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

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, April 2.

(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and a Common Jury.)
THE REV. JOHN SETON PARR V. RUTHER.—SLANDER

ON THE VICAR OF BERKELEY.

Mr. Keating, Q.C., and Mr. Grey were counsel for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Whately, Q.C., and Mr. Hud-
dleston, for the defendant.
This was an :action for slander, brought by the
plaintiff, the vicar of the village of Berkeley, is this
county, against the defendant, a labourer, for words,
imputing to him (the plaintiff) that he had got Sarah
Knight, his housekeeper, with child, and obtained
' medicine from a Mr. Hicks, a surgeon and apothe-
cary at Berkeley, and given it to her in order to
procure abortion. The defendant pleaded "Not
guilty ;" that Sarah Knight was not plaintiff's
housekeeper, and that Hicks was not a surgeon and
apothecery. On these pleas issues were joined.
Mr. KEATING, in stating the case, said the plaintiff
was the highly respectable vicar of Berkeley, who was
obliged to bring this action in order to vindicate his
character from calumnies of the most infamous cha-
racter, which had been circulated against him by the
defendant. It would appear that the plaintiff had had
in his service for several years a housekeeper named
S srah Barrow. She married a man named William
Knight, in May, 1849. After her marriage she still
continued in the plaintiff's service, but slept with her
husband, in the village. About the month of
July she exhibited symptoms of being in the
family-way, and Mr. Hicks, a surgeon and apothecary
of the greatest respectability, who had always at-
tended Mr. Karr's family, attended on her, and pre-
scribed for her, and the defendant, who was a la-
bourer in the plaintiff's employment, happened to be
the person who, on several occasions, was sent for the
medicine for her ; and on this slight foundation did
he build up the infamous charge which was now the
subject of inquiry, and for which he (Mr. Keating)
was instructed to say there was not the shadow of a
foundation. Some time towards the end of July the'
defendant received notice to leave the plaintiff's ser-
vice, and troth Lure. ead
a determination to injure the plaintiff in every pos
sible manner, and repeatedly expressed his intention of
doing so. There was a gentleman of the name of
Gaisford, in the village of Berkeley, whom the defen-
dant believed to be anxious to collect information
against the plaintiff, and he on one occasion threatened
that he would go to Mr. Gaisford and give such infor •
mation respecting the plaintiff as would strip the gown
off his back. About the last week in June, 1849, he
first put his threats into execution. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to comment on the state-
ments made by the defendant to the several witnesses,
and which will be found detailed in their evidence.
After going through the narrative of the several state-
ments, the Learned Gentleman observed that the
plaintiff, feeling secure in the uprightness of his own
conduct, did not take any notice of these slanders until
he actually found that a professional gentleman was
sent down to Berkeley, to make inquiries on the
subject, with a view to institute a charge against him
in his ecclesiastical character. Then, and then only,
did he think it his duty to challenge discussion, and
to call upon the defendant to establish the truth of his
calumnies if he could. They would hear a great deal
Maid to-day about the poverty of the defendant, and
his inability to bring forward witnesses to prove the
truth of his statements ; but when they saw him re •
presented by such eminent counsel and by London
attorneys (Messrs. Bush and Mullins were the at-
torneys), they could entertain no doubt that, if the
truth of any one of these charges could be proved,
money would not be wanted for the purpose. If Ruther,
or rather those who set him in motion, could prove the
truth of his calumnies, they would have done so; but
they had not clued to do so ; they had flinched from
the attempt, and had not even ventured to place upon
the record a plea of justification for a single one of
these calumnies. Tne defendant pleaded merely that
he had not spoken the words, which meant either that
he did not speak them at all, or that, if he did, he
did not speak them in the sense attributed to them by
the plaintiff ; but he admitted that if he did speak
them, and in the sense so attributed to them, they
were false. There were two other pleas of a formal
or technical charater, the object of which he did not
understand ; one denying
that Mr. Hicks was a sur-
geon and apothecary, and the other that Sarah Bar-
row, or Knight, acted as the plaintiffs housekeeper.
As the defendant admitted, by his pleadings, that if
be spoke the words in the sense stated in the declara-
tion they were false, the only remaining question
would be the amount of the damages, and on this
subject he wished at once to say that Mr. Karr
brought this action to remove the imputations upon
his character and to establish their falsehood, and not
to look for vindictive damages ; but he hoped the jury
would give such damages as would satisfy every one
who heard the trial that they were of opinion the ac-
tion was one in which the plaintiff was entitled to
substantial and reasonable damages, and would show
their sense of the malignity, wickedness, and false-
hood of the calumnies circulated against him.
Anne Williams, examined by Mr. GILIA.Y—I live at
Berkeley. Am wife of John Williams, who is in the
service of the plaintiff as his groom, and was formerly
in Mr. Karr's service in his house. I left his regular
service in 1845. Prom time to time.' went to his
house afterwards. I know the defendant well. He
was in the plaintiff's service last summer, and left
somewhere about midsummer. He told me that his
master had given him notice to leave, as he would not
marry. I was, after he had got notice to leave, in the
kitchen with him one day, and he spoke to me. He
began the conversation. He was speaking very
angrily of master. •He said six chickens bad died,
and master had bought six more, and said he would
charge him for them, but if he did, be (Rather) would
make him pay double for them, and he had 'therefore
better mind what he was about. She asked him, "Has
master been on with you about marrying ?" He
said, "He had better mind what he is about, or he
will get into it himself, for the medicine which Mr.
Hicks used to send here was to destroy young
ones. Master, Mr. Hicks, and Sarah ought to be
tried for their lives—the one for giving, the other
for sending, and the other for taking it. More
than that, I know a person who asked Mr. Hicks to
send one of the same sort of black draughts that

