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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Liverpool, March 28.
(Before Mr. Baron Rohre and a Special Jury.)
IcOLAN V. PETTIGREW.
This was an action of the case brought by the plain-
tiff to recover compensation in damages front the de-
fendant, by reason of certain slander spoken by him
regarding the plaintiff. The declaration stated that
the plaintiff was a minister of a certain congregation
of Protestant Dissenters, meeting at a chapel called
Ducie chapel, in Manchester ; and that the defendant,
contriving and intending to injure him in his good
name and reputation, and to bring him into scandal
and disgrace, said to one William Cox Ford the fol-
lowing malicious and defamatory worth of and con-
cerning the plaintiff, in answer to a question from the
said William Cox Ford: —" I charge the doctor,
meaning the plaintiff, with adultery and fornication ;
the doctor seducing a young woman, who was in the
family way by him, end he gave her a prescription to
cause abortion, and she has been in a state of intense
suffering ever since, both in mind as well as body.
Doctor Nolan sent his own medical man to attend
her. Another female also was in the family way by
irn, and I pledge myself to obtain the name of the
rties, and to procure an interview for you with the
young woman. Watch him narrowly ; let him be
got out of the chapel, and give possession to the trus-
tees, and you will see the chapel well filled again."
The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; secondly,
that the plaintiff, being a married man, had seduced
and committed adultery and fornication with one
Elizabeth Townley ; and had also seduced and com-
mitted adultery and fornication with one Elizabeth
Gilchrist, replicatio injure.
Ik. Martin, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, andlMr.
Aspland, appeared for the plaintiff; and :Sir. Knowles,
Q.C., and. Mr. Overend for the defendant.
Mr. MLR-rue, in opening the case to
-the jury, said
that it required their most serious consideration, for
the charge against the plaintiff was that he had se-
duced two young women, and had given drugs to a
third to procure abortion, they being members of a
congregation of which he was the minister. The
plaintiff was appointed minister of Ducie Chapel,
Manchester, in 183$, which was a chapel of small
size, but having given extreme satisfaction, a new
chapel was built for him, which was opened in 1840,
and was vested in trustees, who are usually the most
respectable members of the congregation ; but dis-
putes arose respecting the trustees who were ap-
pointed, and also regarding the doctrine preached by
the plaintiff, which produced a feeling in the congre-
gation which was much to be lamented. The chapel
was, however, opened, and the plaintiff preached.
The same year, 1840, he married a Miss Bird,
daughter pf Alderman Bird, of Manchester, and that
lady did not now believe one word of the aspersions
which had been cast upon her husband. In 184 S
Alderman Bird died, and also his eldest son, and
in that year rumours of impropriety were spread
abroad, which were investigated and disproved.
Mrs. Bird, the mother-in-law, after the death of
her husband, purposed to go to the South of England,
and wishing her daughter to accompany her, the
plaintiff resigned his office in the chapel, which was
accepted;_ and a meeting was held of the whole con-
gregation, at which a resolution was passed, tendering
the thanks of the congregation to the plaintiff for his
services, temporal and. spiritual, and wishing him
every blessing and mercy ; and yet, within nine
months of that resolution, some members of that con-
gregation ,are here to put him on his trial for matters
which took place six years before. In June of the
last year the plaintiff was requested to come among
them again ; and Mrs. Bird, his mother-in•law, hav-
ing consented to remain in Manchester, he agreed to
he re-elected to the office which he had vacated. Dif
ferences then arose in the congregation ; a large ma-
jority, however, voted for the plaintiff; but that
election, not having been conducted according to the
trust-deed, another election had to take place, and
then all these slanders were set afloat. Notwithstand-
ing, the plaintiff was re-elected by a large majority, and
that being the case, he could not flinch from the inquiry,
for which he declares there is not the slightest founda-
tion ; and if they should be of opinion that they
were true, of course he would not be worthy to hold
the office a moment longer. But those charges having
been made last year, it was considered that an inves-
tigation ought to be made, and accordingly eight
gentlemen met for that purpose, and they informed
the plaintiff that he must give a pledge that he would
take no steps to prosecute any persons who should
come forward to give evidence. This the plaintiff
thought hard, and asked who the witnesses were,
which was not stated. He then said he was ready to
give a pledge to that effect, if, in the event of any
single woman coming forward unsubstantiated, he
should be allowed to go into a court of justice. Upon
this the eight gentlemen declined to act, and the in-
vestigation was discontinued. The defendant was
clerk to Mr. Loyd, the banker at Manchester, and a
member of the congregation, and he stated that the
plaintiff had seduced a young woman, and then caused
her to take drugs to procure abortion ; and as it is
necessary, in order to constitute slander, that the
charge should be something which should constitute
an indictable offence, that, therefore, would be the
main question fur them to try. [The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to read the libel and the pleas which
the defendant had placed upon the record.] With
regard to Elizabeth Gilchrist, she was a Sunday
school teacher and a member of the congregation
for some years, and was constantly in the habit of
receiving the sacrament from the plaintiff. In 1845
she had a serious illness, and was advised to go into
the country, but, when well enough, attended the
plaintiff's chapel ; and it was during this illness that
the attempt to procure abortion was alleged to have
taken place. In 1847, in removing from Manchester,
she received a letter of dismissal, in order to be ad-
mitted to another congregation, where she became a
teacher, and so conducted herself that, until Decem-
ber last year, she was considered by all to be a mo-
dest and virtuous young woman ; and yet now it was
asserted by the defendant that she was debauched by
the plaintiff six or seven years ago, and is to be drag-
ged into the witness-box—a young woman who has
been four years married, with three children, to be
produced before them to state that she had always
been a most virtuous girl. Her husband would come
forward to state that be believed in her fidelity, and
he would support her on this charge ; and when the
young woman was told of it, she said that she owed
it to her mother, and her husband, and to her-
self to meet the charges. And yet she was dragged
forward by men who professed Christian principles.
