The Sun.
London, England, 1818-11-21 00:00:00

This letter, he said, came from a Mr Yeoman,
who in his affidavit stated, that he was at the
Coroner's Inquest, and waited in an adjoining
room, with a number of persons who came thither
to give their testimony as witnesses : t,ort they
all w ithaut exception, while in conversation
there, ascribed the accident to Lord Charles
Spencer Churchill. Could this then be said to
be a miarepresentation—a misrepresenta ion of
what these persons hid said ? Could it he said to
be a misrepresentation ot the tact ? The fact was
vouched by the affidavits of several other persons.
It was rental foible that one ot the affidavits oo tic
other side stated, that no one was present at the
accident ; but it was proved that there weie seve-
ral persons return-mg trout a funeral, and that one
of them'sent the undertaker to assist the parties
in distress. Tic learned Counsel then proceeded to
read Mr. Tooke's deposition before the Coroner,
which stated, among other things, that if Lord
Charles Spencer CiiiiiThia had waited only one
quarter of a minute, all would have been sate.--
After the accident, Lord Charles Spencer Charchill
never took tire trouble to call and make arty in-
quiry, but only sent his servant to the surgeon's :
ire should nut have said this, haul it not been ia-
sinuated on the other side, that Mr. Tooke had
exhibited great want of feeling, and that he was
intoxicated when he appeared before the Coronet'.
Mr. Justice Baarattv.—What was the finding of
the Jury ?
Mr. Gum:ave.—Accidental death.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—If there had been any
negligence, how was it the verdict Was not man-
slaughter ?
Mr. Guatiev replied, that the finding of the
Jury on such occasions was often incorrect. The
affidavit of 'Mr. Bradshaw, who was puevoted
train attending, by the distress he telt at the loss
of a child, and that ot another deponent, stated,
that there was sharp diving, that is, impro-
per driving. Mr. Bradshaw swore, that if Lord
C. S. Churchill had stopped half a minute, he
would have had sufficient room to have passed;
and that the accident was occasioned solely by
his Lordship's impetuosity. Lord Charles Spencer
Churchill was behind ; he saw another gentleman
driving before him, and ou the right side of the
road : he had nothing to do but to wait a single
moment, awl all would have been safe : instead
of this, he hurries on, strikes the wheel of the
other gig, and pushes it to the post. This was
deposed to by all the three witnesses, who gave
their evidence before the Coroner : how the pro-
secutor could induct: one of tf,em entirely to alter
his statement, he could nut tell ; but an applica-
tion fur a criminal information came out with a
very bad grace from one, who, in order to fur-
nish a ground for it, was obliged to begin v%ith
causing a witness to state that he bad been guilty
of perjury. He had the affidavits of all those who
attended to give evidence 143 witnesses at the
Coroner's Inquest; he had the affidavits of
all those who were on the Inquest ; and they
were unanimous that the accident might
have been ptyvented, if Lord Charles Spencer
Churchill had been more careful, and less heated.
He believed it would be stated on the other side,
that application had been made by the friends of
Mr. Tooke to the jury on the inquest to find a
deodand : but Mr. Tooke solemnly asserted that
no such application had been made. The jury
were directed by the Coroner not to bud a
deodand, on the ground that Mr. 'Tooke might, if
he pleased, bring an action against Lord 'e;harles
Spencer Charehill. Under these circumstances,
the Learued Cotiosel submitted to the Court, that
no ground whatever had been shown for granting
a criminal information ; that the statement
crri-
ginally given of the transaction had been amply
coutirmed by the prosecutor's own account of it ;
because lie admitted that he had at erupted to pass
between two carriages in a road oaly 22 feet Wide;
Mill What he called a moderate rate, thought it mi,;lo
have been moderate for him, %sot', fraught with
danger to others, as appeared by the roost in-
disputable evidence. Ile next
,cuntended that
the account published in The Times was
no misrepresentation of what passed ti:ion the
Coroner's Inquest ; for by all the evidence i' ap-
peared, that the accident was entirely caused by
the culpable haste of Lord Charles Spencer
Churchill. In the affidavits on the oilier aide,
they had inserted an anonymous letter, written in
very gross terms, to Lord Charles Spencer
Churchill ; but they could not allege that it came
either front Mr. Tooke or the Editor of The
Times; and there Gentlemen disclaimed any know-
ledge of it. lie submitted, therefore, that where
an application for a criminal information had ob-
tained a rule by means of a misrepreseotatimostich
RS haul been set Up on the other side ; where that
misinreseorai ion had been so completely so-
severed ; where a witness had been called to give
evidence directly in oppositiou to what he ,A
before given on oath at a Coroner's Imptest, e

