The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-11 00:00:00

THE SUN;LONDON, SATURDAY I'. EVENING, MAY: 11, 1861.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(7Ius Day).

C losing
Price.

Paid.

Insiness done

COITnT OF EXCIIEQLTER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron.)

HATCH V. LEWIS.

SECOND DAY .

The cross-examination of Mr. Hatch was proceeded with
this morning by Mr. Sergeant Shee with respect to the in-
structions he gave to Mr. Lewis, who swore to the best of
his recollection that he did not see him on the morning
of the trial at the Central Criminal Court.
The statement, which analysed the evidence of Mr. and
Mrs. Plummer and others, gave directions as to the wit-
nesses that should be called for character and several other
matters, having been read,
He proceeded—l had one interview with Mr. Lewis at
the gaol. I was committed on the 15th of November to
Horsemonger-lane Gaol. Mr. George Lewis did not come
to me the day after. I will swear he did not. He never
suggested to me the propriety of making a full statement
for counsel. lam not now quite so positive that Mr.
Lewis did not come on the 16th, but I don't think it was
as soon as that. Mr. Lewis, the other defendant, never
made a suggestion about a full statement. I got the depo-
sitions from Mr. Onslow. I cannot recollect the date. I
don't think it was as early as the 17th. I know I was sur-
prised I did not get them before.
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Your surprise must have lasted a
very short time. Is the letter I put into your hand in Mrs.
Hatch's handwriting ?
Yes. I will net swear I did not get them on the 17th.
I had them before the trial. From the reading of that
letter, I am positive I did not get it on the 17th.
Lord Chief Baron—When did the trial take place ?
On the Ist of December. I got them from the governor
of the gaol. I thought they might have been provided by
Mr. Onslow. I was in prison, and I could not tell who
sent them. I never consulted with Mr. Lewis to talk about
a full statement for trial. I had prepared some written
statements, but as he did not come I told Mrs. Hatch that
she had better take them to Mr. Lewis—that must be about
the 20th or 22d. The documents put into my hand are the
two I sent to Mr. Lewis by my wife. I don't know exactly
when I first heard that Sergeant Ballantine was engaged
for my defence. This document is in my handwriting.
[lt was read, and intimated that he had sent a plan of
the bedroom, and also gave directions to make inquiries re-
specting Mr. Pratt's character (the attorney for the Plum-
mere), as he had been told it did not stand very high. It
also stated that there would be a great number of witnesses
for character at the trial. The other paper was read, it
contained further comments on the evidence, and, in allud-
ing to the offer of forgiveness that had been made provided
he confessed his guilt and made an apology, said it ought t•
have been made before the letter was sent to the bishop, and
that it was only made after it was discovered that money
could not be got from him.]