The case was one of life or death to Doctor Nolan,
but they would hear the witnesses and judge for
themselves.
William Cox Ford, examined by Mr. Sergeant
WILKINS, stated that he lived at 151, Oxford-street,
Manchester, and is manager of a large boot and
shoe establishment in Manchester. Is, and for about
fifteen months past has been, a member of the con-
gregation of Ducie Chapel. Knew the defendant
Pettigrew, who is in the service of Mr. Loyd, the
hanker. On the 30th of last June Dr. Nolan re-
signed. Witness was present at a meeting at which
Dr. Sidebottom presided. [Witness here had a book
shown him, in which there was a resolution inserted,
accepting of Dr. Nolan's resignation, and expressing
earnest good wishes in his behalf.] Witness was
present at a meeting for the re-election of plaintiff,
after a requisition to him to become their minister
again. On the morning of the 24th of October, the
Thanksgiving Day, met the defendant in Bridge-
street, Strangeways. He spoke about plaintiff,
after the salutation of the morning, saying, "Do
you still support Dr. Nolan ?" I said, " Yes."
He replied, " What you are doing, I've no doubt you
are doing conscientiously, but you are supporting a
base, bad man. I said, " Alt% Pettigrew, what is
it that you charge the Doctor with ?" His reply
was, " Adultery and fornication ; he has seduced a
virtuous young woman, and has, given her ex prescrip-
tion to cause abortion ; she has been suffering most
intensely, both in body and mind—and the loss of
her immortal soul. In consequence, he has sent his
own doctor to attend her. Another female is in the
family-way by him, and was sent to Ireland to be
out of the way." I said, " Mr. Pettigrew, Ido not
dispute your word, but I do not believe your state-
ment." I said I must have the names of the parties,
the account from their own lips, dates, arid circum-
stances attending. His reply was, " I do not know
the names, but I will obtain them for you, where
they lire (or where she lives), and their interviews."
He said that " their parents did not know it." I
said it was odd that their parents should know no-
thing about it. Has had an interview with defendant
since. On neither occasion has defendant given him
the name of either of the parties referred to. On
one of them he said that " the young woman's depo-
sition was taken in writing, and witnessed by two
respectable persons." I asked if he could obtain me
a copy of it. He said he could. I said if he would
I would see that Dr. Nolan met the charge; and if
he did not, I would place it on the church doors.
There was a committee formed on this subject. He
said, " Your church is cut off from the union, watch
him narrowly ; let the church be delivered up to the
trustees, and you will see that your chapel will fill."
On cross-examination by Mr. IZNOWLES, witness
raid that he was not a deacon of the church. The
numbers attending before this occurrence were steady ;
they are now fluctuating. The greater part of the
trustees have left the chapel. Witness had known the
chapel about stx months before he began to attend.
Had previously not regularly attended at any parti •
either place of worship, but at different chapels, and
sometimes at the church. The testimonial presented
to Dr. Nolan was an ornamental timepiece, with the
inscription of " A testimonial of affection and respect
from his congregation." Witness did not know that
that inscription was written by Dr. Nolan himself.—
(He was here shown a paper from which Mr. Knowles
had read, and said the writing was that of the plain-
tiff.) Did not know whether plaintiff composed the

address presented to himself on the part of the con-
gregation. There was " heartburning and differ-
ences " after the time of plaintiff' re-election.
Was not aware of any before that time s ; not on ac-
count of plaintiff's moral character, at least. First
heard the report against plaintiff 's moral conduct
from defendant. He was the first who pointedly
mentioned it, and that was on the thanksgiving day.
Knowles here reminded witness that that day
was the 15th of November.) There was a committee
of ministers appointed to investigate, but did not
recollect the precise day. Understood something
about the committee declining to act, because Dr.
Nolan would not bind himself not to take proceed-
ings against the witnesses. In consequence of the
ministers giving it up, Dr. Nolan appointed a com-
mittee of the chapel, and that committee was to meet
on the lath of November—the slay witness met the
defendant. Witness himself was a member of the
committee, and had then received a notice to attend
it, but did not then know about what business. He
had never heard before about Dr. Nolan's moral
character. Had heard persons say he was a "bad
man ;" but no one had dared to tell him for what.
That did not convey to witness's mind that he was
an immoral man, but they did not like him as a
preacher. Had heard Mrs. Redfern's name befdre,
' but not in connexion with immoral acts on the part
of the plaintiff. There was a meeting in
September, respecting the doctor's conduct, to investi-
gate a complaint made by Mrs. Redfern. To the best of
witness's recollection, it was not respecting indecent
liberties. "If you mean taking hold of a person's
hand, I don't call that taking indecent liberties."
