§ Mr. Humerose for the purpose of asking a question of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, in relation to a case which was at that moment occupying much public attention. It appeared by the report, that a gentleman of the name of Johnston had been indicted, tried, and found guilty of an indecent assault on a young woman living as a servant in the house in which the gentleman who committed the assault occupied chambers. Mr. Johnston was found guilty of the assault, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. That gentleman had since been set at large on the payment of 30l. He wished to be informed by the right hon. Baronet what had been suggested to him since the trial, to induce him to commute the sentence.
§ Sir J. Grahamexpressed his obligations to the hon. Member for Montrose for his courtesy in giving him (Sir J. Graham) notice of his intention to ask a question in relation to this case, as well as for bringing the matter under hi., notice. He thought 1189 that the question was one well worthy of reply, in order to vindicate the impartial administration of justice. The case was first brought under his notice by a gentleman who held the office of Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Philipps, a gentleman in every way qualified to give an opinion and advice on the subject. After the first representation of the case to him, considering Mr. Johnston's education and superior condition of life, and all the circumstances connected with the transaction, he (Sir J. Graham) felt great hesitation in acting, and doubted the propriety of entertaining any proposal for a remission of the sentence. Entertaining these doubts, he referred the case back to Mr. Serjeant Adams, before whom the case was tried, for his opinion. The best course for him to pursue was to refer to the statement made by Mr. Serjeant Adams, on which he acted. The allegation made against this gentleman were, that he had made a violent assault upon a female whom he found in his chambers, and that the assault was committed with criminal intentions. That was the indictment against Mr. Johnston. He was tried and found guilty of the assault. Mr. serjeant Adams tried the case, and after the trial circumstances came to the knowledge of Mr. Serjeant Adams which made him doubt whether the case had been properly brought before the court. As he hesitated in taking any step in the matter, he referred the case to Mr. Serjeant Adams for his consideration and opinion, and the letter which it was his intention to read to the House was from Mr. Serjeant Adams to him, and which communication had induced him (Sir J. Graham) to commute the sentence, the party having already been imprisoned for a period of seven days. The sentence was remitted on the payment of a fine of 30l. to the Crown:—
§ " No. 1, Serjeants'-inn, July 20
§ " Sir,—In reference to your communication respecting J. C. Johnston, I beg to inform you that I have conferred with the police magistrate, Mr. Maltby, and examined E. Richardson, referred to in Mr. H. Johnston's letter. I enclose her examination, by which it appears that she does not confirm in some important particulars the statement therein made, and it does not appear that the prosecutrix at any time charged Mr. Johnston with heating her with a stick, or an attempt to violate her person, but only to take indecent liberties.
§ " There can be no doubt that the prosecutrix from the first complained that defendant threw her on the sofa, but the witnesses did not 1190 think she meant thereby to accuse him of an attempt to take indecent liberties, because of their knowledge of his irritable temper, and the great dislike he had expressed of the prosecutrix.
§ " The universal impression in court from the line of defence taken, the demeanour of the witnesses, and the testimony they gave, was that he had used the woman extremely ill, had taken grossly indecent liberties with her, and that he had brought forward the porter and his wife unjustly to assail her character and falsify her testimony, in which attempt they had failed,
§ " I do not hesitate to say, from my conference with Mr. Maltby, and the evidence now before me, that such impression was erroneous. and that there is not any reason to believe that the defendant intended to take any indecent liberty with her.
§ " The real state of the case I believe to be as follows:—That Mr. Johnston is an irritable man, particularly harsh with servants, and having taken a strong dislike to the prosecutrix, and coming into his room and finding her there at a later hour than he expected, he angrily and sharply struck her on the back and desired her to leave the room, that she refused to do so, and that he then seized her by both her arms (which it is not denied were seriously pinched and bruised) and, entered into a most unseemly contest with her, pulling her and dragging her about the room, on the sofa, &c., until he bruised and hurt her, she resisting his endeavours to remove her.
§ " The Court would not undoubtedly have visited this offence with imprisonment for three calendar months. I think they would not have imprisoned the defendant at all, but have inflicted upon him a serious fine, such a fine as a gentleman of large fortune who so forgets himself and strikes and attacks a female ought to pay; but the sentence having been passed, I do not think the justice of the case would be met by an immediate discharge, unless accompanied by some fine, and I would recommend that he be discharged from custody at the expiration of one calendar month of the term, unless an immediate discharge with a fine of 20l. or 30l., could be substituted. I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
§ " JOHN ADAMS."
§ "The Right Lion, Sir 2, Graham, Bart., &c."
§ He had received other letters and documents relative to the case, but he did not think it necessary to read them to the House. He had received information in consequence of his inquiries which had quite satisfied him as to the character of the prosecutrix; but, under all the circumstances, considering that the assault was not committed with any criminal intent—that the party had suffered one week's imprisonment, and acting upon the advice of the judge who tried the case, he 1191 had thought it consistent with his duty to commute the punishment for a fine of 30l. He did think the question an extremely proper one, and he had no hesitation whatever in laying before the House the whole of the circumstances under which he had acted in the case.