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

On my trial a great many witnesses were examined, and
a great many more were in attendance. The plan of the
house and grounds at Wandsworth you hold in your hand
was first used at the trial of Eugenia Plummer. Before I
resigned Mr. Onslow urged me to consult a solicitor. I
don't remember that he said " and other friends." I had
a solicitor at that time, a Mr. Amsley. He was a personal
friend of mine; but as I understood no solicitor was to be
engaged on either side, I did not speak to him about the
matter. There was a very large sum raised for me by sub-
scription after the trial, amounting to about £2,000, but I
only got about £5, the rest was absorbed by printing, legal
costs, and other things. I never complained to Mr. Lewis
until after the conviction of Eugenia Plummer on the 6th
May, 1860, relative to the conduct of my case. I did not
do so until I found I could not proceed against the
Plummers. I never said a word or wrote a word to
him about it until the 12th of November, 1860,
the day before I issued the writ. I did what I was
advised by my solicitor. I believed £7O was paid to Mr.
Lewis. lam aware that Mr. Lewis returned £5 when he
eiaware was not aware that Mr.
e of it before Miss Onslow had written a very complimentary letter to Mr.
Lewis ve
till lately. balance of his
Plum-
mer's trial—by lately, I mean before this trial was recdth
ely. I
was not s 11. w
com-
menced, but I don't quite remember the day.
Re-examined by Mr. Montague Chambers—lt was about
bia
a week after I was convicted I got Sergeant Ballantine's
brief, and I then complained to Mrs. Hatch of its insuffi-
ciency. I had experienced great loss from the fact of my
conviction. It was about the middle of the time I was in
prison, previous to trial, that I saw Mr. Lewis, jun. He
then said everything was going on favourably. He did
not stay more than three minutes. Mrs. Hatch was with
me when he came, but she retired, I was alone with
Mr. Lewis not more than the time I have stated. I did
not, I think, see Mr. Lewis, sen., until the day before the
trial. I was taken from the cell by the turnkey to the
solicitor's room. I believe there is a book kept in which
such visits are entered. The turnkey left the room, and I
think he closed the door. The interview with Mr. Lewis,
sen., did not last longer than three minutes. Mr. Lewis said
I need not make myself at all uneasy, as no jury would
convict me on the unsupported evidence of a child. He
then told me Sergeant Ballantine had determined not to
call evidence, and I replied I was sorry for it. If I had
seen Mr. Lewis I could have told him much more informa-
tion than he possessed. lle never wrote down anything I
said to him on paper. The reason I did not consult my
friends was that I thought I could prove my innocence with-
out. Besides, it was a nasty thing to talk about. I did not like
even to speak to my wife about it. It was the only secret
I ever kept from my, wife. The statements I have made
about getting another appointment are correct.
The evidence of Mrs. Dillon at the trial of Mr. Hatch
was then read from the notes taken by Baron Channell,
one of the presiding judges. This course was adopted in
consequence of that lady having gone abroad.
Mr. Samuel Thomas Keene—l was the foreman of the
jury at the trial of Mr. Hatch in 1859.
Lord Chief Baron (to Mr. Garth, who was about to put
a question to witness)—What are you going to ask ?
Mr. Garth—I am going to ask the witness if he had
heard the evidence given en this trial by the witnesses for
Mr. Hatch, he would have come to the verdict that he did
on the former trial.

Lord Chief Baron—You can't do that.
Mr. Garth—I am not going to ask—
Lord Chief Baron—You are going to ask if something
else would have made a difference in the verdict. You
can't do that. Let me hear the exact question you wish to
put.