r
Sarah 1 a she would not let him have it." I said,
" Who can prove it ?" He replied, " There are
esough to prove it." I know Sarah Knight. She wes
in Mr. Rarr's service as houselsZeper as long as I
knew her, ever since I first knew Mr. Karr, since
1844. She left his service last Saturday fortnight. I
remember her being married. It was before the con-
versation I have mentioned. The conversation took
place about a fortnight before Rather left Mr. Karr's
service. It was in the beginning of July he left. I
do not know how long before that Sarah had been
married. Before that she had been ill, and I gave
her some advice. Before her marriage she lived en-
tirely in Mr. Karr's house. After her marriage she
slept out with her husband. Her maiden name was
Barrow—her husband's name was William Knight.
The day before Ruther left he spoke to me in the
laundry about Mr. Karr. I said to him, " Tom, has
master been on again with you about marriage ?"
This I said because he was living with a woman by
whom he had a number of children. He said, " Let
him mind what he is at, or I will do for him ; he will
find that lam a rum one. I will just go across to
that little fellow Gaisford, and he will be glad to take
hold of him, and to take the gown off his back."
Mr. Gaisford is a lawyer in Berkeley. I saw him
the day he left. I asked him if he had left. He said
he had, and that he would just go across to Gaisford,
and see what he could do for him.
Cross-examined—l have heard in the town that
Mr. Gaisford's wife left her home in consequence of
Mr. Karr's conduct; Ido not know that Mr. Karr
soon afterwards left his home. I know he went to
London. I have not heard from Mr. Karr that pro-
ceedings are now going on against him on account
of Mrs. Gaisford. I did not know Mr. Karr before he
came to Berkeley. Sarahileft home on more than one
occasion for a week. On her return I saw no change
in her appearance. I never saw her sitting in the
dining-room with him. Medicine was brought by
Mr. Hicks's boy in July last, and placed in the dining-
coons. Sarah was then living at the house of a Mrs.
Shepherd, and was at her house when the medicine
was brought. She came to Mr Karr's after the me-
dicine was brought; he was at home. She went into
the dining-room. After being there a quarter of
an hour he did not come out and ask for a spoon
and glass. I do not know that a spoon and glass
were taken into the room. She was poorly after she
had taken the medicine. I remember, in a day or two
afterwards, Mr. Karr's coming home from a party.
Ido not remember a quarrel about his dinner. It
was my husband's supper. She was ill that same
afternoon. Did you find it necessaryto clean the kitchen
floor ?—I do not know what you mean. There were
no droppings or stains on the floor. Jane Bay-
ley was in the house at the time. Sarah Knight
miscarried within a short time after that. Ido not
know whether I and Ruther afterwards talked about
it. Ido not remember it. I will not swear I had
not a conversation with him about the miscarriage. I
do not remember. Ido not know that the miscar-
riage was not the subject of frequent conversation in
the neighbourhood. It was at Mr. Karr's she mis-
carried. She lodged at the time at Mrs. Shepherd's,
but the miscarriage took place at the vicarage. Sarah
Knight is between 30 and 40 years of age. lam 30
next May.- She is a year or two older than I am.
There was a quarrel between her and Mr. Karr a day
or two before her miscarriage. She was a good deal
excited. I never heard him swear in my life. She has
sworn. Ido not remember her swearing at him. I
will not swear she did not swear at him. I was not
present at their quarrel. I was in the laundry at the
time. It was across the yard; I heard them talking
aloud in the kitchen. I suppose they were quarrel-
ling. I have no doubt they were quarrelling. It was
a day or two after she took the medicine which was
brought by Mr. Hicks's boy. She was boiling a
chicken at the time. She did not cook it. I do not
know what the quarrel was about. After the quarrel
she was supported home by Jane Bayley. I cleaned
the kitchen up. It was • Tara,,,son• sauce that was
on it. Mr. Karr came into the kitchen, and was
going towards the laundry. I did not stop him.
I do not remember saying to him that Sarah was not
fit to be seen. I will not swear I did not say so to
him. She was in the laundry, and he was going to-
wards the laundry-door, when I said to him," She is
poorly, and not fit to be spoken to." She was poorly.
I cannot explain what I mean by poorly, as it is not
proper. She was continually ill from that time till
she miscarried. Mr. Karr is living at the vicarage
now ; but he does not perform the duty at church.
Ido not know who now performs the duty. I did
not hear from Mr. Karr that there were proceedings
against him in the ecclesiastical court on account of
Mrs. Gaisford and Sarah Knight. Ruther was
speaking to me about the matter. I never spoke to
any one about the medicine that I remember. I will
not swear that I have not. I will not swear that I
have not said it was to prevent her from having
children. I cannot remember what I said about it.
I cannot remember what I said to Ruther, but I re-
