The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-30 00:00:00

address presented to himself on the part of the con
gregation. There was " heartburning and differ-
ences " after the time of plaintiff's re-election.
Was not aware of any before that time ; not on ac-
count of plaintiff's moral character, at least. First
heard the report against plaintiff's moral conduct
from defendant. He was the first who pointedly
mentioned it, and that was on the thanksgiving day.
(Mr. Knowlea here reminded witness that that day
was the 16th of November.) There was a committee
of ministers appointed to investigate, but did not
recollect the !precise day. Understood something
about the committee declining to act, because Dr.
Nolan would not bind himself not to take proceed-
ings against the witnesses. In consequence of the
ministers giving it up, Dr. Nolan appointed a com-
mittee of the chapel, and that committee was to meet
on the 15th of November--the day witness met the
defendant. Witness himself was a member of the
committee, and had then received a notice to attend
it, but did not then know about what business. He
bad never heard before about Dr. Nolan's moral
character. Had heard persons say he was a " bad
man ;" but no one had dared to tell him for what.
That did not convey to witness's mind that he was
an immoral man, but they did not like him as a
preacher. Had heard Mrs. Redfern's name bef,re,
but not in connexion with immoral acts on the part
of the plaintiff. There was a meeting in
September, respecting the doctor's conduct, to investi-
gate a complaint made by Mrs. Redfern. To the best of
witness's recollection, it was not respecting indecent
liberties. "If you mean taking hold of a person's
hand, I don't call that taking indecent liberties."
Did not recollect exactly what was the report then
to be investigated. Did not recollect if anything was
said about his giving her a kiss in the vestry; but
would not swear that was not a part of the charge.
Mr. MARTIN—Was it stated in writing ? Wit-
ness—The whole was in writing. All documentary
evidence.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. lielowee, in continuation—Some of the prin-
cipal ministers were on the committee of investiga-
tion. Dr. Halley, of Manchester, was one of them.
Defendant is a gardener, and was an attendant at the
chapel after plaintiff's resignation and his being re-
elected. He ceased to attend on plaintiff being re-
elected. Witness made a note, after he got home, of
what defendant said to him. At that time no one
else was present. What defendant said to witness
was, that " plaintiff had given the young woman
a prescription to obtain a powder to cause abor-
tion, and that he was morally guilty of
murder in doing so." He had no recollection
of mentioning this to any one till after Christmas.
Believed he told the plaintiff himself of it first. The
statement was made to him in writing. Witness sent
it to him in a letter. Defendant did refer witness to
a party for proof as to another circumstance against
plaintiff. Witness in consequence went, and Mr.
Carr, who is a member of the congregation, saw
plaintiff there, but plaintiff did not go with him.
Witness never said that he more than suspected that
plaintiff was a guilty man. Did say that he thought
he was a clever man, and would have shown ability
at the bar. Plaintiff is a lively man, on occasions.
Never heard him say that be was a man of fun,
flirtation, and levity (witness shown a letter in plain-
tiff's handwriting). Never saw him, for instance, put
his chin into a lady's eye.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. KNowLES—What may be the most lively
thing you ever saw him do ? Witness —He was
very lively this morning.
What doing ?—Running along the street.
What, was there a lady before him ?—(Laughter.)
Mary Postlethwaite, a very pretty interesting-
looking woman, stated that her maiden name was
Mary Gilchrist, and that she was and still is a mem-
ber of plaintiff's congregation, and was twenty-four
years of age. Has been married four years. Her
husband keeps a shop at Manchester. Up to the
time of her marriage was a milliner. When she did
not sleep at her employer's she slept at her mother's.
Was married by Dr. Nolan, in 1846, to her husband,
who is a brush-manufacturer. Has two children.

Did ever Dr. Nolan take any indecent liberty with
you of any kind ? Witness—No.
You have heard the charge against him. Is there
the slightest foundation for it? Witness—No.
Cross-examined by Mr. liNowees—There was a
period of five years between her being out of her
apprenticeship and being married. Was in six diffe-
rent situations during that period, as milliner. Was
sometimes at home. Was a teacher, which took her
a good deal to the chapel. Occasionally went to
Dr. Nolan's house. There was no particular day.
Was sent by her mother, who had published
poems, and the doctor was one of her patrons, and
had to write notes. On most occasions Mrs. Nolan
was not there. Knew the servant, Charlotte, who
opened the door. Stayed sometimes not more than
ten minutes. had been at the vestry with the doctor
frequently, when nobody else was there. Tier ob-
jects in going were various. Whenever her mother
had any business, she always consulted the doctor.