Mr. Garth—It is. Have you heard the evidence given
by the witnesses in this court, and supposing you had
heard that on the first trial would you have come to the
verdict you did ?
Lord Chief Baron—You can't do that, and I am
astonished that you should attempt it.
Mr. Montague Chambers said he proposed to call Sir G.
Lewis, to ask his reasons for refusing to interfere in the
first instance ; he wished to know the special reasons that
led him to interfere on a succeeding occasion.
Lord Chief Baron—Nothing that Sir G. Lewis can state
could be used as evidence in that Court.
Mr. Chambers contended that he had a right to call Sir
G. Lewis.
Lord Chief Baron—Very well you can call him, and
some one else will object to questions being answered.
The proceedings Were then adjourned for a quarter of an
hour to enable Sir G. Lewis to attend.
On his lordship's return he informed Mr. Chambers that
he had consulted his brother judges, and they were unani-
mously of opinion that the questions could not be put to
the right hon. gentleman,
Mr. Chambers said that being the case he would bow to
the decision of the Court.
At this moment Sir G. C. Lewis entered the court and
took his seat on the bench, when Mr. Chambers apologised
for giving him the trouble of attending, and the right hon.
gentleman immediately left.
John Wood—l am clerk to Mr. Sergeant Ballantine.
The brief put into my hand is the one he received. He was
retained on the 23d of Nov., and the brief was delivered on
the 26th, accompanied by a copy of the depositions
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Shee addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendants. He said, the Rev. Mr. Hatch, a gentleman well
known to members of religious societies, was convicted on
the evidence of two little girls and their mother, and oilier
witnesses, of an offence of the most filthy, abominable,•and
revolting description, and without he could succeed in re-
moving the conviction the result would be ruin, total, in-
evitable, and irrecoverable; and notwithstanding the con-
no question relative to the manlier
d for Mr. Hatch was made until
presention
ok
n
action was brought against
hvNi iocrat Nov.,
viz., which.
°6, the: Pr
wheneacLe oeevwi tenhri syelBoasfc 9tde'amages for neglect. This step was
taken plaintiff against the defendants, who were
men of b
mi
most extensive practice. He could characterise it as noth-
eyn the
ence in their profession, and engaged in the
noth-
ing more than an attempt on the part of Mr. Hatch to take
money out of their pockets to patch up certain little points
in his damaged character. There could be no doubt about
that, because if the Messrs. Lewis succeeded in gaining a
Hatch the whole of the expensive
could not pay a shilling.
atviOetrgo into the evidence to prove the
guilt Y
proceedings,7er
Happilyd iettheyhe had would
because
not h
guilt of Mr. Hatch, but his duty was simply to show the
state of mind
of Mr. Hatch) and how Mr. Lewis had
to act. He did not say Mr. Hatch was guilty of the charge
that had been imputed to him—he hoped for the sake of his
cloth—he hoped for the sake of common society that he was
innocent. He (Sergeant Shee) was not going to enter into
suggestions and surmises, for even with the knowledge he
had of the painful proceedings from first to last, if he
was put upon his oath he should not know what
to say. One thing was quite certain, that Mr.
Lewis did not at the commencement of the proceed-
ings go to Mr. Hatch. Mrs. Hatch told the court the
reason that she selected the Messrs. Lewis for defence of
her husband from the charge made against him was entirely
through the eminence which they had attained. The first
charge made by the prosecution was that on the first occa-
sion he did not ask when Mr. Hatch was first examined on
the serious charge that he might be admitted to bail. Mr.
Lewis had no alternative than to act precisely as he did.
He attended at the police-court, examined the witnesses
most minutely, did everything that a careful legal advisor
would do, and his conduct throughout, as far as he could
form an opinion, wao paarke4 by that caution and Ore that

had rendered the firm eminent. The learned gentleman
then proceeded to rebut the evidence that had been given
at the Wandsworth Police-court by Eugenie Plummer,
and said her evidence was the most astounding and sur-
prising deception, such as was calculated to create the
deepest feelings in the minds of all who heard it ; but, not-
withstanding all was known to Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lewis
was nevar supplied with the slightest evidence to meet it,
in fact, with nothing at all to contradict this detestable
charge.

The case was proceeding when we went fo press. It is
not at all likely to conclude before Monday evening at the
earliest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTlTY.—Margaret Keating,
a young woman, was charged with stealing a quantity of
wearing apparel, the property of Mrs. Wilson, the wife of
a coachman, living in King-street, Soho,
Castell, 129 F, said he wished the prisoner discharged,
as, since she had been given into custody, he had found
that she was not the person that stole the articles. She
was then discharged, and Sarah llaycroft, the real thief,
placed in the dock ; and evidence was given that she
left the parcel with Mr. Honeyball, a coffee-house keeper,
and that, not calling for it, he opened it, and finding table
linen inside, he gave the bundle to a constable.
Mrs. Wilson identified the articles, and said the prisoner
came to her from the Servants' Home, but had been very
unsteady.

Fitzgerald, 58 G, said prisoner admitted leaving the bundle
at Mr. Honeyball's, and that she had a key that opened the
prosecutrix's door.

The magistrate said that through the prisoner's conduct
an innocent person had been locked up all night. She
would be committed for four months' hard labour.
Castell, 129 F, explained that on learning that the articles
had been stolen from Mrs. Wilson ho took Keating be Mr.
Honeyball's to see if she could identify the things, and Mr.
Honeyball stating that Keating had left the bundle he took
her into custody.

