttall's death. Was not the
second codicil from the same mint as the first ?
Was it not in the same handwriting as the first ?
The same orthography ; the same blunders ; and the
same liberal bequests to Else? Let them just look
at the evidence of the medical man, the old. gentle-
man 67 years of age, and very deaf, who was the
witness to the signing of the codicil along with
Knowles; he says that it was on a Saturday night
that he put his hand to a something, but had not
the slightest idea of what it was. He said if it
had not been so small he should have thought it
had been a will. Was the story credible ? He
had no hesitation in saying it was not—it was
morally impossible. Besides, he contended that
the story of Knowles contradicted that of Adams.
Knowles said he told Adams that they hail -wit-
nessed an alteration in Nuttall's will, whilst Adams
said that he had not the slightest ides
what he had
been signing. The learned counl.74el then proceeded
to argue that Mr. Adams, keing probably in very
poor circumstances, had. peen induced to lend him-
self to something
He would say he ought not to have done.
brat the codicil was not written by
Mr. Nuttail, and Mr. Adams did not witness the
signing of it. With regard to Job Knowles, he
seemed to have always been in the mess. Every
codicil that is found, Job Knowles is there. He
knows everything, and throws out dark hints of
other documents still to be found. Job Knowles,
when asked why he did not state that there were
other codicils, said "he thought it would be a
breach of confidence." But it turns out that in the
second codicil Job Knowles' son gets an annuity of
£2O per year. In the first codicil Mr. Newbold's
son gets it, in the second codicil Mr. Knowles' son
gits it. And now they approached the third act in
this extraordinary drama—the finding of the third
scodieil. Nine months after the second codicil had
been found the discovery of the third took place. It
had been buried in a place where no one could find
it, but by a miracle it had fortunately been disco-
vered. Why was not this codicil placed with the
others ? Like the other codicils, something was
found with it to give it authenticity. In the other
codicils papers were attached ; with this 20 sove-
reigns were found. It is dated in January, and one
year and nine months elapsed before it was found.
" The only man servant," the boy they examined
,yesterday, was taken up by Else to clean the win-
dow in the room over the stable. He had never been
there before; and on being asked if he had seen
Mr. Else in the room, said, " Yes, he had seen him
there once, a few days previous." He stood clew:, to
the window. Could they have better evidence
against Else ; nay, could not the jury at, once ima-
r>"ine they saw Mr. Else" planting" the jars. The
lad was taken into the room ; Else 'seizes the board,
and the cry is at once raise,l, " Rollo, what is
this ?" The learned counsel. lead the codicil, which
took away all the, property that had been for-
merly devised to oer, and transferred it to
John Nuttall) stonemason ; Mrs. Sheldon to
receive an o_l"muity of .£3O a year for life. In the
same codicil the property that had been formerly
devised 'co Mrs. Blackshaw was revoked, and the
same io be left to John Nuttall, of London, or else-
N.rfnere, stonemason. Did the jury think that Mr.
Nuttall would do so gross a thing as to take away
the property he had devised to those parties ? But
of course Catherine Marsden, the wife of Else, is
thought of. She is to have an annuity of £5O a
year, and Else is to have the residue. In all the
codicils Catherine Marsden and Else are rather
taken care of. In conclusion, did they believe, know-
, ing what Mr. Nuttall was doing in his lifetime,
could they say that he was the author of the codi-
cils ? Why all this change ? Why was everything
to be left to Else and Marsden—Marsden and Else ?