member well what he said to me. (Tne witness here
rapidly repeated over again the words of the conversa-
tion stated in her examination in chief.) Ido not
know how often I mentioned those words. They
were spoken in June. I did not mention them to
any one till after Christmas. I then mentioned them to
Mr. Jackson, a lawyer. I mentioned them to my
friends at home—my father and mother. I have men-
tioned them twice since to Mr. Jackson. I wrote them
down. I have not the paper. I burnt it. It was after
Christmas I wrote them. It was before Wednesday
last I wrote them. I repeated them at the vicarage
on Wednesday. Ido not know that I saw Mr. Jack-
son there. I showed him the paper. I did not give
it to him. It was soon after Christmas I showed it to
him. I wrote them down the day I saw Mr. Jackson.
Ido not know when I burnt them. I burnt them
about a week or a fortnight ago—the day I saw Mr.
Jackson. 1 saw him a second time. I do not remem-
ber what I saw him for. No one recommended me
to lost.. a make memoranda. Ido not
know why I burnt it.
Re-examined—l do not know of anything impro-
per having taken place between Mr. Karr and Mrs.
Gaisford. So far as I know, his leaving for London
had nothing to do with her leaving her home. He
went to London at that time to marry his brother.
Sarah Knight miscarried about two months after her
marriage. She was attended by Mr. Hicks. After
she was married she did not sleep at Mr. Karr's
house. Jane Bayley was discharged from Mr. Karr's
service. Ido not know that she is brought here by
Rather. Mr. Karr had occasion to speak frequently
to Sarah Knight respecting the mode in which she did
her business. After she took the medicine she was
better. Between June and Christmas I talked of the
subject to my friends. I never mentioned the words
till I mentioned them to Mr. Jackson. He is the soli-
citor for Mr. Karr. He did not tell me to burn the
paper. The miscarriage was very sudden.
In answer to a question from his LORDSHIP, at
the request of Mr. Whately, the witness said she
thought it was Mr. Karr who gave Jane Bayley
notice to leave, and she did not rememember that he
afterwards asked her to stay.
Thomas Parnell, examined by Mr. GRAY—I am a
carpenter living at Berkeley. I know the defendant.
Remember his leaving Mr. Karr's service last summer.
About three days before he left I was at work at the
vicarage, and ,he came to me and said, "I am d—d
if our parson had not ought to be hung, and Mr.
Hicks too, for they be both b-- rogues, for I have
been to Mr. Hicks' and fetched some medicine for
master to give to the housekeeper to make her mis-
carry.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON Ruther
had 12s. a week, and his board in the house. He
lived in a house for which he paid the rent. lam a
parishioner of Berkeley. Mr. Robert Carlisle has
been doing duty in the church these two months.
Mr. Karr has not been doing duty in church very
lately. Igo to church when I think proper. Ido
not know why Mr. Karr does not do duty; I have
not heard from Mr. Karr that he is suspended by the
bishop ; I have heard it from others. I first men-
tioned the conversation with Ruther five or six
months ago to an uncle of mine; that was about
two months after I heard the conversation. I did
not write it down ; I always wrote it down here
(pointing to his head). I was at work at the vicarage
at the time the conversation occurred. Mr. Hicks
used to attend my family. I never thought it worth
while to go to Mr. Hicks or Mr. Carr about it. It
did not trouble me much. I never paid much atten
tion to anything. I did not think of the words till
Mr. Jackson reminded me of them. The conversa-
tion took place before the miscarriage. I live a mile
and a half from the village. I did not hear of the
miscarriage. It made no impression on me. I never
asked about the report in the village. Sarah was the
housekeeper. I suppose she was called the house-
keeper, and I suppose she was such. The other ser-
vants used to call her Mrs. Barrow. I asked no
question. It was no business of mine. Ido not know
whether she used to breakfast in bed.
Rs-examined—Ruther said to me what I have told
the jury.
William Bennett—l remember the defendant
speaking to me in Farmer Junes's hayfield a few
days after she left Mr. Karr's service. She said it
was the housekeeper's fault that he left, and that Mr.
Karr and she ought to be tried for their lives ; that
Mr. Hicks did send the stuff to Mr. Seaton Karr, for
him to give it to her to destroy the young one.
Cross-examined by Mr.WHATELY—I have worked
seven or eight years for Mr. Karr. The other ser-
vants treated Sarah as mistress. I never saw her in
the dining-room. Many people reported it about, but
I never understood it particularly till I heard it from
Ruther in the hayfield. Ruther used to do out-door
work at the vicarage for about two or three years. I
was not living at Berkeley when Mr. Karr came
there. I have known Sarah Knight for seven or eight
years. Ido not know that she is a very pretty girl.
She is about the same as other people. Mr. Karr was
the first person I mentioned the words to. He came
to me a little before Christmas. About a month ago
Mr. Jackson spoke to me about them. I never men-

