| Reference Number | t18641121-53 |
|---|---|
| Verdict | Guilty > unknown |
| Sentence | Imprisonment |
| Related Material |  |
|---|
| Actions | Cite this text Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 02 August 2021), November 1864, trial of JOHN OSTERFIELD WRAY (28) WILLIAM ANDERSON (42) (t18641121-53). | Print-friendly version | Report an error |
|---|---|
| Navigation | < Previous text (trial account) | Next text (trial account) > |
53. JOHN OSTERFIELD WRAY (28), and WILLIAM ANDERSON (42), were again indicted for Unlawfully publishing a libel against Montague Augustus Clarke, with intent to extort money. Four other Counts varying the mode of charging. Sixth Count, for a conspiracy to defraud. Seventh Count, for a. conspiracy, by threatening to publish a libel, to extort money.
MR. METCALFE proposed to confine the case only to the sixth and seventh Counts.
The evidence, as given in the former case, was read over to the witnesses, and stated by them to be correct.
Upon the draft-letter, obtained by Sergeant White from the clerk to Anderson's former solicitor, being tendered, MR. LEWIS objected to its reception on the ground of privilege, which the fact of the attorney having since retired from the ease did not remove; if notice to produce had been served, secondary evidence might be given, but at that course had not been taken, he submitted the letter was inadmissible. MR. BARON BRAMWELL was of opinion that the letter must be admitted, first, because there was evidence that it had been in Wray's possession, and secondly, as the contents showed an internal connexion with the other documents produced, it was relevant to the matter in hand and evidence against him; although it might be a breach of duty on the part of the attorney to give up the letter, yet he had in fact done so: if he had dropped it through carelessness, that would have been a breach of duty, though not a gross one, and if the police-sergeant had picked it up, he might have had no right to detain it; but the practical answer to the objection was the presence of the letter. If the attorney had been subpœnaed, and had objected to produce it, because his possession was the possession of his client, he was inclined to think the objection would have been a good one, and that secondary evidence might have been given.
The letter was read.
MR. RIBTON then submitted that there was no case for the Jury; that as the Counts for libel had been abandoned, the seventh Count, which charged a conspiracy to publish it, must be abandoned with it, and as to the sixth Count, there
was not sufficient evidence to sustain it. MR. BARON BRAMWELL did not consider that the seventh Count need be withdrawn; the opinion of the Jury must be taken.
GUILTY on the sixth and seventh Counts. — Confined Two Years each.