The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-08 00:00:00

LIBEL ON A CLERGYMAN OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.

JAMES V. BOSTON.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of Saturday.)
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in his summing up, directed the
attention of the jury to the fact that the Bishop of London
communicated to the plaintiff the letter of the defendant con-
taining the alleged libel, and the plaintiff made some answer
to the charge, which must be considered to have been satis-
factory to the Bishop, for that dignitary did not deem it ne-
cessary to institute any further inquiry into the matter. It
would, therefore, have been as well, and more in accordance
with the customary forbearance of a clergyman of the Church
of England, the Learned Judge thought, had the matter
rested there, but such not being so, the jury had to decide
whether the defendant had sent the letter with the single ob-
ject of calling his Lordship's attention to the circumstances
it alluded to, or whether he had written it with the view of
slandering and injuring the plaintiff's character. If they
were in favour of the first alternative, the Learned Judge was
clearly of opinion that the defendant had been guilty of no
libel in law ; but if they adopted the latter, then a libel had
been committed, and it would be for the jury to say what
damages the plaintiff had sustained in consequence of it.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for
the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 6.
(Sittings in London.)
CRDL CON.--BPENCER V. M`DONALII.
This was an action, in the Common Pleas, Guildhall (be-
fore the L2rd Chief Justice and a common jury), brought by
the plaintllE, a respectable tradesman, carrying on the busi-
ness of a straw-bonnet maker in High-street, Shoreditch,
against the defendant, a comedian, who, at the time of the
unfortunate transaction, was performing at the City of
London Theatre, Norton-folgate, the residence of the plaintiff
being within two hundred yards of that establishment, for
criminal conversation with the wife of the plaintiff. The
defendant pleaded" Not Guilty."
Mr. Sergeant Bylea and Mr. Aspinall appeared for the
plaintiff; but, although the defendant had placed upon the
record a plea of not guilty, no counsel appeared for him.
Mr. Sergeant RYLES stated the case. The plaintiff was a
highly respectable man, a straw-bonnet maker, living in
High-street, Shoreditch. He had been married to the unfor-
tunate cause of this action, who was now about 34 years of
age, for about fourteen years. The plaintiff was accustomed
to go to a dissenting chapel, and it appeared that such occa-
sions were selected for the purpose of carrying on a criminal
intereourse between defendant and plaintiff's wife. On a
particular evening, which would be proved, the plaintiff,
whose suspicions were previously excited, got two of the
police to watch inside his house during his absence at chapel.
They were concealed in the cellar, and they heard Mrs.
Spencer come down stairs and let defendant in at the shop-
door, when he put his arms round her neck and gave her a
kiss, and subsequently the adulterous intercourse took place
in the, counting-house, and the defendant, whose clothes were
found by the police to be in disorder, was taken into custody,
and charged with larceny, tried at the Clerkenwell Sessions,
and acquitted. Defendant, now living at St. James's-place,
Kennington, had for some time carried on a correspondence
with plaintiff's wife, and he would read two letters which
bad been written by the latter to her paramour, the defen-
dant. The first letter was—
" Dear, dear Charles,—What a trouble is this to me to
knolgyou are so near me every night, and I cannot see you.
Waa it not for the trouble that must come, I would risk
everything and come to see you, and do the best I could for
myself. I think the reason this is so long about is that he
cannot part with me, but tells me he is waiting for me to live
with one that will take care of me. I have named an aunt of his,
and think she will be the person. I shall care a great deal
for hgr. lam to have 11. a week, without the child; and the
one that is coming he will not have anything to do with, as
he knows that to be yours. That I know to be true, and
should not let him if he would; for, if you should forsake
me, I shall have that as part of yourself to look at—to look
at and to kiss; and it is my prayer, that should all leave
me to the world to find a home for it, every nerve shall be
strained to do so. Oh ! that the Lord will give me help, and
then will I work till the pulse that now beats shall cease.
Now, dear, should he change his mind and not let me leave
him—are you looking for a place near me? I hope nothing
will prevent you coming on Sunday, as I must speak to you
about Madam. I cannot live any longer without seeing you,
though it is not long since, dear. Should you not see the
child, I shall send to Gun-street on Saturday night for a note,
to know if you come on Sunday at a quarter before seven
o'clock. Do came. Ride if it rains, and I will pay you again.
" MARIA."

