The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-09 00:00:00

THO COUNTIES AND THE DIVISION.

In the late division against Government there
were 138 votes from the representatives of the
counties given in opposition to Lord Palmerston,
nncl only 72 in his favour, among which, howev*r,
we may notice that tl:e great metropolitan counties,
Mifldiesex, West Kent, and Surrey, wire well re-
pi esented. To be the object of assAu't by a com-
bination of dictatorial dueal.fainiliei will hot tend
.to make the Premier lee popular, but only to
show. the people that they must die the power
0v
*r the country districts out of the hands wh;ch
despots of
it, to please. and conciliate the
.crowned
yoke.l continent and ga.n a factious vic-
tory over a statesman who' has never bowed his Leek
to their
dalnle.tthoe large When the countrytblsees how much the late majo-
eaneidtlyorede-rnisdtditeunenoinesntwyevroete.esn,
can
eo
mwneeerae
randit Y
that was
the other side, theg
sdauurnde no
.0 of strong:
er i n argu-
ment the
in favour of aylar
ii.3nnleatvEo unrgloafn a
endeavouring i-
ina
lib:
frianchise.
distribution of electoralgp
in:ilia:l7.o.llse of Commons from its domineer-
ing Scotland is up in;itrilys
reform
it lel
freethis
ing masters, who sit in the Upper House, and wheel',
if they, had Lord Derby in the Premier's place,
would be the readiest advocates of war with China,
or with any other country which would give them
pay and promoticth for their younger Sons ?

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CHELMSFORD, March 7.
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF HILLS V. JOHN

CUTTS AND ROBERT EZEKIEL SMITH.

This was a prosecution for misdemeanour.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q C., Mr. Lush, and Mr.
Rodwell appeared for the Crown ; Sergeant Shee
and Mr. Woollett defended Cutts ; and Mr. Edwin
James, Q.C., and Mr. Prentis appeared for the de-
fendant Smith.

This case has created a good deal of interest in the
county, from the peculiar circumstances connected
with it and the position of the part les. The indictment
against the defendants was framed under an act of
Parliament commonly known as the Bishop of Ox-
ford's Act, and the offence imputed to them was
having procured a young girl, named Martha Au-
gustus Hills, under 21 years of age, to be debauched.
It appeared that Miss Hills was the daughter of a
farmer, and that three years ago she became ac-
quainted with the defendant Smith, who is a farmer
and a man of property, residing at Finchingfield,
in this county, and the result of their intimacy was
the birth of a child. Miss Hills, who was described
as a fine handsome young woman, subsequently
went to reside at a place called Colemens with the
defendant Smith, and it appeared that two actions,
one for seduction and the other for breach of pro-
mise of marriage, were brought against Mr. Smith
by the father of the young lady, but they were set-
tled by the payment of 501., and an undertaking to
pay the costs. Mr. Cutts is an attorney, and a man
of considerable property, who lives at Bardfield-
hall, and he, it appeared, acted as the attorney
for Mr. Smith in these matters, and Mr. Shepherd,
an attorney at Halstead, represented the friends of
the young lady, and it would seem that, in the
course of the proceedings, an agreement of a very
extraordinary character was made, to the effect
that if the young lady would return to the residence
of Mr. Smith, and reside there, as heretofore, for a
period of eight months, he undertook to marry her
at the expiration of that period ; but it was made a
condition that this agreement should net be shown
either to her father or to her legal adviser. By some
means, however, it appeared that Mr. Shepherd
came to the knowledge of such an agreement being
in existence, and as Mr. Smith appeared not to
have carried out his promise to marry the young
lady, the present indictment vas preferred against
the defendants at the last assizes, and a true bill
found by the grand jury', it being alleged that both
the defendants were parties to the agreement re-
ferred to, and that they bad thereby brou;ht them-
selves within the scope of the act of Parliament in
question. The case was removed by certiorari by
the defendants ; it was appointed to be tried by a
special jury at tese assizes, and they were both
now in attendance ready to take their trial.
Mr. Chambers, upon the case being called on,
put in several affidavits, and said that upon the
facts stated in those affidavif s he had to apply to the
court to order the trial to be postponed to the next
assizes.

Baron Channell directed the affidavits to be read.

They were accordingly read by the officer of the
court. The first was an affidavit made by Mr. Owen,
a surgeon, who stated that he bad that morning
seen Martha Augusta Hills at the residence of the
defendant Smith, and that she was in a very ad-
vanced slate of pregnancy, and he considered it
utterly unsafe for her to come to Chelmsford to
give evidence ; he believed it would endanger her
life to do so. This gentleman also stated that when
he saw the young lady she expressed her willing-
ness to attend as a witness, and said that she would
do so if she knew that she should not return alone,
and when he came away he was under the impres-
sion that she would be in at'endauce. The next
affidavit that was read was one made by Mr. Shep-
herd, the attorney for the prosecution, in which he
stated that the said Martha Augusta Hills was a
material and necessary witness for the prosecution,
and that he was advised by counsel that the ends
of justice were likely to be frustrated if he pro-
ceeded to the trial of the indictment without her
evidence. An affidavit made by a person named
Cardinal, clerk to Mr. Shepherd, was likewise read,
which stated that from having bean present at the
consultation of counsel, and from what he heard
upon the occasion, he believed that Miss Hills was
a material and necessary witness for the prosecu-
tion, and that on Friday last he proceeded to the
residence of Mr. Smith, and having knocked at the
door and waited for some time, the door was partly
opened by an elderly female, who told him that she
da, ed. not admit any one when Mr. Smith was ab-
sent, and upon his telling her that he had come to
see Miss Hills about her going to Chelmsford as a
witness, she told him that she wa4 very ill, and that
she expected her to be confi❑ed every hour, a❑d the
affidavit also expressed a belief that the said Martha
Augusta Hills was under the restraint of the de-
fendant Smith.

