The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-09 00:00:00

X r 7 AUGUST 9, 1850.

duce the same. You will please to make such use of
this letter as you may thing proper, and, communicate
the same, if necessary, to the creditors of Ruyseenaers,
who are known to you, and accept my cordial salutations.
"J. HAY STEK, 27. Norfolk-street, Fitzroy-square.
" P.S. It appears that his brother, of Alexandria,
disguised as a Turk, is at this moment in London or at
Rotterdam. It. is said—but I know not whether the
statement is true or not—that he has sold, lent, hires',
or given to you his negro, who, as well as his noble
master, has been for some time on foot. If the said
African is really with you, interrogate him respecting
the facts mentioned by me, and you will not be lung in
acquiring the conviction that these statements are much
below the truth."
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to state that on the
same day the defendant sent a letter of a similar descrip-
tion to another of the correspondents of the plaintiff at
Ant werp, and on the 18th of April be sent a third letter
to his correspondent at Withelnastadr, and he read them
to the jury, but as they were precisely to the saute effect
as the one above given, it will be unnecessay to repeat
them. He said he should satisfy the jury that the foul
and malicious statements contained in these letters were
entirely without foundation. So far from being insol-
vent, he was carrying on an extensive and respectable
business as a merchant of the city of London; and the
statement with regard to Hiuckee, his clerk, was utterly
untrue, and had Bo other foundation than this:—The
plaintiff, suspecting the improper nature of the intimacy
existing between the defendant and his wife, thought it
right, during his absence abroad on his mercantile af-
fairs, to give his clerk some additional influence in his
establishment, and being ignorant of the laws of &g-
-land, he thought that by subletting him his house and
furniture during his absence he should affect that object,
and that was: the only ground for the slanderous
imputation that the plaintiff bad assigned his pro-
perty to him in order to cheat his creditors. He said
that unfortunately, a few days back Ilinckes, the person
referred to, had taken poison, and he was now in the
charge of his friends,. and he should therefore hot be
able to produce him as a witoess, but the agreement that
was iniadCfrith hint in was court, and should be produced,
if his Learned Friend desired to see it. The 'Learned'
Counsel then remarked upon the reriousconsequences that
wore likely to ensue to a gentleman in the position of the
plaintiff by such an attack being made upon his charac-
ter, and observed that it might have ended in his total
ruin; and he concluded by saying that he felt assured
that when the whole case was before the jury they would
give such an amount of damages as would show to the
world the groundlessness of the charges that had been
made, and would re-establish the reputation of the plain-
tiff, which Lad been so grievously assailed.
Miss Sophia Ruysennaere, a very intelligent little girl,
was then examined. The original letters written by the
defendant were shown to her, and she identified his
handwriting. She then deposed that she accompanied
her father and mother from Rotterdam to England about
twelve months ago,. and they resided in Elmtree-road,
St. John's-wood. About nine weeks after they came to
England the defendant was appointed tutor to herself and
her sisters, and he remained in the house until some time
in the present year.
Mr. CHAMBERS then proceeded to cross-examine the
witness, but upon his asking her where she was living at
the present time she declined to ansster, because she said
her mother and Mr. Haystek wanted to get her to be
with them.
Mr. JAMES interposed, and said he believed an at-
tempt had been made by the wife of the plaintiff and
the defendant to obtain forcible possession of the child,
and he trusted that under these circumstances his
Learned Friend would not press the question as to her
present residence.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he must insist upon his right to a
full cross. examination in this case.
Mr. Justice ERLE said he must leave it to the discre
tion of the Learned Counsel, and he was sure that he
would not enter into any inquiries that were not abso-
lutely necessary.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he should certainly not do so.
The inquiry was one of a very painful character, and he
should not enter into any matters that he did not consider
absolutely essential.
