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

short of adultery, they would not be interfered with.
She answered, her husband would swear what he
saw. He then asked her, if he said he saw Miss
Gilchrist's clothes up, and she told him that he did
say so. She then corroborated her husband, as far as
the facts stated by him, were within her knowledge.
Mr. MARTIN then put in sonic letters of the last
witness for the defendant, in which she spoke of the
plaintiff in flattering terns. They were addressed to
the plaintiff himself.
The ATTORNET•GENERAL then put in a letter of
the plaintiff to her, in which he said he hoped her
husband would not say anything against him, and if
he did not he should attribute the forbearance to her
kindness, and he should never forget it.
Mrs. Elizabeth Batty, wife of a builder, and a
member of plaintiff's congregation nine years, and one
year of the church. She had known E. 'Townley
five years. She was in the habit of coming to her
house. She has heard her speak in the highest terms
of plaintiff.
Cross-examined—She considered Townley a good
character and pious woman.
William Douglas, chapel-keeper before Bittomley
—ln October, 1844, when Townley was ill, he visited
her. She told him Mr. Lees had been to see her, and
had spoken unfavourably of plaintiff, at which she
expressed indignation, and spoke highly of him
herself.

Cross-examined—He was an insolvent, and his
creditors got nothing.
M. Tomlinson, one of plaintiff's congregation—
Townley used to come to his mother's. He had
heard her speak in high terms of him up to 1846.
He saw Bottomley on the 24th of December. Mr.
Chidlow was there. He said he left his place because
he knew he should be kicked out.
Cross-examined—Witness was at the meeting of
the deacons when he sent in his resignation. (Book
put into his hand in which resolutions were entered.)
It was resolved that Joseph Bottomley should have his
character when the term of his servitude had expired.
lie had asked his mother to sign a paper as to what
Mrs. Tetlow had said. (The witness was on the point
of fainting, and was let go.)
W. C. Ford recalled—He and Mr. Dick, a deacon,
went to Bottomley. He was in the vestry. Witness
asked—had he ever seen plaintiff commit adultery in
the vestry, or school-room, or anywhere about the
chapel ? He said positively he had not. He told him
Mr. Pettigrew said he (Bottomley) had said so. He
replied it was utterly false. He said he never saw
the doctor take any indecent liberties with any female,
or act in any way that he should not like him to do
towards his own wife.

Cross-examined—Nothing was put down on paper.
To the best of his recollection he did not mention
" gallery " in connexion with "adultery.'
Mr. Thomas Dick, one of the deacons of the chapel,
corroborated the last witness.
Cross-examined —The doctor and witness had
dined together at Carr's that day. Carr had said
Joseph (Bottomley) had been making some state-
ments about the doctor, and so they sent for Ford to
go with him to Bottomley. He told Nolan that Bot-
tomley had said something about him, and that Ford
and he (witness) were going to ascertain the truth or
falsehood of it.

Re-examined—They told Pettigrew that Bottomley
had denied having told the story.
Mrs. Postlethwaite recalled—Before her marriage
she did not go with Dr. Nolan to Bottomley's house
when Bottomley, his father, mother, and wife left the
room. (The witness here went into hysterics, and
was taken out of court.)
John Chidlow, schoolmaster—Joseph Bottomley,
when he was going away, said he did so because he
expected he would he kicked out.
The ATTORNIT •GaNEEAL replied on this new evi-
dence. He said es perjury must be on one side or
the other, he would make no observation on the new
evidence of the witness Postlethwaite, only to say that
that evidence was contradicted by that of the wit-
nesses Bottomley and his wife. As to the other wit-
nesses, he could not for a moment suppose they had
in the slightest degree shaken the confidence of the
jury in the evidence of Miss Townley, a woman who
had maintained an irreproachable character, and de-
served it in every respect except in her connexion
with the plaintiff. Tne evidence of Ford and the
others confirmed the evidence of Bottomley. At the
time the inquiries were made of him he was
no doubt anxious to shield the doctor, and
so was induced to answer the questions in
such a manner as to evade them. No doubt the
plaintiff hearing that Ford and Dick were going to
make inquiries, he had gone to Bottomley to ask him
to shield him. Then as to the letters of Mrs. Bot-
tomley, in which she spoke well of him, no doubt
she wrote them in the hope, as he still continued a
minister of the Gospel, that he had repented. lie
could not help thinking it very odd that Dr. Nolan
should be holding a correspondence of so familiar a
kind with a woman in so humble a situation of life.
But the letters in no degree affected the credibility of
her evidence.