Did not recollect exactly what was the report then
to be investigated. Did not recollect if anything was
said about his giving her a kiss in the vestry ; but
would not swear that was not a part of the charge.
Mr. MA.RTIN—Was it stated in writing ? Wit-
ness—The whole was in writing. All documentary
evidence.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. KNOWLEa, in continuation—Some of the prin-
cipal ministers were on the committee of investiga-
tion. Dr. Halley, of Manchester, was one of them.
Defendant is a gardener, and was an attendant at the
chapel after plaintiff's resignation and his being re-
elected. He ceased to attend on plaintiff being re-
elected. Witness made a note, after he got home, of
what defendant said to him. At that time no one
else was present. What defendant said to witness
was, that " plaintiff had given the young woman
a prescription to obtain a powder to cause abor-
tion, and that he was morally guilty of
murder in doing so." He had no recollection
of mentioning this to any one till after Christmas.
Believed he told the plaintiff himself of it first. The
statement was made to him in writing. Witness sent
it to him in a letter. Defendant did refer witness to
a party for proof as to another circumstance against
plaintiff. Witness in consequence went, and Mr.
Carr, who is a member of the congregation, saw
plaintiff there, but plaintiff did not go with him.
Witness never said that he more than suspected that
plaintiff was a guilty man. Did say that he thought
he was a clever man, and would have shown ability
at the bar.. Plaintiff is a lively man, on occasions.
Never heard him say that be was a man of fun,
flirtation, and levity (witness shown a letter in plain-
tiff's handwriting). Never saw him, for instance, put
his chin into a lady's eye.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. KNOWLES—What may be the most lively
thing you ever saw him do ? Witness —He was
very lively this morning.
What doing P—Running along the street.
What, was there a lady before him ?—(Laughter.)
Miry Postlethwaite, a very pretty interesting-
looking woman, stated that her maiden name was
Mary Gilchrist, and that she was and still is a mem-
ber of plaintiff's congregation, and was twenty-four
years of age. Has been married four years. Her
husband keeps a shop at Manchester. Up to the
time of her marriage was a milliner. When she did
not sleep at her employer's she slept at her mother's.
Was married by Dr. Nolan, in 1546, to her husband,
who is a brush-manufacturer. Has two children.
Did ever Dr. Nolan take any indecent liberty with
you of any kind? Witness—No.
You have heard the charge against him. Is there
the slightest foundation for it? Witness—No.
Cros.,-examined by Mr. KNOWLES—There was a
period of five years between her being cut of her
apprenticeship and being married. Was in six diffe-
rent situations during that period, as milliner. Was
sometimes at home. Was a teacher, which took her
a good deal to the chapel. Occasionally went to
Dr. Nolan's house. There was no particular day.
Was sent by her mother, who had published
poems, and the doctor was one of her patrons, and
had to write notes. On most occasions Mrs. olan
was not there. Knew the servant, Charlotte, who
opened the door. Stayed sometimes not more than
ten minutes. Had been at the vestry with the doctor
frequently, when nobody else was there. Her ob-
jects in going were various. Whenever her mother
had any business, she always consulted the doctor.
Never went about any religious exercise. This con-
tinued up to the time of her marriage. Sometimes
had been twelve months without seeing the doctor,
except in the pulpit. Had sometimes met other Sun-
day-school teachers there. Joseph Bottomley kept
the chapel. He and his wife lived in rooms over the
vestry. Don't remember in 1844 going into Bot-
tomley's sitting-room with the doctor. Recollected
calling on Bottomley about a house, when she met
the doctor, who took her up into Bottomley's sitting-
room, and before she had time to tell him not, But-
tornley left the room. He was coming out as they,
entered. Stayed in the room ten minutes. Ex-
plained to the doctor her reasons for wishing to leave
the house she was living in. That was the only time
she recollected going to Bottomley's room with Dr.
Nolan. Her husband keeps a brush-warehouse. Dr.
Nolan did not become security for her husband.
Re-examined—Mr. Metcalf, to whom witness's
husband was apprenticed, resigned his business in
favour of her husband. Dr. Nolan never took any
liberties with her. The vestry is open to all mem-
bers of the congregation who wish to see Dr. Nolan.
There was never any imputation upon her conduct.
Catherine Gorman stated that she was mother of
last witness, and a member of Dr. Nolan's congrega-
tion for two years. There was never any imputation
against her daughter, and until last week never heard
that any one had dared to cast any upon her.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. KNOWLES, in addressing the jury fir the de-
fendant, besought their indulgence, and said that it
was impossible not to feel that he had to address gen-
tlemen whose feelings.had been called forth by the ap-
pearance of the witness Mary Postlethwaite, and by the
story which had been presented to them respecting a
minister of the Gospel, belonging to that respectable
sect to which the plaintiff belonged ; but, to his mind,
it would have been more satisfactory, if the memorial
which had been presented to the plaintiff with the time-
piece, had not been written by his own hand. The
slight insight which they had already obtained into the
character of the plaintiff, through his own witness,
Ford, showed that he was a light and frivolous man.
Tne plaintiff had had an opportunity of having the
case investigatod by a set of clergymen of his own
persuasion, which tribunal he had rejected on the
poor plea that he would not promise not to prosecute
those who might come forward to give evidence ; and
then he brings his action against a poor gardener,
whom he would think the most likely person not to
be able to afford to meet him in court. The first
question was, whether the defendant spoke the words
and spoke them maliciously, or whether he spoke
them under such circumstances as that they became
what the law terms a privileged communication.