Why should it be taken from those to whom it was
devised ? It looked to him to be utterly impossible
that these documents represented the real will of
Mr. Nuttall at the time of his death. If the jury
were net satisfied with the codicils they must give
the defendants a verdict. That verdict would not
involve a charge against any one. If it had been
in the other court it would have been otherwise. A
deal had been said of the testator's handwriting,
but he would call before them witnesses who were
familiar with his handwriting, and who would state
positively that the handwriting of the codicils was
not the writing of Mr. Nuttall. They were not
bound to make out a case against Mr. Else ; they
were only bound to prove that the codicils were r:ot
the genuine instrument of Mr. Nuttall. Some litters
he 'admitted
theyhad butweeenr
ep
in i nhtios
hI ra.nEdlws er'ist
nagn d; sa,
na
dn d
although he
'who had forged
t(htheeeleedaireniebdhseergweeannitd) wasokulwdhnoot say
7, as most able to do
years in his employ, and
sen 12
E
he,1),.,
writing. Who could imi-
tatewita?s Mt
familiarhre.
w writing
site
iwh hb
nicr hadt
SC) as John Else ? Wh.) would
benefit by the 'oci;:e'lls ? The greatest gainer would
Again, the blunders in the spelling.
bHeeJwohounlEd Else.
"...lad some letters written by Mr. Else to
show tl'at he did map great blunders. (A letter to
ackson from r. Else was read, in which a
'...umber of words were spelt wrong.) Otherwise it
was a tolerably well written letter. Please was
" pleas," wait was written " wate." The plaintiffs
had got papers without end belonging to Mr. Nut-
tall. Let them find one if they can that is not per-
fectly speit. Further, there was something stronger
than what he had alluded to as to the handwriting
of Else. He held in his hand a county court sum-
mons served by Else, and endorsed by him, in
which he says, " served the daughter"—the very
same spelling of the word that was found in the
word daughter is spelt by Else " doughter." He
(the learned counsel) could find twenty other cases,
but as Else admitted they were in his handwriting
it was not necessary to prove more of them. The
learned counsel concluded by expressing his con-
fidence that the jury, under all the circumstances;
would give a verdict for the defendants (The
learned serjeant's address to the jury occupied four
hours in delivering.)
The case was proceeding when our report left.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—HEREFORD, August 2.
THE MURDER AT LEDBURY.
John Isaac Jones, 26, attorney's clerk, was ar-
raigned on a charge of murdering Mrs. Harriett
Baker, by choking and strangling her, at Ledbury,
on the 17th May last.
The prisoner, who appeared collected but exces-
sively pale, pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Skinner stated the case for the prosecution
at some length, and the evidence was just begin-
ning when our parcel was despatched.
M. Powell explained the course the prosecution
intended to take—to show the position of the pre-
mises, and the things contained in them, the person
who saw the deceased last alive, the person who
saw the prisoner next in the morning, his conduct
then, and the subsequent events.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—IPswics, August 2.
NISI PRIUS
COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
FARROW V. WHITEHEAD.—LIBEL.
Mr. Couch and Mr. Metcalfe were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Mills and Mr. Bulwer appeared
for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case formerly lived at Fram-
lingham, in this county, add carried on the business
of a tailor, a draper, and outfitter there. The action
was brought to recover from the defendant, a miller,
residing in the same town, damages for a libel he,
as correspondent to the Ipswich Express and _Essex
and SIVA& Mercury, had caused to be inserted in
thotpaper on the 13th of July, 1858, to the follow-
ing effect:—
`PRAMLINGHAM.—THE LATE CHILD MURDER.
—From inquiries made on Sunday last we are in-
formed that the young woman. Jane Ellen Farrow,
is improving in health, and it is thought will be
sufficiently recovered to take her trial. We are
also credibly informed that during her affliction she
has been treated in an almost inhuman manner by
her parents, which naturally leads to various re-
ports being circulated in the town." The plaintiff
had a family of several daughters, acid among them

was one named Jane Ellen, who superintended the
millinery business carried on at the plaintiff's.
