The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-01 00:00:00

POISONING CASE.

Mr. 0 verend, on behalf of Mr. Ford, the attorney
for th 3 defendant in this case (Mr. Woofer), who it
will b 3 reclllected was tried at D Thaw on the charge
of poisoning his wife, hut acquitted, moved that the
cleftndan.,'s bill of coits be referrad hack to the
Master for taxatioa. It seemel th tt Mr. Wcoler

ha I objected to various itetas in the bill, and on
taxation bsfo:e the Master several reductions had
lama made. The learned couns-1 stated that the
gentleman on whose part he applied, had made ex-
traordinary exertions to defend his client, and had
incurred very considerable expenses, and believed
that he was fully entitled to make some of the
charges which the Master had dis.dlowed.
Rule granted.
THE QUEEN (ON THE PROSECUTION OF MR. BARKER,
MAGISTRATE) V. SIR E. CONROY—CRIMINAL IN-
FORMATION.
Sir F. Thesiger applied on behalf of Mr. Barker,
a magistrate for Berkshire, for a criminal informa-
tion against Sir Edwd. Conroy, also a magistrate
for the sama cowity, under t!.e following circum-
rtances :—lt appeared that 'Mr. Barker was in the
habit of a. tending:, divine service in the parish
church of Hurst, of which Mr. Cameron was the
perpetual curate, and Mr. Palmer, a m miser of
the bar, the lay rector. In 1855 Mr. Cameron
made considerable alterations in the church, and
introduced a new choir, both at his own expense.
lie also made considerable alterations in the deco-
rations of the church and in the mode of oenduct'ng
divine service, which led to di-sensions among the
oingregation, a large portion of wirom retired alto-
gether from attendance at the church. Sir E. Con-
roy, who was not a parishioner, but resided in the
neighbourhood, together with some other p'rsons,
fo, mad themselves into a commit tee for the purpo e
of inducing Mr. Cameron to abandon some of these
changes which he had effected. The bishop of the
diocese, on being informed of what had taken place,
reque .ted Mr. Barker, Mr. Palmer (the Ity rector),
and Mr. Walter, M.P. for Nottingham, who re-
sides at Bearwool, in the county, to endeavour to
reconcile the differences in the parish. Negoti,fons
.then commenced b tween these gentlemen and S.r
E. Conroy, and resulted in Mr. Cameron making
various concessions. Atter this it seemed that some
misunderstanding arose between Sir Edward and
Mr. Barker as to the purport of a conversation at
Bearwood, respecting the acceptance on the part
of the former of these concessions as satisfactory to
the par ishioners and a rather warm correspondence
followed, (specially on the side of Sir Edward.
They subsequently went to the Quarter Sessions,
and, after the transaction of the ordinary business,
Sir Edward and Mr. Barker, together with other
magistrates, signed an order. Sr Edward after-
wards 1-ft the room and returned in an excited
state, and asked Mr. Roberts, the clerk, to show
him the order in question, and seeing Mr. Barker's
name upon it, he struck his own name out, and,
addressing the magistrate-, said, "I do not consi-
der Mr. Barker a gentleman. 1 will not have my
name attached to any order or paper [bearing. his
name, or act in any way or manner what ever. '
Lord Campbell—While Mr. Barker was sitting
as a magistrate and business was going on ?
' Sir F. Thesiger—Yes, before the court had risen.
The clerk then ordered the room to be cleared, and
Sir Edward again repeated his statement, saying,
that be (the clerk) was not to ask for his name
where Mr. Barker's name was, for he was not a fit
person to act with in any way. Under the circum-
stances he hoped their lordships would consider
that Mr. Barker was entitled to the protection of
the court.
Lord Campbell—lf a stranger had used these
words to a magistrate in the discharge of his duty,
he would, unless some explanation were given, be
a guilty of misdemeanour, and a brother magistrate
would not be less so, if such words proceeded from
him. Take a rule.
Rule ni,i.