Never went about any religious exercise. This con-
tinued up to the time of her marriage. Sometimes
had been twelve months without seeing the doctor,
except in the pulpit. Had sometimes met other Sun-
day-school teachers there. Joseph Bottomley kept
the chapel. He and his wife lived in rooms over the
vestry. Don't remember in 1844 going into But-
tomley's sitting• room with the doctor. Recollected
calling on Bottomley about a house, when she met
the doctor, who took her up into Bottomley's sitting-
room, and be fore she had tim to tell him not, But.
tomley lefr, the room. He was coming out as they
entered. Stayed in the room ten minutes. Ex-
plained to the doctor her reasons for wishing to leave
the house she was living in. That was the only time
she recollected going to Bottomley's room with Dr.
Nolan. Her husband keeps a brush-warehouse. Dr.
Nolan did not become security for her husband.
Re-examined—Mr. Metcalf, to whom witness's
husband was apprenticed, resigned his business in
favour of her husband. Dr. Nolan never took any
liberties with her. The vestry is open to all mem-
bers of the congregation who wish to see Dr. Nolan.
There was never any imputation upon her conduct.
Catherine Garman stated that she was mother of
last witness, and a member of Dr. Nolan's congrega-
tion for two years. There was never any imputation
against her daughter, and until last week never heard
that any one had dared to cast any upon her.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. KNOWLES, in addressing the jury for the de-
fendant, besought their indulgence, and a aid that it
was impossible not to feel that he had to address gen-
tlemen whose feelings,had been called forth by the ap-
pearance of the witness Mary Postlethwaite, and by the
story which had been presented to them respecting a
minister of the Gospel, belonging to that respectable
sect to which the plaintiff belonged ; but, to his mind,
it would have been more satisfactory, if the memorial
whicfehad been presented to the plaintiff with the time-
piece, had not been written by his own hand. The
slight insight which they had already obtained into the
character of the plaintiff, through his own witness,
Ford, showed that he was a light and frivolous man.
Tne plaintiff had had an opportunity of having the
case investigatod by a set of clergymen of his own
persuasion, which tribunal he had rejected on the
poor plea that he would not promise not to prosecute
those who might come forward to give evidence • and
then he brings his action against a poor gardener,
whom he would think the most likely person not to
be able to afford to meet him in court. The first
question was, whether the defendant spoke the words
and spoke them maliciously, or whether he spoke
them under such circumstances as that they became
what the law terms a privileged communication.
Ford's testimony with regard to the exact words could
not be relied on. In order to support slander malice
must be shown, and if words are spoken the plaintiff
must show that they are spoken maliciously, or that
malice is intended by them. The defendant had left
the plaintiff's chapel, whereas Ford had continued a
member of his congregation ; and if the defendant
believed bona fide the truth of what he spoke, and
that he spoke the words for the purpose of having the
charge investigated and the scandal cleared up, he
(the defendant) would be entitled to their verdict.
What motive had the defendant ? He had no quarrel.
Did he invent them ? Certainly not. What he had
beard he repeated to a person, whose duty it was to
inquire into it; and they would not visit damages on
a men for merely talking of that which had been
already the common talk of Manchester. The next
charge
was, that the plaintiff had been guilty of
adultery and fornication ; and a considerable amount
of evidence would be offered before them in mitiga-
tion of damages, to show gross familiarities which the
plaintiff had taken with divers members of his con-
gregation, not amounting to adultery or fornication,
but which was grossly improper in a person in the
plaintiff's position as a clergymen.
His LORDSHIP considered that, in his opinion, such
evidence was not receivable.
Mr. KNOWLES continued—The plaintiff came to the
chapel in 1838, and was appointed to Ducie Chapel a
year or two after, when he became acquainted with
Elizabeth Townley, and on one occasion he slipped
2s. 6d. into her glove, and shortly after sent her 2/. ;
and on several occasions they would find her in the
vestry of the chapel, the plaintiff gradually breaking
down the barrier of her virtue, and finally completing
the act which the doctor's interviews in the vestry
(which he SO desecrated) usually led to. They would
hear how he quoted David and Uriah, and justified
his own last by an appeal to Scriptural names. He
would tell them that, with the exception of the plain-
tiff, she had no intercourse with any other. They
would be asked to disbelieve her, but they would see
her now, bowed down by illness and want, through
the conduct of the plaintiff; and was it more likely
that the plaintiff should gratify the common passion,
or that she should come and perjure herself before
them ? The plaintiff was likewise accused of adul-
tery
with the woman Postlethwaite, who had been
called before them, who had the strongest motives
that a woman could have to deny the charge which
she had been called to disprove ; but the admits