I)3(1

:Court would not only discharge the rule, but would
discharge it with coats.
Mr. SCARLETT having observed that his learned
Friend had said nothing (at a second publication,
Mr. GURNEY replied, he did not suppose that
Mr. Scarlett would have alluded to that publica•
!ion ; but as he had, he siosidd make some obser-
vations on it. It appeared that Lord Charles
Spencer Churchill had answered the-first publica-
tion, and that Mr. Tooke had replied in the man-
ner which was now complained of as a lihtel ; and
he should not have expected that his Lordship
would have alluded to this second publication
after he had seen the affidavit on the other side,
(an affidavit which stated that his Lordship had
never once called to inquire for the victim of his
wanton impetuosity,)—he should not have ex-
pected this, because his Lordship might have been
led to express some concern, even for the
fate of a stranger, under such circumstances
as those of the accident alluded to. How-
ever, the letter complained of as this second
publication did not state on its own authority
'that Lord Charles Spencer Churchill had expressed
so Dille conecrn as to have gone to Annul's the
*ante night, but only repeated a statement that
had been made to that effect in The Morning He-
rald ; and then said, that if his Lordship, as le-
pre,ented in The Herald, had gone to Altnack's,
his conduct was very unfeeling. Now, if this
statement of The Herald was untrue, his Lord-
ship mieht easily have aoswered it, as he (Mr.
Gurney) should have done, Should env such res.
Tort have been stated of him. It was oot likely
that Lord Charles Spencer Churchill should not
have seen the paragraph in qeestion. •
-The Court stnpped Mr. RoßtNsoN, who was to
have followed, when
Mr. SCARLETT•rOse on behalf of the prasectition.
Mr. Gurney, lie said, had not been so much the
a4lcocate of the Editor of The Times, as of
Tooke, and of Mr. Yeoman, the Geetlernan who
di ew up the letter for him. He had travelled out
of his way to give effect to the zeal they had
affected in their statements, and to throw imputa-
tions on Lord Charles Spencer C.burehill. That
Nobleman had also friends, who lia4 sworn 10
their statement of the case. But the Court was
uot to try no the merits or demerits of his
driving, but t.vhether they would give countenance
to a statement--
Chief Justice ABBOTT.—Tbe Court will not
give any countenance to the statement that has
been -made by refusing this role. The question
as to the propriety of that statement may be tried
elsewhere, though this rule is refused.
Mr. SCARLRTT said, that it was an undisputed
fact, that atter the accident happened Lord Charles
Spencer Churchill gut out of his gig and rpndered
all the assistance possible : he sent to the Surgeon
to inquire for the Lady, gave his address, and ex-
pressed his wish to be examined on the Crooner's
Inquest. . He stayed at home all the night in great
anxiety, especially when he heard that t!q, young
lady was dead ; and it was only because he was told
that his presence would not be required by the Go.:
roller that he forbore to go. Then came the
statement in the Newspapers, that the death of this
unfot touate lady was occasioned by the most wan-
ton carelessness ; afterwards, a passage in Tae Ob-
server, begging the puhlic -to suspend its judg-
ment ; and thou the statement complained of,
which contained a gross misrepresentation of what
had passed before the Coroner : for Mr. Jones, in
his affidavit, swore that he did not impute blame
to Lord Charles Spencer Churchill before tire
Coroner. Neither did Miss Smith --
The Court —Yes ; she says that he was driv-
ing as fast as he could ; and-that she observed to
a lady, that an accident would happen.
Mr. SCARLETT said, he would ask whether, if
after the verdict of the Coroner's inquest, Lord
Charles Spencer Churchill could be liable to pu-
nishment for manslaughter ? Certainly not. If
then the Editor of The Times had publisha the
depositions alone, be would have done wrong,
because they were an ex-parte statement ; but
he regrets, first, that he has them not, and
then publishes the StAttsinent of a partisan.
The defence put on affidavit did not contain
the evidence of persons on oath, but mere-
ly what was said in conversation by some
persons 'in attendance, who were not examined at
all. This was not all ; for a few days after
Lord Charles Spencer, Churchill received a most
scurrilous anonymous letter, telling him, that it
the laws- of Ids country could not try him Irk
murder, he would be punished by his own vile
conscience. The active party in all this, it seem-
ed, was Mr. Yeamao.
Mr. GURNEY.—Mr. Yeoman denies any kno*-
ledge of the !eat!' : as do all the defendants.
Mr. Scatteerr then said, he abandoned that
letter ; after that came The Times of the Bth of
June, containing the letter about Annuls's.
Chief Justice ABBOTT.—There you see the re-
ference to the autborot the statement, The Morns
ing Herald.
Mr. SCARLETT contended, that a libel was of-
ten contained, not in the statement of a fact, but
in the pointing of it, at The Times hail done with
respect to the statement of Lord Charles Spencer
Churchill's being at Alktack's.
Mr. Justice BAY LEY .—Was there any interval
between the publication of the fact stated in The
Herald, and the second publication in The Titneo
ask this for the purpose of knowitig it Lord C.
Churchill could have answered the statement in
The Herald. •
Mr. SCARLETT said, dab did not appear upon
his affidavits. But Lord C. S. Churchill might
never have seen the stattinent ita The Herald,
though the Editor of The Times had sufficient
leisure to hare itiqeired int' the truth of it, ii he
had so chosen ; but the libel had joined tic o facts
together to give a point to loth, and imply that
Lord C. S. Churchill WAS a young man so devoid
of all humanity as to neglect every feeling that
such an occasion must cad forth. • This too was
stated without any regard tc the contradiction
contained in The Observer. 'she Editor of The.
Times bad only given tip the lame of the writer
of the letter that appealed in hit paper, two hours
before the application was noise, so that it Was
too late to recall it. He (Mr.ieaste,t) trusted,
at least, that a young man who tad felt severely,
and had vindicated.himselt from ill imputation of
want of feeling, should be allowei this mode of
clearing his character.
MTN