The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-03 00:00:00

tioned them, or the subject of them, to any one till I
mentioned them to Mr. Karr. Sarah Knight was
living at Mr. Karr's when the words were spoken.
Thomas Bence, examined by Mr. GRAY—I am a
labourer. I was at work in December, making hay.
It was very late for haymaking. It was in December
after Ruther had left Mr. Karr's service. About a
month after he left he came to me as I was at work,
and I said it was a bad job that he lost his place at
Mr. Karr's; and he said it was the fault of that w—
of a housekeeper, and that Mr. Karr and she would
go into the parlour and get drunk till they did not
know what they were about ; and that when she
was ill Mir. Karr sent to Mr. Hicks for a black
draught ; after it was brought Mr. Karr said to her
" you must take it," and after she took it something
dropped from her as she walked out of the house
till I was ashamed to walk behind her. My wife
was by when he began to speak thus, and she heard
some of it and walked away. She is now ill, and at
home.

Cross-examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON—I am as
sure that it was in December as that Ruther made use
of the words. lam as positive of the one as of the
other. I had forgotten the date till it was told me.
It was the general talk of the country about Ruther
raising the scandal about Mr. Karr. I have been
often to the vicarage. I live about a mile from the
vicarage. I used to call her the housekeeper. I was
never in the house very early in the morning. I
mentioned the words to Mr. Jackson about two
months ago. I did not write them down. I did not
go to Mr. Karr and mention them to him as soon as
I heard them. I did not think it worth while. I was
talked of in the country.
By the JUDGE—The present month is September.—
(Loud laughter.)
John Cox Hicks, examined by Mr. GRAY—I am a
surgeon and apothecary at Berkeley, and have prac-
tised there from Is2l to the present moment. My
house is a quarter of a mile from the vicarage. I
know Mr. Vizard, a solicitor of Dursley. He came
to my brother's some time ago to make inquiries about
Mr. Karr. I communicated to Mr. Karr that such
inquiries had been made. Those inquiries had
reference to an alleged miscarriage of Sarah Knight.
Cross-examined byi Mr. WHATELY—It was a real
miscarriage. I should, not think from what I saw
• she was in •the family-way more than two months.
Never before attended her when in the family-way.
I do not remember her leaving home for a month and
coming back again. Ido not remember that occur-
ring on two different occasions. I was applied to to
send her some medicines in last July. lam not cer-
tain who came for it. Ruther did not come to me
for medicines in the beginning of July. I saw Mr.
Karr in the beginning of July—before I saw Sarah
Knight—on the same day. I sent some medicine for
her after I saw him. Ido not think I saw him that
day after I saw her. It might be the following day.
It was on the subject of her illness, She was then
living at Mrs. Shepherd's. It was on the sth of
July. She was in bed at Mrs. Shepherd's.
The reason I sent the medicine to the vicarage
was that I did not know but that she had gone
back to the vicarage. It. was about eleven o'clock on
the sth of July I saw her at Mrs. Shepherd's, and I
sent the medicine a quarter of an hour afterwards. I
sent the medicine by my servant. She is here. She
is not in my service. She miscarried on the 18th.
I attended her between those two days. She showed
symptoms of miscarriage on the 7th and Bth. On
the sth there were premonitory symptoms. Mr. Karr
paid me for my attendance. I had known him for
seven or eight years. .He brought her to the vicarage
when he came. Some would have thought her a very
pretty young woman. Beauty is a matter of opinion.
My opinion is that she was e very pretty young
woman. She was the housekeeper. I never saw her
in the dining-room with him except when she
answered the bell. I saw Mr. Vizard. He did not
come to me. I have not spoken to Mr. Karr about
an ecclesiastical suit that is going on. He has
spoken to me about it. Ide has not that lam aware
of said that it related partly to Sarah Knight, not
that lam aware of. Her name has not been men-
tioned by him to me in connexion with it that I am
aware of. He might have mentioned it. I have no
doubt about it. He has been suspended from doing
duty in the church some months. He still lives at the
vicarage. Sarah Knight lived there till lately.
Re-examined by Mr. KEATING—He never men-
tioned ber name in connexion with the suit in the
Ecclesiastical Court, except in reference to the inqui-
ries made by Mr. Vizard. He said there had been
scandalous reports with respect to himself, myself,
and the housekeeper, and that it had been stated that
I supplied medicine to his housekeeper, Sarah Bar-
row, with a view to produce a miscarriage. I had
before that communicated to him the inquiries made
by Mr. Yizard. I should judge that she had been
in the family-way about two months. I cannot say
positively when she was married, but it was about
two, months previously. I believe it was in the
month of May she was married. When I sent the
medicine She was at the vicarage. My reason for
sending it, to the vicarage Will when I saw her she
was not very ill, and she said if found herself bet-
ter she would get up and go to the vicarage. ller
husband was living with her at Mrs. Shepherd's.
By Mr. KEATING—Did you give her that medicine
with a view to procure abortion ?
Mr. WHATELY objected to the question, and said
—I do not mean to impute to Mr. Hicks that he sent
the medicine with a view to procure abortion. Ido
the gentleman the justice of saying that I make no
such charge against him.
Mr. KEATING said that up to that moment the im-
putation had been relied on, and he had a right to put
the question.