The witness then, in answer to questions that were
put by the Learned Counsel, said that she and her
mamma were living at Rotterdam for some time before
her papa fetched them to England. He was
carrying on his business as a merchant at that time
and tie quently travelled to transact his affairs. The
defendant was appointed as tutor alter they had been in
England about nine weeks, and he remained until he
was turned out of the house by Mr. Hiuckes. Her papa
and mamma used to quarrel sometimes; but she said she
never saw her papa beat her mamma, and when there
was a quarrel her mamma always began it.—(A laugh.)
She had seen her father twice in a Turkish dress—once
after he had returned from Eg) pt, when he put it on to
amuse some company at their house. He never wore the
dress out of the house.
Re-examined by Mr. JAMES—The house in St.
John's-6 ood bad been prepared for their reception when
they came from Rotterdam. The quarrels between her
papa and mamma were much more frequent after Mr.
Haystek came to the house. After they bad bad break-
faat he would say that he was going to teach her mamma
Eugl'ah, and they would go into another room; but this
only occurred when her papa was from home.
Mr. Coventry, corn-merchant, deposed that he had
known the plaintiff for several years as a foreign mer-
chant, and he had had business tranaactions with him.
He had establishments at Amsterdam and Rotterdam,
and curried on an extensive business.
Mr. H. L. Crebne gave similar evidence.
Mr. Francis Dart, a &elk in the Post-office, proved
that the letters containing the libels bore the English
and foreign postmarks, and had regularly passed
through the different post-offices.
Mr. H. Child, the plaintiff's attorney, deposed that he
was acquainted with the plaintiff and his wife, and he
had been consulted upon the subject of their unfortu-
nate differences. About ten days ago he said Mrt. Ruy-
sennaer called at his office, and upon his going down
stairs he saw the defendant waiting for her, and they
went away together.
The letters were put in and read, and this closed the
case for the plaintiff.
Mr. CHAMBERS then proceeded to address the jury for
the defendant; but, as no evidence was offered in sup-
port of the plea of justification, and it appeared, in point
of fact, that no answer was to be attempted to the plain-
tiff's case, it will be unnecessary to go at any lentil
into the topics urged by the Learned Counsel. lie com-
mented with some severity upon the conduct of the
plaintiff in instructing his counsel to destroy the reputa-
tion of his wile, and he contended that there was no
proof of the existence of any guilty connexion between
her and the defendant, and said that the accusation was
only introduced with a view to prejudice the inquiry and
induce the jury to give heavy damages. lie contended
that if there was any ground for the charge of criminal
conversation the action ought to have been brought in
that form, and that the plaintiff had no right to
charge the defendant with having libelled him, and
then, in order to induce the jury to give heavy damages,
introduce another accusation against him of having
seduced his wife. Ile called upon the jury nut to
sanction such a course of pi oceeding, and said they
had no right to regard any other question than the one
actually before them, which was the charge of libel, and
all they were entitled to do was to consider what amount
of injury the plaintiff had sustained by that libel. The
Learned Counsel concluded by urging upon the jury that
under the circumstances it was impossible for the plain-
tiff to have sustained any real damage, the letters being
aduressed to persons abroad, who very probably locked
them up, and took no further notice of them until their
production was required for the purposes Of the present
action.

Mr, Justice ERLE, in summing up, after having briefly
Explained ttie nature of the action, said that the impu-
tation which was cast upon the plaintiff in the letters in
question was one undoubtedly of a most serious charac
ter, because it must be apparent to everybody that in
the case of a person transacting mercantile affairs with
foreign countries his position entirely depended upon his
credit, and, it once suspicion was cast upon him, it
might cause his utter min. The jury would dismiss
from their considemtion all that had been staled with
regard to the allegsd misconduct of the wife of the
plaintiff with the defendant. If it was true it should form
the grounu for a different description of proceeding, and
the jury would merely look at the case of libel, which
was the only one they now had to consider. His Lord•
ship then said that he could not help considering that
the conduct of the defendant, in plscing a plea of justifi-
cation upon the record, and persisting in retaining that
plea up to the very last moment, probably for the pur-
pose of intimidating the plaintiff from proceeding with
the action, was an aggravating circumstance in the case,
and one which the jury ought to tike into their con•
sideration is estimating the amount of damages to which
the plaintiff was entitled.
