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

LONDON, SATURDAY' EVENING, MAY!, ii, 1861.

-Z-AIrrNTELITGENCE—(7IIIg DayT.

lusinees done

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron.)

HATCH V. LEWIS.

SECOND D.Y.

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 not 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 let 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 2elh 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 an euiruns 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 to
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.)
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 friend
solicitor at teh;a t
butHe was a personal
nad of m
no solicitor was to be
g don either side, I did not speak to him about the
engaged
ge i ntime,as aIMr .
A understoodm s ley, .
matter. There was a very large sum raised for me ley 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 rtturned £5 when he
received the balance of his bill. I was not aware that Mr.
Onslow had written a very complimentary letter to Mr.
Lewis till lately. I was not aware of it before Miss Plum-
mer's trial—by lately, I mean before this trial was com-
menced, but I don't quite remember the day.
Re-examined by Mr. Montague Chambers—lt was about
a week after I was convicted I got Sergeant Ballantine's
brief, and I then complained to Mrs. Hatch of its insuffi-
cieney. 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 ha 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
rail oviclonoo, onrl T roplioa T varo 0c.021. fnt. It. Ir I 1...<1
seen Mr. Lewis I could have told him much more informa-
tion than he possessed. He 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 on 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—l 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.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

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 lam
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 ho 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 brier put into my nand is the one he ~,e.vea.
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 other
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-
viction took place in 1859, no question relative to the manner
in which Mr. Lewis acted for Mr. Hatch was made until
Nov., 1860, when the present action was brought against
him, viz., the recovery of damages for neglect. This step was
taken by the plaintiff against the defendants, who were
men of eminence in their profession, and engaged in the
most extensive practice. He could characterise it as 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 hisdamaged character. There could be no doubt about
that, because if the Messrs. Lewis succeeded in gaining a
verdict they would have to pay the whole of the expensive
proceedings, because Mr. Hatch could not pay a shilling.
Happily he had not to go into the evidence to prove the
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
had attained. The first
was that on the first occa-
sioncthhraorsugehgreeihomd u theias charge
dd
not by theot eminence
thatkprosecution whenwhich
he M
might
h
ri
g. they
t°Hatch was first examined on
the
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 adviser
would do, and his conduct throughout, as far as he cbuld
form au opinion, was marked by that °autism and care that

had rendered the firm eminent. The jearned 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-
withstandiig all was known to Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lewis
was never 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 to 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.
Castel], 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 Haycroft, 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 he took Keating to 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 sover.;ty” +ho r.nr-bas, and
recommended Mr. Honeyball to be liberal to her.
Subsequently Mr. Honeyball gave her a half sovereign.
AN 'UNFORTUNATE PLAINTIFF.--This morning Mrs.
Billing, greengrocer, of Berwick-street, and who, it may lie
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.