The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-13 00:00:00

TALLOW.

Our market is dull, and prices have tr downward ten
dency. P.Y.C. is quoted at 58s per cwt. on the spot, an!
at 55s for the last three months' delivery. Rough fat
2s llfd per Blbs.

1857. 1858. 1859. 1860. 1881.
Stock this day.... 10,052 9,745 9,066 28,731 67,609
Price of Y.C.•. f 5656 d to 63s 6d te 5553 d to 53s 6d to 58s Od to
--s d OOd —s Od
Delivery last week 1,7501 634 1,35 d 8 ,—s
832 1,327
Ditto from June.. 104,160 100,404 98.037 77,003 70,015
Arrivals last week 2495 61 513 641 101
Ditto from June 1 97,222 98.436 94.136 93.152 116,530
Price of Town .... 58s Od 54s 3d 55s 9d 54s 3d 57s 3d

L 4 W INTELLIGENCE—(7hts Day)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
TRIED DAT.
HATCH V. LEWIS AND LEWIS.
The hearing of this ease was resumed this morning.
Mr. Lewis, sen., was called, and examined by Mr. C.
Pollock.--I have been 33 years in profession, and was
clerk of indictments for 27 years. On Sunday, the 13th of
November, 1859, Mrs. Hatch came to me, at my residence
in Euston. square, and she brought little Lucy with her.
When Mrs. Hatch intimated to me the nature of the charge
against her husband, I suggested the propriety of the child
going into another room, which she did. After discussing
the matter for a short time, she handed to me a letter
which the Plummers had sent to the Bishop of Winches •
ter, and she stated that that would give more particularly
the facts than she could give them. She, at the same time,
handed to me a copy of a letter which contained language
implying that her husband was guilty. I said to her,
" Surely in writing this letter you never intended to sug-

gesi your husband is guilty ?" and she answered, "No."
I then asked her if it had been written with her hus-
band's knowledge, and she said, "No, not with his know-
ledge." I then said, "The letter is of no consequence."
I subsequently saw the child, and told her to tell me the
truth, and also to do so on the morrow, when she
would be examined by the magistrate. She said she never
saw the plaintiff do anything wrong to the little girls.
Mrs. Hatch then asked me if I would attend at Wands-
worth police-court in the morning. I said I had not my
list of attendances with me, but, under the circumstances
of the case, I would do so, and that my fee would be three
guineas. I desired her to have ready a complete statement
from her husband, and the attendance of all the witnesses
mentioned to me. I went to Wandsworth the next morn-
ing, and was introduced to Mr. Hatch, and he handed a
statement to me. Mr. Cooper, the barrister, made a state-
ment of the facts against the plaintiff, and called his wit-
nesses, and cross-examined them, and as the magistrate
ated the ease must go for trial, I proposed bail, and in
the end Mr. Hatch was admitted to bail in the sum of £5OO
himself, and two sureties of £250 each. The defendant
then said that he visited the plaintiff in prison on the 15th,
17th, and 21st November, and referred to his diary to prove
the dates. On the last occasion he went into all matters

very fully during the half hour he remained with bim, and
he then partly made a sketch •f the late residence of the
plaintiff. 1 received a letter from Mr. Onslow to retain
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine on 22d of November. On the
the 23d I had a conversation with Mrs. Hatch about re-
taining Brannan, the detective, to make inquiries relative
to the Plummers. He was engaged, and I received com-
munications from him. Previous to 26th, before the brief
was delivered, 1 had a conversation with Sergeant Ballan-
tine for nearly an hour in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Chambers objected to that being received in evi-
dence, as it was a mere accidental meeting, and would not
be considered as a professional appointment. On that
ground he should object to any further examination on the
subject.