The jury, after a very short deliberation, returnei a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 6001.

WESTERN CIRCUIT —Exeter, Aug. 6.
NISI PRIUS COURT.--(Before Mr. justice COLE-
RIDGE and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. LATIMER.
Mr. Crowder, Mr. Butt, and Mr. Coleridge were coun-
sel for the prosecution, and Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Tap-
rell, Mr. Platnn, and Mr. Collier for the defendant.
This was a criminal information which had been filed
by the Rev. George Rundle Pryune, incumbent tf St.
Peter's District Church, Plymouth, against the defend-
ant, as the publisher of the Pisunroutli Journal, tor a libel
inserted iu that piper on the 24,h of January last, re •
fleeting on the character of the prosecutor. The follow-
ing is the alleged libel.
" Increase ofropulation.—L;k9 priest like people is an
old axiom, and rather a trutttful one. It the hail(' lead
the blind, said the Ilead of the Church, the ditch is their
destination. Not a hundred miles ft ona Eldad Chapel,
where the abhorrent doctrines and practices of Puseyisna
are being carried out, report says (and truly so) that a
certain young lady, not too modest in her behaviour,
and certainly not over nice about her honour or prole;-
shin, rtceived a new-year's present in the character of a
son Ora daughter. Before this strange arrival, the priest
(who cares evidently a great deal less for his own wife
than sor certain ether Lmales, and on whom great rs-
picion rests touching the origin of the stranger above
alluded to) declared the mother's situation to be a deli-
cate one, and diaerialinatioa to be needful so to the

author of her situation and guilt. One designated her
situation a dropsy, and scouted the idea Of anything
criminal. To rebut the charge of guilt, a marriage of
long or short duration with e certain gray-head was
blown about. But, lo! at the appointed time nature
moved, and the dropsy was cured. Nature's laws re-
vealed the guilty secret, though not the guilty accom-
plice. And now what is to be done? A church meet-
ing must be celled. It is convened, and with what re-
sult? The judge r.nd jury present, the question is put,
What have you to say to this charge, Mr. —?" I
swear by this book (the Bible) the child is not mine.'
'Right,' said the jury, said the judge, and the
supposed culprit was liberated as innocent. There is a
dark secret here, about which public indignation must
be rtirred to its depths. When men profess to teach
the judgment nigh, their own lives ought to be indeed
decent."
Ou behalf of the prosecution it was urged that this
was only a series of articles which the defendant had
published, and which reflected on the prosecutor.
The Rev. George Rundle Prynne, incumbent of Eldad
Chapel, was called. He was instituted to St. Peter's
Elded in September, 1848, and was married September,
1849, to a daughter of Sir Thomas Fellowes, and resides
at Wyndham-place, adjoining the chapel. In January
lest his attention was directed to a paragraph in the
Plymouth Journal. There had been publications re,
specting him previously in that paper. On the 24th of
January, 1850, when he read the paragraph, be un-
doubtedly thotieht it was meant to apply to him, but
there was not the least foundation for the imputation
contained : first, from the language he could scarcely in-
fer any other; and, "by the abhorrent doctrines" being
mentioned, that it seemed bad doctrines were to be car-
ried out. He had preached sermons applicable to ad-
vent and on the second judgment. On the Saturday
following he applied to his solicitor in the morning,
and on the some day, about 2 or 3 c'clock in the
afternoon, Mr. Latimer called on him. When
the defendant called on him, plaintiff's curate.
the Rev. George Hettling, was with him. He
said be bad called with reference to an article in
the paper—first having asked for a private inter-
view, which he declined, and that was the reason of the
curate being present. Plaintiff replied that if he had
called with reference to that article, he must refer him
to his solicitor, in whose hands he had placed the matter.