Ford's testimony with regard to the exact words could
not be relied on. In order to support slander malice
must be shown, and if words are spoken the plaintiff
must show that they are spoken maliciously, or that
malice is intended by them. The defendant had left
the plaintiff's chapel, whereas Ford had continued a
member of his congregation ; and if the defendant
believed ionafric the truth of what he spoke, and
that he spoke the words for the purpose of having the
charge investigated and the scandal cleared up, he
(the defendant) would be entitled to their verdict.
What motive had the defendant ? He had no quarrel.
Did he invent them ? Certainly not. What he had
heard he repeated to a person, whose duty it was to
inquire into it ; and they would not visit damages on
yf for merelyeeom
m tangn ltkailknof of that
Manchester.whichThehad bneeexnt
that the plaintiff had been guilty of
caahlrmaeraagade
was,
adultery and fornication ; and a considerable amount
of evidence would be offered before them in mitiga-
tion of damages, to show gross familiarities which the
plaintiff had taken with divers members of his con-
gregation, not amounting to adultery or fornication,
but which was grossly improper in a person in the
plaintiff's position as a clergyman.
His LORDSHIP considered that, in his opinion, such
evidence was not receivable.
Mr. KNOWLES continued—The plaintiff came to the
chapel in 1838, and was appointed to Dacia Chapel a
year or two after, when he became acquainted with
Elizabeth Townley, and on one occasion he slipped
2s. 6d. into her glove, and shortly after sent her 21. ;
and on several occasions they would find her in the
vestry of the chapel, the plaintiff gradually breaking
down the barrier of her virtue, and finally completing
the act which the doctor's interviews in the vestry
(which he so desecrated) usually led to. They would
hear how he quoted David and Uriah, and justified
his own last by an appeal to Scriptural names. He
would tell them that, with the exception of the plain-
tiff, she had no intercourse with any other. They
would be asked to disbelieve her, but they would see
her now, bowed down by illness and want, through
the conduct of the plaintiff; and was it more likely
that the plaintiff should gratify the common passion,
or that she should come and perjure herself before
them ? The plaintiff was likewise accused of adul-
tery with the woman Postlethwaite, who had been
called before them, who had the strongest motives
that a woman could have to deny the charge which
she had beeu called to disprove ; but she admits

that she was often at his house, and he would
bring witnesses before them who would prove
that they saw the adultery committed. Bottomley,
who kept the chapel, would state to them that he saw
it committed, and that he mentioned it to his wife at
the time ; but, in addition to that, the plaintiff Nolan
had the last week gone to Mrs. Bottomley, and had
appealed to her not to give her evidence, and not to
allow her husband to state all the facts, but to confine
himself to the fact that he had seen him and Mrs.
Postlethwaite, but that he had not seen the not of
adultery committed, and that that would be sufficient
for him. ' These were the facts of the case on the part
of the defendant.
The following witnesses were called for the de-
fendant :
Klizabeth Townley, examined by Mr. OTEREND,
stated that she lived in Thornhill-street, Stratford
?few-road, Manchester, with her parents, and that she
was now unmarried and a silk winder. Some ten years
ago there was a chapel in Cable-street, Manchester,
and there she first became acquainted with the plain-
tiff, who preached there then, and afterwards went
to Ducie Chapel. She was a member of his chapel.
Knew a person named Ann Buckley, who was a
scholar at Ducie Chapel. In 1841 Ann Buckley made a
statement to witness, and she (witness) mentioned it
to a sister of one of the deacons. After that Dr.
Nolan came to witness's house, and wanted her to go
to Inn Buckley. Went to her and, as she was de-
sired, brought her to the vestry. When she came
there, the plaintiff was standing on the top of the
stairs which lead up to the vestry. At the top of these
stairs there are two doors, one into the vestry and the
other into the chapel. The school-room is under-
neath the chapel. Went up to the plaintiff, who se-
parated witness from Inn Buckley, placing witness
in the chapel, and taking Ann into the vestry. When
he came out he gave half-a-crown to witness, who
first refused it ; but he said it was for her loss of time
lin going for Ann. A man of the name of Douglas,
I then the chapel-keeper, about two months after,
brought witness a letter from Dr. Nolan and 21. The
letter was afterwards burned by her father when they
I lived in the country. There was afterwards a tea-party
, in the school-room, when the plaintiff spoke to her. As
she was going away he beckoned to her and a young fe-
' male friend of hers, and she then went into the vestry,
when she asked him how they were to pay the 21. back
again. He said she must never mind it ; if she was
in want of 101. he would give it to her. He then
took hold of her hand, and said she was a faithful
little friend of his. Witness is now 35 years of age.
