THE CHARGE AGAINST LOUD ST. LEONARDS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 1420, 14 July 1884, Page 3

THE CHARGE AGAINST LOUD ST. LEONARDS.

At the Central Criminal Court, London, on 23rd May, tho Right Hon. Edward Burtenshaw Sugdon, Lord St. Leonards, was placed, upon his trial beforo the Recorder for an indecent assault upon n. young woman named Emma Colo. Tho defendant has been in custody since his committal, and was brought up as an ordinary criminal. Mr 0. Matthdtt's, Mr Keith Frith, and Mr Black well appeared for tho prosecution, and Mr Klward Clarke, Q.C., and Mill rain wero aounsol for the defendant. The defendant, who was stated in the calendar to bo lit! years cf ago, pleaded not guilty. Mr C. Matthews briefly opened the caso to thejury, and said that thedefendnnt, who was commonly called Lord St. I_eonards, was charged with violently assaulting a young woman named Emma Colo, and but for the rank of the prisoner the caso was one of a very ordinary description, and tho facts lay in a very narrow coinpats. Tho prosecutrix would tell her own Btory, and which would be corroborated in several important particulars. Emma Colo said that she lived at No. 12, Victoria Road, Twickenham, and was domestic servant to a gentleman named Crawford. She had only seen the defendant once before tho 6th of May, when tho assault was committed, and sho had never spoken to him before thatday. On theevening of tho 6th May she was at homo, and a man named Dcttmar was at work in the garden. Hor master and mistress had gone out, and she was alono in the house, when there was a knock and ring at tho door, and on opening it she saw Lord St. Leonards, who inquired if her master and mistress were at home, and sho told him they were not. He appeared to be intoxicated, and she tried to shut the door, but he prevented her by placing his foot insido, and ho succeeded in getting into the house. Ho then asked for a pieco of string to tio up a dog, which he said he had just bought fur halfacrown. She was about to get a pieco of string for him when he caught hold of her by tho loft breast and acted indecontly lo her. She tried all sho could to got away from tho defendant, and after a short struggle she succeeded in getting away from him, and the man Deltninr nindo his appearance. What she had described took place in the private parlour, and after sho got away from the defendant she went downstairs, and at the sumo moment she heard Dettmar say that they did not keep string there for dugs. The defendant then loft the house and returned in about livo minutes, and asked for his pipo, and a clay pipo which ho had left in tho parlour was given to him. When her mistress returned home she made a complaint to her, and on tho following day sho was examined by a doctor, and slio showed bruises on her left breast. Cross-examined : Sho had been in Mrs Crawfurd's service a fortnight when this happened. Beforo that she had been in a situation at Stoke Nowington, but she did not bolieve that Mr Crawfurd mado any inquiries there about- hor. At one time she used to work for a Mrs Giles, and sho used to walk about with a girl named Alice Long, but sho was not aware that this girl used to walk tho streets. She had walked out with different men in an evening. While she was in hor placo at Stoke Nowington a complaint was made of her stopping out all night, but this was in consequence of her having lost tho train. Sho did not toll her mistress that she had been taken to a bad house. She stayed out all night on two occasions. They were two nights following, nnd she did not like to go homo after tho first night. She left tho situation at Stoke Nowington to get married, and she introduced a man to her mistress as her intended husband. She did not know what had becomo of this man. She knew a man named Wiggins, but she had never been on intimate terms with him. A man named Wiggins was here brought into Court, and tho witness said he was the man referred to. Cross-examination continued: Witness had not been a virtuous woman, and she had been intimate with a man, but it was a long time ago when this occurred. She would swear that sho had never been on intimate terms with a great many other men. She had heard Mrs Crawfurd called Mrs Knowles.. When she saw Lord St. Leonards on tho Sunday before the occurrence it was late at night—half-past ten o'clock at night. Mrs Knowles was in her dressing-gown, and there was some question about his being admitted. He remained in the parlour with Mr and Mrs Crawfurd until twelve o'clock at night. The man Dettmar was in the garden all the time tho struggle was going on between her and the defendant. Sho did not scream because she was struggling to get away. Samuel Crawfurd said that the prosecutrix, Emma Cole, was in his employ. All ho knew of the defendant was by meeting him on Sunday at Eel Pie Island, when the defendant came to his house with him. Witness invited Captain Scott, Mr Wootton and some others to come to his house, as it was only tono'clock, butthe others declined. Ho wished the prisoner " Cood night;" but the latter said, " You asked me to have a drink," and witness then said, " Come on." The correct name of Mrs Crawfurd was Mrs Knowles. Lord St. Leonards stayed at the house until about two o'clock. Both Mrs Knowles and the servant tayed up. Havo you ever had rooms in Clifford's Inn? No; and know no one theie. Mr Lay is a personal friend of mino. He is not conducting this prosecution. I took it out of his hands yesterday, and instructed Sir St. John Wontncr. Have you heard of any suggestion to "settle" or " square " this matter ?—I have heard of such a thing. Did you hear that Mr Lay had suggested it?-No; I heard it was the other way about, and that Captain Scott had offered Mr Lay a sum to keop the matter out of Court. Re-examined by Mr Matthews': The girl had conducted hcrsolf properly while in his service. ; Other witnesses were examined for the prosecution, but none were called for the defence. Despite the damaging facts elicited regarding tho girl's character, and the eloquent defeneo of Mr Clark, Q.C., the Bench convicted the accrue!, and ordered him to be brought up for sentence in June. By cable we nave since learned that the acciiced was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment, but as he had already been in custody for that period' he was released on the rising of the Court.