The second letter had likewise no date, bat had been sent
by post in an envelope, bearing the post mark, Nov. 9, 1844.
"My dear Charles,—l received your very kind letter, and
cannot describe the pleasure it afforded me, for I was in de-
spair to know when I should see your dear face again, as I
cannot bear the thought of your leaving town under such
circumstances, which you have no reason to do, if you would
but let me know when you are in want of money. I hope,
my dear, I shall see you to-morrow (Sunday), as the time
appears long indeed to me since I saw you. I have a great
deal to say that I think will be to our benefit at a future
time—which is of the greatest importance, and then I will
speak, to you respecting Madam. Do not fail to come, as it is
" Ordinnance" Sunday.—Yours until death,

" MARIA."
In appealing to them for damages, he was not instructed to
make this case a mere matter of pounds, shillings, and
pence, the anxiety and desire of the plaintiff being to obtain
such a verdict from them as world prevent the world
jpsup-
posing
as to blame, or had in any manner, directly or
indireetl ncouraged the defendant.
Will Cross, examined by Sergeant BTLES—I reside
in High-street, Borough. I have known the plaintiff and
his wife for a long time. They have been married about
fourteen years, during which time, until within the last 14
or 15 months, they appeared to live on terms of the greatest
harmony and affection. The plaintiff's wife was an indus-
trious and kind woman. My first acquaintanceship with Mr.
Spencer was his being apprenticed with me; and since his
marriage I had been is the habit of visiting him from time
to time, and always observed the most perfect harmony.
Women, friends of Mrs. Spencer, and also of Mr. Spencer,
were also there at the time of his calling.
David Robertson, examined by Mr. AsrurALL--I am an
engineer. I am distantly related to the plaintiff, having mar-
ried a sister of Mrs. Spencer. The plaintiff and his wife al-
ways appeared to live upon the most happy and affectionate
terms.

James Spencer, father of the plaintiff, deposed to the uni•
form kindness and affection that existed between his son and
his wife until the last 13 or 14 months, since which an evi-
dent change took place in her conduct towards her husband,
which was now attributed to her connexion with the de-
fendant.

James Brennan, examined by Mr. Asrman—l am a ser-
geant of police of the G division. On Sunday, the 10th
et August, the plaintiff applied to me to go to his house, he
hewing a suspicion of some person being in the habit of
♦isiting his house in his absence, and requested that he,
together with another police-constable, would secrete them-
eSeltrea in the lower part of the premises so as to detect the
individual; he (the witness) accordingly went in company
of poli-constable Tate, 138 G, about' six o'clock to the
plaintiff's house, and there saw him. They both, according
to his directions, went into the cellar, which commanded a
view of the shop door. The plaintiff went to chapel.
About three-quarters of an hour afterwards, Mrs. Spencer
cams down 'airs, and let the defendant in, who immediately
shook hands with her, put his left arm round her waist, and
kissed her. They both went into the back parlour, and
the defendant began fondling and taking indecent liberties
with Mrs. Spencer. The next thing witness saw was Mrs.
Spencer handing the defendant a glass of spirits, but she did
not drink any herself. Shortly after I observed the parties
in such a position as left no doubt upon my mind that they
had been indulging in criminal Intercourse. I then came
from my hiding-place. He ran into the yard and began
arranging his clothes, which were in a disordered state. I was
in plain clothes, but I told him I was an officer of police. I
left him in custody, and I then fetched the plaintiff, and in
his presence communicated what I had seen, and plaintiff
said, if he had a pistol, he would blow out his brains. I
then searched him, and took him to the station-house, when
he gave his name and address. I knew him before ; he was
a comedian at the City of London Theatre. He was indicted
and tried at the Clerkenwell Sessions and acquitted.
Henry Taylor, 136 G, confirmed the previous witness, and
deposed to searching defendant's lodgings, and found the
letters previously read, with a number of other letters.
This was the plaintiff's case.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, observed that defen-
dant being only 24 years of age, and Mrs. Spencer 34, it was
hardly probable that defendant had been the seducer, but of
this there was no evidence. Defendant certainly had not
been en intimacy with the plaintiff, and so availed himself by
seducing the wife. The jury had to consider what injury
the plaintiff had sustained, and to assess the damages ac-
coydingly.
The jury. after a brief consultation, returned a verdict for
plaintiff—Damages, 1001.