He said she had a nice soft hand. Went to his house
afterwards several timer. He used to invite young
women of the school and of the chapel to go, some-
times two and two, and sometimes alone. His wife
was sometimes at home, and sometimes not, when
they went to his house. He once asked her to go
into the vestry, the same evening as the tea party,
telling her be wanted to speak to her. There was no
light there. She objected, there being no light. He
said he would call, and did call ; but no one came. He
got hold of her hand, and pulled her into the vestry,
then took hold of both her hands, and put them round
him. This conduct was repeated almost every time
that she went into the vestry. He on one occasion
told her that he was not the only man that was
tempted, and that she should recollect David and
Uriah's wife, and how, when the woman was taken
in adultery, Christ had commended her. He ulti•
mately succeeded in overcoming her virtue on one
occasion only ; that was on one Thursday night in
the vestry, about six years since. He always said,
when she trembled, that he would not do her any
harm. He said. he could prevent any harmful results
to her. Tnis he said both before and after; she be-
came ill afterwards ; had a severe cold and uneasiness
of mind. He never had intercourse with her after,
but took liberties with her, and said it was only play-
ing for fun. When she was ill she went to her own
doctor, Mr. Radford, but plaintiff came and asked if
he should send his own doctor, Mr. Potter, and he did
send him. Has been in ill-health ever since.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant W ILKINS —She
was about thirty years old when the plaintiff first
took familiarities with her. Has always attended
Dissenting places of worship, and has been in the
habit of reading the Holy Scriptures. They undergo
an examination before becoming a member of ;their
church, as to the doctrines of the church. As soon 844
admitted to the church, they have access to the Lord's
table ; and they are told that, before approaching that
table, they should subject themselves to a strict exa-
mination of soul and mind. She was in the habit all
the while of receiving the sacrament there, from the
deacons and from Dr. Nolan. There were four fe-
male teachers at the chapel school. Had never been
to Dr. Nolan to ask any advice in mental difficulty.
Miss Louisa Fry was one of the teachers, and witness
was very intimate with her. There are no " close
meetings in their church. When the doctor
beckoned her out she left the other teachers in the
school-room. Did not think she was absent above
five minutes, and then returned. She did think that
all this conduct of Dr. Nolan was very wicked. Had
' been in the chapel singing and praying before the act
of adultery was committed in the vestry. It was
against her consent. Resisted with all ,her might.
Did not call out, because he said he would not harm
her. Knew it was an offence in the sight of God.
They were in the vestry about half an hour. Told
of this matter about a fortnight before last Christ-
mas to a Mrs. Ward. Was very ill, and expected
death. Spoke to William Douglas at that time.
Did not tell him that the doctor was an excellent
man, and that he preached the true Gospel. Is not
aware that Mr. Ward is the plaintiff's greatest oppo-
nent. Plaintiff repeated his indecent behavour to her
perhaps about twenty times. She continued to go
with him into the vestry because others told her they
did the same. She did not cease, because she was
afraid ; because he told her he could destroy her
character, and she would be exposed.
Ann Chapel, wife of; Horatio Chapel—Her maiden
name was Ann Buckley. She had been a member of
plaintiff's congregation when single, and remembered
last witness being a teacher. Made a statement to
last witness some years since, and after that she came
and fetched witness to Dr. Nolan, at the vestry.
Went into the vestry when brought to the chapel,
and Elizabeth Townley was put in the chapel.
Cross-examined.--Witness is now near 25.
Joseph Bottomley examined by Mr. KNowees—
Stated that he was a shopkeeper at Manchester, and
was chapel-keeper at Ducie Chapel from about six
years ago until the Bth of January last. Dr. Nolan
was minister there during the whole time. Witness
had rooms in the chapel, over the vestry. Knew
Mary Gilchrist, now Mrs. Postlethwaite. They
used to call her " Miss Gilchrist." She attended
the chapel when he first came there, and was in the
habit of coming to the chapel both week days and
Sundays. She usually saw the plaintiff in the vestry.
Plaintiff came to his rooms along with Miss Gilchrist
once, about six months after witness came to the
chapel. Dr. Nolan asked if he could have the room
for a few minutes, as the vestry was engaged. Wit-
ness and his wife went out, therefore, leaving the
Doctor and Miss Gilchrist alone in the room, where
they remained about twenty minutes or half an hour.
Saw her again at the chapel some time afterwards
several times. Upon a particular occasion, about
twelve months after, one Sunday morning after ser-
vice, after witness bad: locked up the chapel, on going
out at the chapel steps leading to the school, he found
the school-room door bolted on the school side. Re-
turned then through the chapel, and down a back
way to the school. The door there was locked, and
the key on the inside. There is a third door, leading
into the girls' yard, and that one witness bolted him-
self. There is a f)urth door, and that was bolted.
Witness then got over a wall, and looked in at the
window, and saw the plaintiff and Miss Gilchrist.
She was standing with her back against the wall.
[Tile witness here described appearances, which could
leave no doubt of the criminal conduct of the plain-
tiff.] The plaintiff and Miss Gilchrist came out in
about five minutes. Witness told his wife about the
matter before they came out.
Cross-examined by Mr. Manni—On being shown
some letters, witness stated they were in his wife's
handwriting. In June last the plaintiff was absent
from Manchester, with his -wife at Leamington, and
remained there about three weeks. Witness's wife
wrote letters to plaintiff during the time, and witness
knew of her writing them. After witness saw what
convinced him of the criminal conduct of plaintiff, he
received the sacrament and went to plaintiff's church
for five years. Always suspected that when plaintiff
and Gilchrist were in the vestry together that some-
thing wrong was going on. It happened in the
middle of the day on Sunday, after divine service.