Re-examination-resumed (question repeated)—l
never gave her that or any other medicine with any
such intent. Mr. Karr never attempted to induce me
to send any such . medicine. He had always pad for
all'medicine sent to his servants. I never observed
that she was ever treated otherwise than as a house-
keeper would be treated. I had attended her before
when she was unwell. Never attended her with
symptoms of pregnancy. The servant I had at the
time left my service. She did not come here with
me. I saw 111 r. Vizard at my brother's house, which
is opposite the vicarage. I was sent for ; when I ar-
rived I found Mr. Vizard there.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. WIIATELY then proceeded to address the jury.
He said he approached the case with great pain and
anxiety, because from the very nature of it, as pre-
sented by the plaintiff's own witnesses, it was one
that must be most disagreeable to him, to the jury,
and to all who heard it. They bad heard kora. his
Learned Friend that the defendant was a labouring
man, in the habit of earning his bread by the sweat
of his brow, and who had been employed by the
plaintiff for years, at weekly wages, and that the
action was brought against him to redeem the plain-
tiff's character. This was strange indeed, for the
question was whether, considering the evidence
brought forward, "and the answers which the wit-
nesses. gave most reluctantly, and considering the
evidence which the plaintiff might have called, and had
not called, his character did not suffer more than it
gained by-the investigation. He did not stand there to
say that the plaintiff had given medicine to procure abor-
tion, or that he and Mr. Hicks conspired to give her
medicine to procure abortion. He at once admitted
that there was no ground for saying that they did so,
but he begged of the jury to bear in mind that the de-
fendant was a poor, honest, ignorant man,,and did be-
lieve that the medicine was given, for the purpose.
This would not entitle him to tbe verdict; but the
jury in estimating the damages would take it into
consideration, and say that' the smallest possible
amount would be sufficient to award against him.

ht well bare be-
lievedgiven for the purpose of
___.... ..
Looking at all the fa;t;,RUther might
that the medicine was
procuring abortion ; and if he really believed it, where
was his malice in repeating it ? Was a man never
to open, his lips respecting eft eighbour unless topraise
him ? This was a sad case. Those who eared for
wthaes a minister.Churchmusotf
it.de What a strange story they heard.eply regret that this gentleman
A clergyman, living with his housekeeper, a very
pretty young woman, on such terms that she used to
quarrel with him, and swear at him. They had been
told that his object in bringing the action was to vin-
dicate his character. If so, why did he not put her
into the box? She could have said whe-
ther the rumours were groundless—she could
have said whether they were calumnies on her and
him. Why, even, was no servant other than Anne
Williams called, who could speak to the manner in
which the plaintiff and she conducted themselves ?
Why was not Jane Bayley called ? The reason why
the defendant put the pleas on the record denying
that Hicks was a surgeon, and she a housekeeper,
was in order that the plaintiff might be obliged to call.
them. Hicks had been called, but she had been care-
fully kept back; and this, forsooth, in an action
brought for the purpose of vindicating the plaintiff's
character. The Learned Gentleman having dwelt
very effectively and eloquently upon the principal cir-
cumstances of the case, concluded by asking the jury
to give the smallest possible damages, if they should
find themselves compelled, by the nature of the plead-
ings in evidence, to give any.
Mr. Justice PATTESON summed up. If the jury
should find that the defendant used the words laid in
the declaration, it was no excuse on this record that
the defendant believed them to be true. The words

seemed to be proved beyond all dispute, and there-
fore the next question would be the amount of
the damages, on which they could form an opinion.
Tile defendant had no privilege because he was poor
to circulate stories to the disadvantage of his neigh-
bours. If he thought any of them guilty of a crime,
he should go and give information to a magistrate, and
not run about the country repeating slanders which
he could not prove.
The jury deliberated for af 3W moments. Verdict
for the plaintiff—Dsw.ges 18. '