Mr. Sergeant Shee contended that it was immaterial
whether the conversation or consultation took place in
Westminster Hall or its chambers.
Witness—l communicated the result of the conversation
to Mr. Hatch.
Mr. M. Chambers—l altogether object to the opinion of
Mr. Ballantine being given as it were incidentally.
Witness—l had a long conversation shortly after the
meeting of Sergeant Ballantine. I told him, after briefs
were delivered, a full consultation would take place. Mt.
Hatch said he must be guided by his counsel, but he wished
to have witnesses called. I told Mr. Hatch why I thought
such a course would not be judicious. 1 stated generally
with reference to that which occurred in the bed-
room that, as be or Mrs. Hatch could not be wit-
nesses, it must necessarily depend upon the evidence of
Lucy, who would confirm the fact that the girl had been in
bed with him. There were no witnesses at all as to the
assault on Stephanie, that was confined t 3 them two selves.
Mr. Pollock—And she has never been contradicted up to
the present time.

Mr. Chambers—That is matter for argument.
Lord Chief Baron thought there was some contradiction
relative to her leaving the drawing room.
Mr. Sergeant Shee—That does not apply to Stephanie.
The Lord Chief Baron—l suppose, brother Shee, you
intend to show the precise acts of perjury charged or proved.
I consider I am bound to express my own views as to the
exculpation of Mr. Hatch. There might have been suffi
cient to justify the jury in saying that Eugenia had com-
mitted perjury without going to the root of another matter.
I think that when a pardon is issued it might be taken as
an authorised declaration that Mr. Hatch was innocent of
the charges made against him. The opinion of the jury
was of no value in comparison with it.
Mr. Chambers said the learned judge was consulted before
the indictment for perjury was proceeded with, and he was
of opinion that the indictment of the elder girl was quite
sufficient.

Lord Chief Baron—l should have been surprised if he had
done otherwise, Stephanie was but eight years old.
Witness proceeded—l wrote a letter to Mr. Onslow re-
lative to the expenvs of carrying on the defence, and two
ur three letters passed between our firm and Mr, Onslow,

who said he would not be responsible for costs beyond £7b.
The statement from Brannan was put. into the hands of
counsel on the Monday before the trial. I saw Mr. Ainslie
once, Mr. Gird wood twice, and Mrs. Hatch, when I told
them I would give them the earliest intelligence relative to the
finding of the bill of indictment. I continued my inquiries
till the 29th of November, and on that day I attended Mrs.
Hatch and assisted her in despatching letters to her witnesses,
On the morning of the trial I had a con• ultation with coun-
sel, and the result was that witnesses were not to be called.
On the morning of trial I saw Mrs. Hatch's witnesses in
attendance, and also witnesses for the prosecution. I have
no doubt I might have said to Mrs. Hatch, " Don't tease
me, I'm in a hurry." I was present at the trial at the Old
Bailey, and received many short communications from Mr.
Hatch, which I have in my possession. The trial lasted
from ten in the morning till seven in the evening, When
the court adjourned for luncheon I had another consulta-
tion with counsel, and after that I told Mrs Hatch her
witnesses would not be wanted. I deny most posi-
tively that I ever asked Mrs. Hatch whether
her husband was innocent or guilty. I was
in court by accident during a portion of the trial of Eugenia
Plummer, and I then said to Mr. Edwin James that if it

would at all assist Mr. Hatch's case he might place me in
the witness-box on Mr. Hatch's behalf, and state that wit-

nesses were in attendance, and that he (Mr. Hatch) wished
the witnesses to be called, but that counsel had decided

otherwise.

Mr. Chambers—l object N giving evidence relative to a
conversation with Mr. Edwin James, who is not present.
Lord Chief Baron—That's of no importance. It would
Make no difference it he were.

Mr. Chambers—l think we had better have the short

hand writer's notes read of what the witness really did say.
After some discussion, the examination of Mr. Lewis was
proceeded with. [He handed in a letter received by Mr. P.
Edwards, and written by Mr. Hatch, telling him that he
was informed that his trial was fixed for the Ist of Decem-
ber, and asking him to attend as a witness. A number of
memoranda made by Mr. Hatch at the trial, and handed
over to Mr. Lewis, were also put in and read. j
Cross-examined by Mr. M. Chambers—My first visit to
Horsemonger lane Gaol was on the 21st of November. I
put in my own diary to prove it. You will there find it
marked in pencil.
The learned counsel was about to put a number of ques-

tions relative to the other business transacted by the wit-
ness on the 21st, as it was stated by Mr. Hatch that Mr.
Lewis did not call on him at the gaol as mentioned, but
Mr. Sergeant Shee interposed, and objected to names of
other parties being mentioned during this trial.