Was present at Miss Gilchrist's marriage with Pos-
tlethwaite. Never said that he should resign his
situation as chapelkeeper, fearing that he should be
turned off. lo'irst told ;hat he had seen in January
last to Mr. West, the attorney. lie was taken to
Mr. West, who took it down is writing.. Recollects
the day of thanksgiving. On that day Ford and Dick
came to witness and stated :that they came in conae
(pence of something which Pettigrew, the defendant,
had said. Went down into the vestry to them. Ford
asked witness if he had ever seen Dr. Nolan commit
adultry in the chapel gallery, to which witness
answered " No." Ford then asked if he had seen
! him (Dr. Nolan) commit adultery anywhere else ?
and witness replied that he had never seen him in the
gallery. Dr. Nolan said to witness, " Joseph, will
you save me ?" Previous to Mr. Dick and Mr.
Ford coming the doctor entreated witness very
earnestly. Answered them with an intention to de-
ceive them, and kept them in a state of deceit in-
tentionally.
Mrs. Bottomley, the wife of the chapel-keeper, was
next examined—She said that the plaintiff asked her
on Tuesday last, as she was corning to Liverpool,
what she was going to prove ? She said it would
lle
sdNevpuernedadounlttehrey
against
tnhs
iamskne.dit.h
aridOstiflethwosaerthe
she would bring an action against him as soon as the
trial was over, but if they would swear anything

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 some letters of the last
witness for the defendant, in which she spoke of the
plaintiff in flattering terms. They were addressed to
the plaintiff himself.
Toe ATTORNET• GHWERAL 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 Bottomley
—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.
He 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 Rot like him to du
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 fur 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 A.TToitts sr •GaNEEAL replied on this new evi-
dence. He said as perjury must he 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. The 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 bim
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. He
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. He 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.
'she 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. lie hollered
that all the animosity against him had arisen out of
the election of him a second time to the office of
minister. He then comotented 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 vane 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. Her's 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 13ottomley alone, for all 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. lie beseeched them to cast all
rumours aside, and confine their consideration to the

evidence.
Mr. Baron ROLFE summed up, and, addressing the
jury, said no case so painful as this had ever come
before him since he 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;
and next, as to the adultery, and fornication, that it
was true ; and he was of oplnion 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. lie 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.—Yerdict for the defendant accord-
, ingly.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE
OF FRIDAY-
FOREIGN-OFFICE, MARCH 28, 1850.
The Queen has been pleased to approve of M. Pierre
f
Massabini as Consul at Liverpool ur the Sublime Ot-
toman Porte.
ADMIRALTY, MARCY( 27.
The following promotions have 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, K.C.H., to be Rear-Admiral of the Red.
Roar-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 b© Rear-
Admiral of the Blue.
Retired Captain Henry Jenkinson has also been pro-
moted to be a Retired Rear-Admiral, on tho terms pro-
posed in the London Gazette of the Ist September,
1846, bet without 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, vine Lee, resigned ; Cornet William Henry
Harrison to be Lieutenant, vice Bland, resigned; John
Greenwood to be Cornet, vice Harrison, promoted,
March 23.

BANKRUPTS.
Cornelius Harness and Edward Bisley, warehouse-
men; Aldermanbury, to surrender April 11, at twelve,
and May 10, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Cannan, official assignee, Birchin-lano; Van Sandau
and Cumming, King-street, Cheaßtide; Sale, Worth-
ington, and Shipman. Manchester.
William Benjamin Blaber, painter, Little Britain,
April 6 and May.lo, at half-past eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Canaan, official assignee, Birchin-lane;
.Mardon and Prichard, Newgrite-strl:et.
William Ellison, builder, Stainsby-road, Poplar,
,April 9, at half-pant twelve, and May 7, at twelve, at the

Court of Bankruptcy. Stansfeld, official assignee ;
Walker, Grant, and Co., Ring's-read, Gray's Inn.
Joseph Robinson, bookseller, High Holborn, April 1,
and May 7, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Stans-
feld, official assignee; Willoughby and Cox, Clifford's
Inn.
Robert Godsmark, jun., grocer, Crosby-row, Wal-
worth-road, Surrey-, April 9 and May 7, at eleven, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Stansfeld, official assignee;
Espin, Bedford-row.
Thomas Begley Cousens, shipbuilder, Wisbeach
Saint Peter's, Cambridgeshire, April 23, at two, and
May 11, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom,
official assignee, Abchurch-lane; Child and Kelly,
Old Jewry; W. Gay, Wisbeach. Cambridgeshire.
John Scone and William Hodgson, vinegarasskers,
Christian-street, St. George in the East, April 12, at
twelve, and May 14, at eleven, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane, Lom-
bard-street; Robinsons, Qreem-street-place, South wark-
bridge.
John Bynner, grocer, Oswestry, Shropshire, April 15,
and May 13, at half-past ten, at the Birmingham Dis-
trict Court. Chri-tie, official assignee, Birmingham ;
Young, jun., Mark-lane; Ludlow, Birmingham.
John Croonie, engineer, Bristol. April 10 and May 8,
at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official
assignee, Bristol; Bevan, Bristol.
Jab,a Bowyer, miller, Borehatn, Wiltshire, April 10
and May tk, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court.
Hutton, official assignee, Bristol; Bevan', Bristol.
Mary Levi, Julia Levi, and Either Levi, stationers,
Liverpool, April 12, and May 12, at eleven, at the
Liverpool District Court. Bird, official assignee, Liver-
poel; Cross, Liverpool.