Mr. MARTIN made his general reply. Tie hoped

his friend would have given up that part of his case
which regarded Mrs. Postlethwaite, for he could not
for a moment think there was a person in court who
thought her evidence was not the truth. He would
demonstrate that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
The address presented to him in June, 1849, when
he had resigned, showed that no suspicion rested
upon the mind of any in the meeting, or they were
greater hypocrites than he would name. He believed
that all the animosity against him had arisen out of
the election of him a second time to the office of
minister. He then commented upon the evidence
of the several witnesses. He contended that the
plaintiff was perfectly justified in refusing the
condition which the committee of ministers made a
sine qua non, and bringing the action. The plea was
no answer to the action, that amounting only to the
imputations of adultery, which was not actionable
and passed over entirely that of administering,
drugs to procure abortion, which was the imputation
which alone made the words actionable. having put
the name of Mrs. Postlethwaite on this record was
the basest and most atrocious act he had ever known
in his professional life. The plea was good for no-
thing, but the plaintiff could not demur to it, for if
he had it would have been said he dare not subject
himself to inquiry. There could be no doubt the
plaintiff was entitled to the verdict, for there could
now be no doubt that the word: had been spoken, and
the whole circumstances of the case confirmed it.
Did the doctor debauch E. Townley ? The defendant
had to make out the truth of the plea. She said she
resisted with all her might. His friend saw that was
absurd, and he got her to explain that all she did was
to push him away. Hers was as incredible a story as
ever was told, on which the life of a cat ought not to
be sacrificed. The adultery with Mary Gilchrist
stood on the evidence of Bottomley alone, forall his
wife could say was, that her husband told her of it
the same night. No wonder, after she had heard
the evidence against her, that she was in the state
they had witnessed. He beseeched them to cast all
rumours aside, and confine their consideration to the
evidence.
Mr. Baron RoLrs summed up, and, addressing the
jury, said no case so painful as this had ever come
before him since be had been on the bench. He then
stated the slanderous words Dr. Nolan complains of
as a scandalous imputation on his character. The de-
fendant denied—first, that he had used the words;
arid next, as to the adultery and fornication, that it
was true ; and he was of opinion one act of adultery
would establish that plea, and it was not necessary to
prove both that were alleged. They would first have
to consider whether the words had been uttered by
the defendant, and that would depend on the credit
you give to the witness Ford. He proved the words
substantially as alleged in the declaration. His
Lordship then pointed out to the jury what it was
that constituted a privileged communication.
After a brief deliberation, the jury returned a ver-
dict that the statements made by the defendant came
under that head.—Verdict for the defendant accord-
ingly.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTh
OF FRIDAY.

FOREIGN-OFFICE, Miatort 28, 1850.
The Queen has been pleased to approve of M. Pierre
Massabini as Consul at Liverpool fur the Sublime Ot-
toman Porte.
ADMIRALTY, MARCEL 27.
The following promotions hare this day taken place
consequent on the death of Vice-Admiral the Honour-
able Donald Hugh Mackay:—
Rear-Admiral of the Red, Sir George Francis
Seymour, C. 8., G.C.11., to be Vice-Admiral of the Blue.
Rear-Admiral of the White, Sir Thomas Henry Dil-
lon, to be Rear-Admiral of the Red.
Rear-Admiral of the Blue, Barrington Reynolds, C. 8.,
to be Rear-Admiral of the White.
Captain Sir John Marshall, C. 8., K.C.H., to be Rear-
Admiral of the Blue.
Retired Captain Henry Jenkinson has also been pro-
moted to be a Retired Rear-Admiral, on the terms pro-
posed in the London Gazette of the Ist September,
1846, bat withoui increase of pay.
Commission by the Lord-Lieutenant of the West Riding

of Yorkshire.
Yorkshire Hussar Regiment of West Riding Yeo-
manry Cavalry—Cornet Thomas Henry Preston to be
Captain, yiec! L,4,, resigned ; Cornet William Henry
Harrison to be Lieutenant, vice Bland, resigned; John
Greenwood to be Cornet, vice Harrison, promoted,
March 23.