The defendant replied, he did not wish to interfere with
any proceedings witness had thought fit to institute, but
to explain that the article was meant to apply to Mr.
Burgess, and not himself. Witness remarked he had
been attacked so many times by him, and in so gross a
manner, that ho was compelled to place it in the hands
of his solicitor.
Cross-examined by Mr, GREENWOOD —lle was not
living at Eldad at the time of his marriage, but after-
wards he came there. He had been living with his wife on
terms of the utmost affection, He never heard the smallest
rumour of want of affection between him and his wife
before the publication of this article, or affecting his
moral character in any respect. lie could not recollect
who first pointed out to him the article of the 24th of
January. He might have purchased it. It was net Mr
Joseph Beer, who was one of the lay secretaries to the
Church Union Society, which promotes those forms and
practices called Puseyisw. It was composed of a mixed
body of churchmen, and not ruseyites as they were
termed. He supposed they would promote the
Anglican Catholic Church. His chapel and congrega-
tion were not commonly called a Puseyite chapel and
congregation. They would be very indignant at its
being done se. Mr. ',rainier commonly called it so.
His affidavit for the Queen's Bench was made
the Monday following the publication of the
libel. He knew of a chapel called Second Ad.
vent Chapel, in a straight line with St. Peter's
Church. He know Mr. Burgess by sight, and believed
he lived in a house next to the Second Advent Chapel.
It was about 100 yards from plaintiff's chapel. He sup-
posed from their title they preached the advent of
Christ and the second judgment. The chapel was
built before the prosecutor went to Eldad, and Mr. Bur-
gess also resided there. He did not know an old man
named Stoodleigh in the same house with Mr. Burgess.
He never heard before the publication of this article of a
young lady residing near'Eldad Chapel being delivered of
a bastard child, and never declared the situation df such
a mother a delicate one, nor took a part in it. Had any one
stated such, it was false. He had never heard any
suspicion or rumour of a child having been so born
neer Eldad Chapel. No church meeting was ever
called at St. Peter's Church with reference to
that or any other transaction. No question ism ever
put to him as to his denying the question. He was never
asked by any one to deny that or to abjure the Bible,
nor anything like a declaration required of him; and if
not fur the referring to the "priest of Eldad Chapel and
Puseyite principles" in that article, he should not have
appaed it to himself. The libel in his judgment ended
with the word " daughter." That part of it referring
to the marriage he could not understand, arid could not
apply that to himself. The matter was taken up warmly
by his friends, but he had never had a penny for cote
paid him. He was answerable for'all, and nothing had been
promised him. No doubt his relations and friends would
help him in the matter, to pay thativhich was not al
towed by the Queen in such a case as this. lie might
have seen Mr. Joseph Beer on the Sunday at Sr. Peter's
Church. The paper he first saw in his oen house. Be
did not consider be had been told of the publication, end
ulthough he did not habitually read the paper, be could
not recollect how be came by it. Ile could not understand
the meaning of the church meeting nor that with refer-
ence to the exculpation. Mr. Latimer might have said at
the interview that he was misinformed it he applied it to
htnaself. The defendant did not say there should be as
ample a denial to it as possible, so far as he could re-
collect. A handbill, similar to the one produced, was
left at witness's house after they were posted about the
neighbourhood, dated the 4th of February, after the
criminal information had been obtained. Other readers
would have their conviction strengtbed that it was meant
for him by reference to previous articles published in this
journal. If they had not see❑ them, they might have
applied this article to hitnself. He was the only priest
at Elded, Mr. Reuling being in deacon's orders. Lati-
mer had designated Healing a " priest," although he
(the plaintiff) was the priest par excellence. He applied
it to himself from the previous attacks. Speaking of
" the priest" would make the incumbent the subject of
attack rather tha❑ the curate. (The Learned Counsel
handed the witness a paper containing au article headed
" The Mormonites," of December 27.) He had not read
that before the at ticle in question. To-day was the
first time. It seems to refer to similar facts as that in
the libel. Ilad he see❑ this paper, he might hate thought
it to apply to Mr. Burgess as well as himselt—to himself
with regard to the abhorrent doctrines of Puseyism,"
and to Burgers as the father of the child.