Samuel Wroth Anthony, shipowner. Liverpool, April
15 and May 6, at eleven, at the Liverpool District
Court. Morgan, official assignee, Liverpool; Wootton,
Tokenhouse-yard; Dodge, Liverpool.
William Chadwick, paper manufacturer, Manchester,
April 10, and May 1. at eleven, at the Manchester Dis-
trict Court. Putt, official assignee, Manchester; Atkin-
son, Saunders, and Atkinson, Manchester.
DIVIDENDS,
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
J. Stead, Melcombe Rotes, Dorsetshire, grocer, April
22, at half-past eleven—W. Brown, Wood-street, City,
and East-street, Cambridge-heath, Bethnal-green, elastic
hat-band manufacturer, April 22. at half-past one—C.
W. Davies, Brownlow-street, Holborn, licensed victu-
aller, April 23, at twelve.
In the Country.
T. Morris, Newcastle-in-Emlyn, otherwise Newcastle
Emlyn, Carmarthenshire, linen and woollen draper and
grocer, April 22, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol—J.
Broadbent, New Barn, Dell, Yorkshire, woollen manu-
facturer, April 22, at twelve, at the Court, Leeds—S.
Worth, Sheffield, Yorkshire, architect and surveyor,
April 20, at ten, at the Council-hall, Sheffield—G. Bar-
ton and J. Barton, Manchester, copper roller manufac-
turers, April 6, at twelve, at the Court, Manchester.
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.

E. Yates, Leeds, Yorkshire, veterinary surgeon,
Is. I Id., on Tuesday, March 26, or any subsequent
Tuesday, between eleven and two, at the office of Mr.
Hope, Leeds.
J. Atkinson, Bradford, Yorkshire, joiner, 55., on
Tuesday, March 2G, or any subsequent Tuesday, be-
tween eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Hope. Leeds.
J. J. Sullivan, Winsford, Cheshire, salt merchant and
shipowner, Is. 5d., on Thursday, March 28, or any sub-
sequent Thursday, between eleven and two, at the office
of Mr. Cazenove, Liverpool.
D. Evans, Liverpool, coach builder, 2s. 4d., on Thurs-
day, March 28, or any subsequent Thursday, between
eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Cazenove, Liverpool.
D. Jones, Liverpool, haberdasher, I oil., on Thursday,
March 28, or any subsequent Thursday, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Cazenove, Liverpool.
T. Martin, Liverpool, merchant, 23., on Thursday,
March 28, or any subsequent Thursday. between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Cazenove, Liverpool.
T. Cragg, Blackpool, Lancashire, grocer, 9d., on
Thursday, March 28, or any subsequent Thursday, be-
tween eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Cazenove,
Liverpool.
W. Wilson, Honghton-le-Spring, Durham, malster,
on new proofs, on Saturday, March 13, or any sub-
,,equent Saturday, between ten and three, at the office of
Mr. Baker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
G. Burnett and H. A. Thompson, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, and Jarrow, Durham, soda and alkali manufac-
turers, 3id., on Saturday, March 30, or any subsequent
Saturday, between ten and three, at the office of Mr.
Baker. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
H. Tappenden, jun., Ashford, corn dealer, 4s. 61., on
Saturday next, and the three subsequent Saturdays,
between eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Groom, Ab-
church-lane, City.
G. Barnard, High Wycombe, grocer, 4d., on Saturday
next, and the three subsequent Saturdays, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Groom, Abchurch-lane,

City.
R. Tate, itegent-street, silversmith and jeweller, lid.,
on Thursday, 25th inst., and the three following Thurs-
days, between eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Stans-
feld, Basicghall-street.
K. Grimby, Banbury, Oxfordshire, win• and spirit
merchant, 6s. Bd., on Thursday, 28th inst., and the three
following Thursdays, between eleven and two, at the office
of Mr. Stansfeld, Basinghall-street.
Sikes, Sikes, and Wilkinson, Mansion-house, City,
bankers, 3-16 d., on Thursday, 28th inst., and the three
following Thursdays, between eleven and two, at the
office of Mr. Stansfeld, Basinghall-street.
E. Smallwood, Cryglestone, Yorkshire, schoolmaster,
65., on Thursday, 2Sth inst., and the th:eo following
Thursdays, betwee❑ eleven and two, at the office of Mr.
Stansfeld, Basinghall-street.
NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
J. Matthews and J. Martin, Chichester-place, King's-
cross, draper, April 27, at twelve—J. W. Jackson, Col-
chester, coal merchant, April lt, at half past eleven—J.
Patching, Ilenfield, Sussex, brewer, April 19. at one—
J. Bonnin, jun., Brompton, builder, April 22, at half
past one.

In the Country.
S. Wilson, Westbromwich, Staffordshire, draper,
April 22, at half past one, at the Court, Birmingham—
D. Lees, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, coach iron-work
manufacturer, April 20, at •!oven, at the Court, Bir-
mingham.
CERTIFICATES GRANTED.