The counsel for the defendants put in counter
afff•iavits in answer to these statemen's. One was
an affidavit made by Mr. Cutts, in which he stated
that the indictment before the court had not been
preferred for the purposes of justice, but solely
from a vindictive feeling, and he referred to a letter
written by Mr. Shepherd, in which he Asked for the
payment of the costs that' had ben incurred in the
action brought by the father of Miss Hits, and also
that Mt. Smith should make an agreement to marry
the young lady within a period of two mouths. He
stated that after this Mr. Shepherd chime 1 a sum
of 891. for costs, which he (the defendant) consi-
dered was an exorbitant demand, and he therefore
refused to pay it, and after this the present in Pict
ment was prefert ed. The affidavit went on to state
that there were no real grounds for postponing the
trial, and that Miss Hills could not be a material
witness, inasmuch as her name was not upoh the
back of the bill, and she was not examined as a
witness before the grand jury. The other defend
ant, Robert Ezekiel Smith, Also made an affidavit,
in which he stated that Martha Augusta Hills was
at the present time living at his house volunt ally,
and of her own accord ; that she had borne him one
child, and was at the present pregnant of another
by hm. that she was no parLy to the present in-
dictment, and in fact disapproved of it altogether ;
and Viat she was notaware of any such cliarge being
preferred until after the bill was found ; and the
affidavit likewise expres:ed the belief of the de-
fendant that the indictment was not preferred for
the purposes of justice, but to extort money.
Counsel on both sides having addre• sed the court,
Baron Ohannell said he thought he ought to
postpone the trial, and under the circumstances the
prosecutor ought to pay the costs.
The recoguisances of the defendants were then
renewed, and the trial was ozderei to stand over
to the next assizes.

(Before Mr. Baron Obannell and a special jury.)

DAVIS V. TUCK.

This was an action to recover damages for two
libels published in the Railway Times newspaper.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Prentis appeared,for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. E. James, Q C., and Mr.
Lush, were- counsel for the defendant.
It appeared from the opening of Mr. Hawkins
that the plaintiff, who had formerly been in the
service of the Great Western Railway, was at the
irne of the publication of the libels in question.en-
gaged in a responsible position at the Bishopsgate
Station of the Eastern Counties Railway. It will
be remembered that during the last year Mr. Wad-
dington, the chairman of the company, resigned
that post, and it appeared that the plaintiff took an
active part in endeavouring to induce the servants
of the company to present a testimonial in some
shape or other to that gentleman upon his retiring.
This proceeding, it appeared, did not meet the ap-
proval of the then board of directors, and some in-
timation to that effect was conveyed to the plaintiff,
and in the result the idea was abandoned. The
libels complained of appeared iu the Nailway Times
of the 13th and 27th September, and in the first it
was stated thAt the plaintiff had been repr;manded
and threatened with dismissal, in consequence of
the proceedings he had taken to get up the testi-
monial, and the second article expressed a hope that
the plaintiff would return any money that he might
have extorted from his fellow-servants in further-
ance of the getting up of the testimonial. Mr.
Hawkins said that, under these circumstances, as
the defendant had never offered to withdraw either
of the offensive observations, or to make any apo-
logy, the plaintiff had no alternative but to bring
the present action, his only object, however, being
the vindication of his character. Be also stated that
the plaintiff had resigned his appointment upon the;
railway in consequence of the annoyance that had
been occasioned him by the publication of these
articles.

Baron Channel! said it appeared to him that as
the object of the plaintiff was merely to vindicate
Ha character that object would he attained by the
defendant now withdrawing the imputations com-
plained of.

Mr. James said 'he was quite ready to do Ws on
,the part of the defendant. There never was any
intention
.to impute to the plaintiff that be had ex-
tol ted money, in the ordinary sense of the term,
but merely that he had used his official position to
induce Vie servants of the company to subscribe to
the testimonial. He would, therefore, consent to a
verdict for the plaintiff that would carry costs,.
A verdict for 40s. was then taken for the plaintiff.
This was the last case for trial. The commission
'for the county, of Kent will be opened to-day at
Maidstone.

OXFORD CIRCIIIT.—OXFORD, March 7•
Nisi Prius (loult.--(Before Mr. Justice Wines awl

a Special Jury.)
COGF.LAN V. AMFMT-A RACING CASE.
Mr. Q.C., gr. Keating, QC.) and
Mr. Coo ice appelred for the plaint,ff ; and Mr..
80:gea'A Pigot and Mr. Phipson for the defendant.
Mr., Whately stated the facts of the c: se, from