The magistrate having remarked that Keating was given
into custody through the blundering of Mr. Honeyball,
said that Keating left the court without a stain on her cha-
racter, and ordered her a s wereign from the poor-locc, and
recommended Mr. Honeyball to be liberal to her.
Subsequently Mr. Honeyball gave her a half sovereign.
AN UNFORTUNATE FLAINTIFF.—This morning Mrs.
Billing, greengrocer, of Berwick-street, and who, it may be
remembered, a few weeks since was the plaintiff in an action
for breach of promise of marriage, recovering ao damages,
on returning from market discovered that some person had
entered her parlour and stolen £164, £5O being in gold and
£lOO-note, of Messrs Ransom, Bouverie, and Co.'s, Pall-
mall, payment of which has been stopped. In addition to
the above a watch and chain were also taken.

THAMES.
PLUNDERING STABLES.—THE THIEF AND RECEIVER.
—William Conchman, a labourer, who is well known to the
police, mad William Manning, a marine store dealer, of 8,
White Horse street, Ratcliff, were brought before Mr.
Woolrych, the first charged with breaking and entering the
stables of Mr. Saul, butcher and omnibus proprietor, of 28,
Three Colt-street, Limehouse, Mr. Robert Passmore, South-
street, Limehouse, and Mr. George Barnett, omnibus pro-
prietor, of 7, Hume -terrace, St. Leonard's-road, Bromley,
and the other with feloniously receiving the property know-
ing it to be stolen.

It appeared that the premises of the parties named had
been forcibly entered in the course of the last week, much
damage done to their property and brass tenets and
other horse fittings, the brass work and fittings
of an omnibus, likewise the cushion of an om-
nibus, and various other property stolen. In one
instance, the burglar or burglars had wantonly
destroyed property which could not be removed. Yesterday
a police constable named Moses Nichol!, No. 97 K, ar-
rested the prisoner in bed, at Bass's coffee-shop, in Old-
road, Stepney, and some of the stolen property was found
to have been in his possession. Manning was afterwards
taken into custody at his own shop, and some of the brass
tenets stolen from Mr. Barnett's and Mr. Passmore's stables
were found there. Manning also delivered tl police ser-
geant Nunn, 12 K, the cushion of an omnibus, stolen from
Mr. Saul's stable. The value of it was stated to be worth
20s. Manning said he gave ls. for it, and sold it to a butcher,
his opposite neighbour, for 2s. Manning obtained the
cushion from the butcher, and delivered it to Nunn. A
good deal of evidence was gone into affecting both priso •
ners, one as a thief and the other as a receiver of the stolen
property at very low prices.

Mr. Woolrych remanded the prisoners for a week.

THE ABSENTEES FR 0111 THE LATE
DIVISION

(From the Elector.)
Our readers will remember the nursery rhyme
which preserves the memory of " The Old Man of
Madeira," and the toast he daily proposed over a
bottle of the wine of his own island:

" Absent friends, and I wish they were nearer,"

