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

Mr. Charles Lane deposed that he was surgeon to
the Ewell district of the Epsom Union, and he was
called upon to examine the deceased child on the 17th
of August. It was a very fine male child, and the
body appeared to be in a healthy condition. On the
front of the neck he observed a small scratch, near
the lower part of the right side, and there was also a
small dark line on the back of the neck, and likewise
a slight bruise and discoloration. Upon removing
the skin of the neck he found that there was a wound
underneath, corresponding with the external mark.
This wound had penetrated into the substance of the
neck, and had passed upwards into the large vessels,
and it was about an inch and a half in depth. In
witness's opinion the wound must have been made
with a curve-shaped instrument. (Some awls, found
in the loft, were here produced, and shown to the
witness.) He had no doubt that an awl of the de-
scription just shown to him would have made the
wound he had described. One of the awls appeared
to have blood upon it, and another appeared to have a
stain of rust. tie was decidedly of opinion that
either of these awls could have produced the wound,
and in the absence of all other perceivable cause, he
could only attribute the death of the child to that
wound. There were no other appearances upon the
body of the child to account for its death.
Cross-examined—He discovered the wound upon
the neck immediately he examined the body. There
was a very small quantity of blood upon the awl. He
had no doubt of its being blood. He bad examined it
with a microscope, and had also tried experiments, the
result of which left no doubt that the matter upon the
awl was blood. . . _

Re-examined—The mucous membrane would heal
sooner than the skin. The aperture was not percep-
tible externally, and he did not discover it until he
had raised the skin. The track of the wound ter-
minated abruptly beneath the mucous membrane.
The effect of such an injury would be to occasion
bleeding from the nose and mouth, and also a choking
sound in the throat from the blood settling there ; and
the sounds deposed to by the first witness would be
such as would be likely to be produced by an injury
of this kind.

By the JUDGE—There were no appearances of un,
healthiness in the child.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. CLERK then addressed the jury for the pri-
soner. The principal points he relied upon were that
the case rested entirely upon the evidence of the
woman Tarrant and the prisoner's son, and he con-
tended Oat, under the circumstances in which they
were placed, the jury ought not to give effect to such
testimony. With regard to the woman, he said she
had herself been charged with being concerned in the
murder, and it was not until after the grand jury had
ignored the bill against her that she was thought of
as a witness ; and with respect to the boy, he sub-
mitted that his evidence was of a most improbable
character ; and he asked the jury to bear in mind that
the woman Tarrant had declared that he was not in
the room at the time the occurrence was represented
to have taken place.
One witness was called on behalf of the prisoner,
who gave him a very good character.
Mr. Justice MAULE then summed up the case to the
jury, who retired, and after being in deliberation
about half an hour, they returned into court with a
verdict of Guilty.
His LORDSHIP having put on the black cap, passed
sentence of death upon the prisoner in the usual form,
at the same time informing him that he could not
hold out the slightest hope of any commutation of the
sentence.
The trial occupied nearly ten hours.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, April 2.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and a Common Jury.)
THE BEY. JOHN SETON KARR 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, in 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 bad
in his service for several years a housekeeper named
Sarah 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-
'ended 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 from that moment he seemed to have formed
a determination to injure the plaintiff in every pos-
sible manner, and repeatedly expressed his intention of
doing 50.., 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 be could. They would hear a great deal
said 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 Ituther,
or rather those who set him in motion, could prove the
truth of his calumnies, they would have done so; but
they had not dared to do so ; they had flinched from
the attempt, and bad not even ventured to place upon
the record a plea of justification for a single one of
these calumnies. The 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 inthemheadmitted the sense h
attributed
if he didbutedtot speak
them by
tthheemp,laainnd intiff; but
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 plaintiff's housekeeper.
As the defendant admitted, by his pleadings, that if
he spoke the words in the sense stated in the declare-

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 be 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. GRAr-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 bis house. I left his regular
service in 1845. From time to time I 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 be spoke to me. He
began the conversation. He was speaking very
ang;ily 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, he (Ruther) 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 bleak draughts
..thAt

A statement made by the prisoner, when under ex- Sarah had, and he would not let him have it." I said,
amination before the magistrateF, was then put in. " Who can prove it r He replied, " There are
It was to the same effect as that made by him before slough to prove it." I know Sarah Knight. She was
the coroner. in Mr. Karr's service as housekeeper as long as I

knew her, ever since I first knew llr. 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 Ruther 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 bad 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 be
came to Berkeley. Sarahjeft 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-
room. 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 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
. .

chicli-en at the time. She did not cook it. Ido not
know what the quarrel was about. After the quarrel
phe was supported home by Jane Bayley. I cleaned
the kitchen up. It was Taragon 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. (Tae 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 dii not mention them to
any one till after Christmas. I then mentionedthem 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. 1 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. Ido not remem-
ber what-I saw him for. No one recommended me
to burn it. I frequently make memoranda. Ido not
know why I burnt it.
Re-examined—l do not know of anything impro-
per having taken place between Mr. Ikarr 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
Ruther. 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 sbe
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 Painell, examined by Mr. GRAY—I am a
carpenter living at Berkeley. I know the defendant.
Remember his leaving Mr. Kerr's service last summer.
About three days before he left I was at work at the
vicarage, and khe 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. HUDDLBSTON ••••• Ruther
bad 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. Kerr 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 mach. I never paid much itten
tion to anything. I did not think of the words till
Mr. Jackson reminde4 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 sbe used to breakfast in bed.
Re-examined—Ruther said to me what I have told
the jury.
William Bennett—l remember the defendant
speaking to me in Farmer Jones'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. Wrrar er,v—l 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 undeistood it particularly till I heard it from
Rutber 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
Air. Jackson spoke to me about them. 1 never men.