G. Morton, New-road, Whitechapel-road, draper—J.
Grey, South Preston, Northumberland, market gardener
and banker, certificate of the first class—R. Yenning,
Totnes, Devonshire, cider merchant, certificate of the
second class—R. Kidd, Tynemoatti, Northumberland,
commo❑ brewer and spirit merchant, March 25, certifi-
cate of the third class, after 21 days—W. Wilson,
Houghton.le-Spring, Durham, malster, grocer, and
draper, March 25, certificate of the third class, after 21
days—F. Clementson, Shellon, Staffordshire, earthen-
ware manufacturer, March 27, certificate of the second
class, after 12 months—V. Cooke, Worcester, cabinet-
maker and furniture dealer, certificate of the first class—
B. Jefferies, Worcester. boat builder, certificate of the
first class—W. Storey, Leeds, wool dealer, certificate of
the third class, after three years from Nov. 29, 1849.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
W. Butlin and T. Howard. Northampton, engineers—
W. Rymer, J. Todd, and T. Blakemore, Manchester, fus-
tian manufacturers—J. Barrowlough, W. Vickers, Jn.
Vickers. Jas. Vickers, and H. Taylor, Manchester, iron-
founders (so far as regards H. Taylor) —Maria Norton,
F. N. Norton, and Amelia Nettleton, Sloane-street, Chel-
sea—R. Willoughby and W. Willoughby, Warwick-lane
and West Smithfield. publishers and and printers—J.
Dickinson and A. France, Spotland, Lancashire, fire-
brick makers—E. Stimpeon and F. Stimpson, Northamp-
ton, boot and shoe manufacturers—T. Cahill and J. 1).
Hewett, Michael's-place, Brompton, surgeons—Maria
Howarth and Eleanor Taylor, Woolwich, milliners—
Elwin Prae and C. Pane, Birmingham, engravers and
letter cutters—G. F. Jobbins and E. Jobbins, Old Bond-
street, bakers—M. Bowe, J. Walms ley, and R. 13 we,
Manchester. cotton and worsted manufacturers—F.
Gibson and W. Ullathorne, Nottingham, soda's, ater
manufacturers—J. Woods, J. Squire, and W. Cash.
Barge-yard, Bucklersbury, engineers—J. Greenwood and
Martha Greenwood, Kendal, Westmorland, hardware
and general dealers—J. Towle, Faintly Towle, J. Briggs,
and E. Towle, Borrowash and Draycott, Derbyshire
cotton doublers and lace manufacturers—J. Slagg and
W. Glossop, Gainsborongh, Lincolnshire, corn mer-
chants—Janet Hervey and Frances Lascelles, Neston,
Cheshire schoolmistresses—T. Smith and R. T. Broome,
Blackheath, Kent, ironmongers—W. C. Tidy and M.
M. Bull, Cambridge-heath, Hackney, surgeons—J.
Griffiths and R. Richards, Gloucester-place, Walworth-
common, brewers—E. Hatfield and. R. Hatfield, South-
well, Nottinghamshire, linen and woollendrapers—Caro-
line Mary Hall and H. J. Hall, Church-street. Kensing-
ton, toy dealers—J. Hart and W. F. Hart, Plymstock,
Devonshire, limestone merchants—W. Whitehurst,
W. C. Baynham, and W. Dalamore Oxford-
street, coachbuilders and harnessmakers—M. Pla-
tow and E. Humphreys, High Holborn. manufac-
turers of gas and steam fittings—J. Addison and
J. Robinson, York, plumbers and glaziers—C. S. J.
Semon, J. L. Siltzer, and J. Susmann, Huddersfield,
wool merchants (so far as regards J. Susmann)—T.
Lloyd and J. Hare, Aldersgate-street„ grocers and tea
dealers—J. Wilson, W. Wilson, and H. Wilson, Canter-
bury, builders (so far as regards J. Wilson)—J. John-
son and R. Johnson, Reading, grocers—W. R. Hodges,
Great Bookham, Surrey, and G. Selby, Smethwick
Grove, near Birmingham, patent iron tube manufac-
turers—J. W. Hughes and J. Hill, Gloucester, woollen
drapers—R. Titcomb and F. J. Clement, Highgate,
butchers.

INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
John Meathrel, Paignton, Devonshire, coschmaker.
John Nash. Portland, Dorsetshire. labourer.
Ebenezer Kirkpatrick, Fincham, Norfolk, tea dealer.
John Atkinson, Liverpool, blacksmith.
Joshua Evans, Liverpool, cart owner.
John Cooper, Liverpool, joiner.
Jasper Fowler, Newland, Gloucester, licensed victualler,
Thomas Furley. Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucester, li-

censed
Henry Bradbury, Bishopswearmouth, commercial tra-
veller.
Thomas Coates, Beckside, Etst Riding, Yorkshire, river
sloopmsm and dealer in coals.
Mary John, Lanhara,n, Glamorganshire, publican.
John Games, Hay, Brecknockshire, hairdresser.
John Coates, Wolsingham, Durham, draper and tailor.
Francis Vinson, Codnor-park, Derbyshire, licensed

'victualler.
William Henry Thomas, PAigntoo, Devonshire, coach•
maker.
Richard Griffiths, Wem, Shropshire, licensed victualler
Robert Franklin, Wem, Shropshire, painter.
Thomas Hale, Bristol, nailmaker.
Elizabeth Ireland, Skeeby, Yorkshire.
John Adams, Reading, Berkshire, furniture broker.
William Clark, North Kelsey. Lincolnshire, tailor.
SCOTCII SEQUES MATIONS.
T. 5 teyounn, Olasgor, manaissivn ;gent, tp