tioned them, or the subject of them, to any one till I
mentioned them to Mr. Karr. Sarah Knight was
living at Mr. K:irr's when the words were spoken.
Thomas Bence, ex mined 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 JUDGZ—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 1821 to the present moment. My
house is a quarter of a mile from the vicarrge. I
know Mr. Vizard, a solicitor of Darsley. He came
to my brother's same 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 by 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 a 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. Me 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 so
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 her 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. Vizard. 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 sant the
medicine she was at the vicarage. My reason for
sending it to the vicarage was, when I saw her she
was not very ill, and she said if she found herself bet-
ter she would get up and go to the vicarage. Her
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. MUTELY 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 paid for
modietne sent to his servants. I never observed
that she wag 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 Mr. 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. WHATELY then proceeded to address the jury.
He said he approached the case with great pain and
anxiety, because from the very nature of ;t, 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 had heard from 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 the 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.
Looking at all the facts, Ruther might well have be-
lieved that the medicine was given for the purpose of
procuring abortion ; and if hereigeahllbyobuerluienlveedssitt,owprhaeirsee
was his malice in repeating it ? Was a man never
to open his lips respecting a n
him ? This was a sad case. Those who cared far
the Church must deeply regret that this gentleman
was a minister of it. What a strange story they heard.
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 bad 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 wbether 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.

lir. 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, oa which they could firm an opinion.
The 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
be could not prose.
The jury deliberated for a few moments. Verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages Is.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, April 2.
Mr. Baron Alderson, having tried a few civil
causes yosterday, left last night.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLrE.)
WOODROW v. THE LANCASTER AND CARLISLE RAIL-