The Lord Chief Baron to Mr. Chambers—you can only
refer t the book as far as the particular entry upon which
you wish to examine the witness.

Mr. Lewis then proceeded to explain, by aid of his book,
how he was occupied during the whole of the 21st of No-
vember. Nineteen-twentieths of what he said was devoted
to Mr. Hatch's case. I will swear I was not in
attendance at a police-court on other business that day.
My son transacted the ordinary business while I was en-
. _ _

gaged in Mr. Hatch's business. I believe it was in the
afternoon when I went to see Mr. Hatch, but I cannot
speak positively as to the time. My next visit to Horse.
monger-lane Gaol was on the 26th—the only two visits I
thought it necessary to make. The depositions were ob-
• "

tained by our firm.- We never sent a clerk to tranrac

business at Wandsworth. I saw the witness at the trial in
Mr. Clark's room in the Oh Bailey. I was not there mere
than about half a minute.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine examined by Sergeant Shee—l
have been at the bar 25 years. I practised principally at the
Central Criminal Court, until I received the coif, when I
only attended occasionally. I recollect meeting Mr. Lewis
in 'Westminster-hall, when he explained to me the nature
of a case he intended to send to me. I did notsive any
opinion. I received the brief. I had a consultation on it
.
at chambers. The fact of calling witnesses was fully '
cussed by myself, Mr. Robinson,
my reasons and
the junior counsel, and
others. I expressed a very strong opinion at the time, and
I gave Mr. Lewis my reasons for it.
()Unions I believe still to be Mr. 'latch's property;
MA i>< tkat gelitlemq wigbo it, Miro 41Q objection

to abate what they were. may stare this
much, that from the impression made upon my mind by
looking over the brief it would net be advantageous to
all witnesses. That was not to be considered a final de-
cision. I believe I knew all the nature of the evidence to be
.iven by the witnesses. I cross-examined the whole of the
witnesses at the trial. I consider myself responsible in
all cases I am engaged in for the calling or not calling of
witnesses.

Mr. George C. Lewis-_I ens the brother of the gentle-
man who has just given his evidenoe. On the 16th of No-
vember I visited Mr. Hatch in prison. At Horsemonger-
lane prison it is the practice merely for a solicitor to enter
his name in the solicitor's book on his first visit, and not
after. At Newgate and other prisons every visit is regu-
larly entered. I saw Mr. Hatch in what is called the ma-
gistrate's room. My principal object in visiting was to
speak to him relative to his procuring :bail. Mr. Hatch
asked me what I thought about the case, and I told
him our great difficulty to surmount was to account for a
motive for the children making such a charge.
theMero.llfieieteonrae:
bgooovkerkneoprtoaft Htboersgeamteo,nigt:rw-
Mr. Lewis appeared as a visitor to Mr. Hatch.
ihainche Gatheolnaprriute ionf

Bateman, the keeper of the book at the prison, said that
both the Messrs. Lewis visited Mr. Hatch while in confine.
went.

Cross-examined—Mr. Lewis, jun,, first spoke to me about
coming here to-day. He subpconed me on the first trial.
James Brannan--I formerly was an inspector of police.
I hold a Government appointment as agent to an inspector
of gaols and reformatories. I was eagaged by Messrs.
Lewis to make inquiries relative to the Plummer family.
I sent the report in that has been spoken of to-day. I
never made a charge for services I performed, but Messrs.
Lewis gave me about L 5.

The indictment for perjury against Eugenie Plummer
was then put in, and the reading of the evidence given by
the children on the first trial occupied the Court up to the
time of going to press.