A vast number of witnesses were called, who all ex-
pre sid their belief that the article applied to the pro-
secutor.
On behalf of the defendant it was stated, first, that he
was ill in bed at the time the article was sent to his of-
fice, and had never seen it until it was published, and
then it was urged that it was not intended
to apply to the prosecutor, but to a Mr. Burgess;
and this the defendant had explained to the prosecutor,
and had placarded the town of Plymouth with hand-
bills, asserting that this article had no reference to Mr.
Prynue.

Witnesses were then called, who stated that Mr. Bur-
gess was the preacher at one of the " Second Advent"
chapels at Eldad, Plymouth, and that a young lady had
been staying at his house who was in a state of preg-
nancy, and was confined of a child there. A meeting of
the deacons of the chapel was called, and Mr. Burgess
was spuken to on the subject, but Mr. Burgess still con-
tinued to preach there. It was the opinion of many
persons that Mr. Burgess was the party referred to in
that libel.
The following evidence is rather curious:—
Mr. E. Micklewoud, the alleged author of the para-
graph, was then called. He preached at one of the Se-
cond Advent chapels in Wilson street, Plymouth, about
three parts or halt a mile from the one at Eldad. He
bad preached there two years, and was acquainted with
Mr. Burgess. The doctrines taught were different. The
chief topic, common to both, was the near approach of
the Saviour's second coming. He had been on terms of
intimacy with Mr. Burgess, who is a married man and
separate
d from bis wife. In January last witness had
corresponded with the wile. Shortly befoie the 24th of
January he furnished the article produced in MS. to Mr.
Latimer. It was in his own wiiting, and was his own
ci.mposition. It was sent to him in an envelope, and the
first time he 'had any conversation with Mr. Latimer on
the subject was the week following its publication and
these proceedings talked of. He bad beard of the mat-
ters referred to by him in his manuscript, and were ex-
tensively circulated and bringing scandal on the sect by
parties hostile to them. Oa th 27th of December he
saw an article in the Journal, headed " Mormonites," in-
tended to apply to Mr. Burgess.
Cross-examined—Witness and Mr. Burgess did not
come to Pij mouth together, and the latter got the best
of it. Burgess had had the largest congregation. He
did not the first time he went to Plymouth "set up for
himself ;" the to was an arrangement with the congre-
gation for Burgess at:d hinit..elf to change, but which he
afterward refused, and witness then sent in his resigna-
tion. The first article he wrote was the one complained
of. He did not write the " Morreonite " article, neither
dii I.e know who did. He disagreed with Puseyism,aud
believed the ceremonies and practices both " abhorrent
tal oljectionarile."
What did you mean by that?—That I disliked it be-
cause it was unscripturat, nod abhorrent is a term ex-
pressive of that in my mind.
Why did you not write to Mr.Burgees stating that he had
couituitt.d a gross scandal by ge;ttiog this young woman
in the family way—have stated it plainly ?-1. wished if
possible to cut rest his cr.;iiduct through the means of pub:,
licoptreion.

Did you not think that you could better correct
his conduct by exposing him at once?—l might have
done so.

Were you afraid of being prosecuted?-1 was not.
Did you think you might be sheltered by
the paper
from prosecution ?—I had no fear of making known my
name: in the matter, nor of waking WO of Mr. Burgess's
name. lie adopted this mode of correcting Mr. Burgess's
conduct, undetstandiag the matter was so extensively
circulated that it could not but be generally understood
who was meant; and that was his reason for not rtfar•
ring to him ktraightfol ward like a man.
And is that part of your preaching, this sort of D.