Unhappily Jane Ellen formed an intimacy with a
man in the neighbourhood, and the result was she
became pregnant. On the 24th of June last the
dead body of an infant was discovered in a drawer
in a room of the plaintiff's, but how it came there
subsequent events did not show. A coroner's inquest
was held, and the inquiry terminated in the jury
finding a verdict of " Wilful murder" against Jane
Ellen Farrow, the daughter of the plaintiff. The
daughter, then accused of the murder of her child,
was so ill at the time as not to be able to leave her
father's house, and a police constable was always
with her until a day or two before the day of her
trial, when she was removed to Ipswich gaol. In
the charge to the grand jury the learned judge who
then presided advised them to throw out the bill so
far as it charged her with the capital offence, and
the grand jury did so. The young woman was even-
tually tried on the minor charge, and after a long
inquiry she was acquitted. From inquirifis insti-
tuted after the appearing of the libel complained of,
the editor of the _Express admitted that the defend:-
ant was the author of the paragraph. Evidence was
then given to show that the plaintiff had applied
through himself and his solicitor, to the defen.dant
to make an apology.
Mr. Sulky, the editor and proprietor of the
Ipswich Express and Essex and Sujoll Mercury,
in his cross-examination, said the defendant was
,Le
regular correspondent to his newspaper. The
paragraph in question, he said, had been inserted
inadvertently. If witness had reP.d the paragraph
on its receipt he should not has:e permitted its In-
sertion, as his communicatie,n with the plaintiff
would show. The paper birculation is from 1,000
to 1,200.

The plaintiff, in his 'examination in support of his
case, said he had been in business at Framlinghenl,
for upwards of 30 2,- ears, and that since the allegeo-
libel had appeared in the Ipswich. Express he had
lost his trade, and that he now resided in Ipswich*
Mr. Mills eross-examined the plaintiff at sense
length, but failed in his endeavour to get the plain-
tiff to admit that he had treated his daughter un-
kindly, as had been represented in the paragraph
in question.
Mr. Mills having addressed the jury, submitting
that the defendant had been justified in writing
the paragraph in question, consequent upon the
rumours prevalent at the time at Framlinghant,
then called witnesses for the defence.
The defendant said he vas the regular correspow
dent of the Ipswich Express. He had been informed
by several persons of the mode in which the plain.-
, tiff's daughter had been treated by her parents•—•
conduct of the most inhu man kind. Before the action
was brought he offered to make an apology and
pay the sum of £5, and since the action has been
brought he had likewise offered to make an apology
in three of the local newspapers of the county, all
of which offers had been refused. Had n o ill-feel-
ing, grudge, or malice against the plaintiff when
the paragraph was sent to the Ipswich. Express.
Made inquiries of Inspector Sporle as to the treat-
ment the girl received in her father's (the plain-
tiff's) house.
Mr. Saines Lamer, a woollen-draper, Framling-
ham, said he had heard " dozens" of rumours every
day to the effect of great irregularity in the plain-
tiff's house, that the police had to interfere for the
sake of comfort in the daughter's sick room—that
the plaintiff's daughter had been denied the use
of things that were needful two or three days after
the " melancholy occurrence."
Inspector Sporle, of the Framlingham district--
I was entrusted with a coroner's warrant on June
25, 1858, to apprehend the plaintiff's daughter. 00
the 26th July she was removed to Ipswich. I car
gaged nurses to attend upon her. I paid for the,
necessaries she had. I heard a rumour from one a
the nurses that she wanted necessaries.
The Judge—That is not a rumour. (Laughter.)
Witness (examination continued)--Had a poli ee•
man there continual y. I have on one or two oc Ca'
sions admonished the plaintiff with reference to .ttio
conduct towards his daughter. Had been called to
account by respectable inhabitants of Framlingha.ni
for not removing the daughter from her fathe r'o
house in consequence.
The Judge—But these are not rumours.
S. J. Brown, Independent minister at Framleing-
ham, deposed to the rumours in circulation at Frain-
liugham during the period in question, with -refer
ence to the conduct of the plaintiff towards his sick
daughter.
_ _

Mr. Mills having summed up defendant's mot
and Mr. Couch having replied,
His lordship, in summing up, said it was for Ole
jury to say what amount of damages the plaintiff
was entitled to.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages £5.
The Judge refused to stay execution.