This sentiment of the venerable native of the
wine-producing island was, no doubt, felt by many
of our readers last week on perusing the names of
the absent friends of the ballot in Table IV. of our
analysis of the division of the 23d ultimo. For
the absence of Mr. Brocklehurst, Mr. Cobden, and
Sir G. Dashwood there was in each case a valid ex-
cuse. Why Sir J. Arnott, Sir G. Bowyer, and Mr.
Buchanan were not present, we trust they may be
able satisfactorily to explain to their constituents.
We have no such feelings in regard to Viscount
Bury. This young nobleman, when member for
Norwich, announced to a public meeting in St.
Andrew's Hall, that " he had promised to vote,
for the Ballot, and by —, he would vote for it !"
It will be remembered that in the storms of the
last general election Lord Bury was driven from
his moorings at Norwich, and found a harbour of
refuge in the Wick Burghs : in return for which
shelter he promised the inhabitants of that re-
mote constituency to do all in his power to pro-
vide for them a similar place of refuge, only of
a real, and not an allegorical nature. Pending
the Wick election, a person in Edinburgh, con-
nected with the press, on behalf of Lord Bury
—though whether with the noble lord's know-
ledge or consent we cannot say—applied to toe
ballot society to promote the viscount's return, be-
e ause he was such a thorough supporter of the
ballot. Lord Bury was returned without opposi-
tion, and was applied to to second Mr. Berkeley's
motion. He declined, saying, "he should not vote
for it, as his people did not want him to vote for
it." It is to the influence of the Duke of Sutherland
that Lord Bury owes his seat for Wick. The Duke
certainly does not want the ballot, against which,
while in the Commons, ha always voted. The ducal
person, in Lord Bury's eyes, absorbs the 657
electors of Wick • and, viewing them in the
duke, he says—" My people do not want me to
vote for the Ballot !" To those who remember
the profanity of St. Andrew's Hall, this is suf-
ficiently disgusting. Mr. Divett, Mr. C. Fitz-
william, Sir J. Hanmer, Mr. More O'Ferrall,
Mr. G. P. Scrope, repeat, this year, their un-
explained absence of last year, which we trust
will not be forgotten. The general fidelity to
the Ballot of Mr. Lannigan, Dr. Lyons, Sir I.
Ogilvy, Mr. R. B. Sheridan, Mr. W. 0. Stanley,
Mr. M. Sullivan, Sir Y. Trelawny, Coi, Tynte,
Col. Watkins, and Mr. H. W. Wickham, leads us
to believe that their absence was unintentional, and
in justice to these gentlemen the suddenness of the
division should be borne in mind. We are sorry that
the list of absent friends includes Mr. W. Fox ; his
state of health we know to be precarious, but he was
well enough to be at the house on the evening
of the 22d, as well as on a subsequent occasion,
Mr. Horsman and his tail, Sir J. Ramsden, were
of course absent ; but we commend to our West
Riding readers the fact that Sir John Ramsden
was, to our certain knowledge, in the house imme-
diately after the division ; his absence, therefore,
was, in legal phraseology, of " malice aforethought."
The same may be said of Col. Lingscote, who being
written to by his constituents to fulfil his pledge of
voting for the Ballot, deliberately walked out of
the house, as soon as the division was called. Our
energetic fellow-labourers of " The Northern
Reform Union" will note the fact that Newcastle-
on-Tyne was wholly unrepresented in the division,
Mr. T. E. Headlam having apparently forgotten
that in 1859 he publicly confessed that the Ballot
would have been very useful at his election ; but on
the 23d he absented himself unpaired, as did
his colleague Mr. S. A. Beaumont. Default
on the part of members of the Government
is especially to be guarded against. Friends
in Stroud will note that that constituency
was also wholly unrepresented on the 23d,
Mr. Scrope repeating his absence without pairing,
as he did also in 1860. The Austrian tendencies
of Mr. Roebuck prevented, for the first time, his
giving a vote for the ballot. The absence of Mr.
Potts, M.P. for Barnstaple, one of the few Con-
servatives who support the ballot, looks as if
party ties were stronger with him than the
love of purity and freedom of election. We
have good friends in Barnstaple, and to them
we leave Mr. Potts. If there is one of the 36
absentees whom we would specially point out far
reprobation, it is Mr. J. A. Turner; he stands
committed to the Ballot; not he says frankly that
he likes it himself, but because his constituents wish
him to vote for it. Looking at the Conference
lately held in Manchester, whose petition for, the
_
Ballot Mr. Turner presented to the House of
_unv
mons, he cannot plead any change in the relth":
his constituents in. justification of his absence,
le
,
wave
out a pair, both in 1860 and 1861; and w
him and the friends of the Ballot in Manchester to
settle the potion between thew.