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

THE COUNTIES AND TRE DIVISION.

In the late division against Government there
were 138 votes from the representatives of the
counties given in opposition to Lord Palmerston,
and only 72 in his favour, among which, however,
we may notice that the great metropolitan counties,
Middlesex, West Kent, and Surrey, were well re-
presented. To be the object of assault by a com-
bination of dictatorial ducal families will not tend
to make the Premier less popular, but only to
show the people that they must take the power
over the country districts out of the hands which
will abuse it, to please and conciliate the crowned
despots of the continent, and gain a factious vic-
ry Overyaoisiteatesman who has never bowed his neck
Was due
to their
When theetoountry sees how much the late majo-
rity
and that all the l the landlord-ridden county votes,
theyarge city constituencies were on
the other sidecan need no stronger argu-
ment in favour a largea
oralipaof-caver and the franchise.
measure
inof change in the distribution of elect
is
notvour of a liberal reform
Scotland is up in arms
Upper House, and r-
England endeavouring
to
ftrheies
tmhaetHtere.useWo
five. 0
mmons from its domineer_
if masters, who sit in the
them'
if they had Lord. Derby in the Premiers
place,who,
would be the readiest advoeates. of war with China,
or with any other country. which would give
pay and promotion for their younger sOnS ?

ASSIZE INrEr LIGENCP.

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 Slice
and Mr. Woonett 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 intereA in the
county, from the peculiar circumstances connected
with it and the position of the parties. 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 amen
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 was 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 had thereby brought 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 these 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 affidavits 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 had that morning
seen Martha Augusta Hills at the residence of the
defendant Smith, and that she was in a very ad-
vanced state of pregnancy, and be 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 attendance. 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 been 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
dared 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 was very ill, and that
she expected her to be confined every hour, and 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
affidavits in answer to these statements. 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 been incurred in the
action brought by the father of Miss Hills, and also
that Mr. Smith should make an agreement to marry
the young lady within a period of two months. He
stated that after this Mr. Shepherd claime 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 indict •
meat was preferred. 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 upon 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 lie stated that Martha Augusta Hills was
at the present time living at his house voluntarily,
and of her own accord ; that she had borne him one
child, and was at the present pregnant of another
by him ; that she was no party to the present in-
dictment, and in fact disapproved of it altogether ;
and that she was not aware of any such charge being
preferred until after the bill was found; and the
affidavit likewise expressed 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 a ddre:sed the court,
Baron Channell said he thought he ought to
postpone the trial, and under the circumstances the
pro ecutor ought to pay the costs.
The recoguisances of the defendants were then
renewed, and the trial was ordered to stand over
to the next assizes.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell 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
time 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 cf 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 in the Railway Times
of the 13th and 27th September, and in the first it
was stated that the plaintiff had been reprimanded
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

ante of the getting up of the testimonial.
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. He 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 Channell said it appeared to him that as
the object of the plaintiff was merely to vindicate
his character that object would be attained by the
defendant now withdrawing the imputations com-
plained of.

Mr. James said he was quite ready to do this on
the part of the defendant. There never was any
intention to impute to the plaintiff that he had ea•
totted money, in the ordinary sense of the term,
but merely that he had used his official position to
induce the servants of the company to subscribe to
the testimonial. lie 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 CIRCUIT.--OXFORD, March 7.
Nisi Prius Court.—(Before Mr. Justice Wiles and
a Special Jury.)
COGHLAN V. LAMERT—A RACING CASE..
Mr. Whately, Q. 0., Mr. Keating, Q. C., and
Mr. Cooke appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Sergeant Pigot and Mr. Phipson for the defendant.
Mr. Whately stated the facts of the case, from