An Anglican Scandal

Faringdon Advertiser and Vale of the White Horse Gazette - Saturday 8 May 1886

THURSDAY.

The Judge took his seat at 10 o’clock.

THE SPARSHOLT CLERICAL LIBEL CASE.

Elisabeth Niblett, of 8, Ashton Road, Hotwells, Clifton, Bristol, was charged with a charge of sending threatening letters to the Rev. Oswald J Reichel, Vicar of Sparsholt, with intent to extort money from him, on 15th and 20th of July last; also with publishing a document containing libellous matter against the Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichel.

Mr. Henry Matthews, Q.C. and Mr. A. Chichele Plowden, were counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. A. R. Jelf, Q.C., and Mr. Fitzroy Cowper, were counsel for the defence.

The charge of sending threatening letter with intent to extort money, was proceeded with first.

Mr. Mathews opened the case for the prosecution, briefly stated the facts of the case, and read the letters on which the charge was based, as follows:—

8, Ashton Place, Clifton. Bristol.

Sir,—Will you oblige me by not sending any more letters to my house? Let me tell you I am the holder of a respectable house, not a brothel, which you have tried to make it. The person you address as Mrs. Rice is not at my house. As soon as she returned back I turned her out. I would not keep such cattle in my place. Furthermore, I mean to take proceedings against you. You came here and called yourself Mr. Rice, a commercial traveller, well knowing you were a minister of the Church of England, and gave my house a nice name. Remember it is my living, which I have always got respectably until your companion, Miss King, came to it. There is not a common woman on the streets of Bristol more common than she has made herself to every man in the neighbourhood. If you do not come to some terms with this affair I shall go to my own minister of the parish, and state the whole case to him, for I think it right you should be found out.—Mrs. Niblett—

Awaiting your reply——.

This letter was received by Mr. Reichel on the 16th July. The other letter ran:

Sir,—As I have not heard from you I shall come to the vicarage one day this week. If you do not come to some terms, I shall then go to the gentleman who went to London to find out Mrs. Ringley. I have no doubt I shall be paid well for what I can tell him. You know well l am telling the truth, which you cannot deny. You came to my house and staid one night with the vile thing you called Mrs. Rice, who is none other than your old housemaid, who has had two children by you. This is not half I know. I found something in your writing which she left in the waste paper, which is quite enough to prove what I have told. Don't think for a moment I am going to let this drop quietly, for I will expose you if I have to do it whilst you are in the pulpit.

Mr. Matthews then called—

Jesse Moss, letter carrier, living at Wantage, deposed to delivering letters at Mr. Reichel's house on the 16th and 21st July, 1885.

Annie Heavens, housemaid to the prosecutor, said she delivered letters to Mr Reichel on the 16th and 21st July, but she could not say they were the letters produced. She remembered the 16th because the school inspector was at Childrey.

Oswald Joseph Reichel, the prosecutor, said he was a clergyman of the Church of England, and Vicar of Sparsholt in this county. On the 16th and 2lst July last year, he received the letters produced by post. He remembered the 16th July because the school inspector was at Childrey. On Sunday, the 9th August, when he came out of Church in the evening he saw a woman standing on the road over against him. There was a man with her whom he recognised as Aaron Frogley. The woman he at first thought was Aaron Frogley’s sister, Clara Stratton. They seemed to wish to speak to him, and he crossed over the road. The prisoner then addressed him.

He could not recollect all that she said, but certain things he did remember. He then said to her "Then you are the writer of those two impertinent letters?" Aaron Frogley was walking by the side of her at the time, and William Frogley, his brother, was walking behind her.

She said she was the writer of the letters. They walked by his side all the way up to his gate, when he said he had nothing more to say to her, and wished them good night. He overheard William Frogley say to his brother Aaron, "If you have proof that is enough" William Frogley was churchwarden.

Cross-examined by Mr Jelf: He had written a letter to Mrs Rice at Mrs Niblett’s house, he could not remember the precise date, It was within a few days of the 15th July. The letter did not come back to him. He did not answer the first letter, but he did the second. He had not altered the letter to his knowledge. The statement produced was the one on which he had prosecuted the prisoner before the Magistrates.

He had had respondence with the Bishop, and he said that some notice must be taken of the libel. He was not the man who on or about the 9th June, slept with Mrs Rice at Mrs Niblett’s house. He had slept in the house once, but he denied sleeping with a woman at any time. There was not a woman in the room at the time he slept there, to his knowledge (laughter). He did not sleep in the same room with Mrs Rice to his knowledge.

By the Judge:—There was one bed in the room, and he slept in it. There was no other person in the same bed to his knowledge (laughter). The letter produced was in his hand-writing.

(The letter was as follows: "A very few lines to enquire where you are. I did net get the Pall Mall; was it ever sent? With no post mark to guide me, I did not know whether you had remained in town, or gone to your late address, or gone elsewhere to the seaside. So I will say no more to-day beyond sending what I always do in greater abundance still.")

He did not remember writing the letter, but it was in his hand-writing. Mrs Rice was Caroline King. She was the person who had been housemaid in his service, in the years 1872 and 1873. She was in his service about two years. She always slept in a room with the cook, so far as he knew. She never slept in the room nearest to his, on the same floor, to his knowledge. He was a single man.

He remembered George Wise, who used to work for him He saw him in Court now. He was about 15 years of age then, and he was there when Caroline King came to his house. He would not say that no improprieties had taken place between himself and Caroline King at that time. He did not have connection with her there. He could not recollect things so far back. Nothing of that sort happened in his house. He must decline to answer when anything of the sort took place.

(The Judge: No, indeed you won't, or else you will go to prison).

Prosecutor, with great reluctance: It was at Stratford-on-Avon, as far as I can recollect; that was after she left his service. He had kissed her in his house, but not often. He might have been in her bedroom, and she had been in his bedroom constantly. Sometimes he was in the room when she came in and sometimes not. She used to bring in the water for his bath every morning. He did not think he had kissed her in his bedroom or in hers.

He did not recollect asking George Wise, when he was succeeded by a new boy not to say anything to the new boy about himself and Carry.

He seduced Caroline King at Stratford-on-Avon. He afterwards visited her at 43, Edbrook[e] Road, Westbourne Park, but he had no connection with her there. He could not say how often he had visited her there. He might have been six or seven times. She was letting lodgings there. He did not allow her £6 per week. He allowed her 10s. per week, and 5s for the use of a room when be was there. He did not allow her the burial and marriage fees.

He did not know where she was now. He last saw her in October, 1885. He had not written to her since then. She was then in London having a house of her own. She paid the rent. He was not allowing her money now. He left off allowing her money long time ago only when he had rooms there.

She was living at Edbrook[e] Road by the name of Mrs. Ringley. He did not invent that name or the name of Rice. He knew of her going from Edbrook[e] Road to Bristol. He believed he visited her times at Bristol, it might have been four. It was in May and June. He had nearly always where she was since 1873. She had not been his mistress. He could not answer the question whether she had two children by him.

(The Judge: Oh, you must answer it.)

He knew she had two children, but he didn't know whether they were his or not. He had reason to think the contrary. Their names were Emily and Maggie.

When he went to Bristol he might have taken with him a case of cider.

When he got to Mrs Niblett's house he saw her. He did not give her to understand that he was the husband of Mrs Rice. He slept in the room which Mrs Rice gave up to him. Mrs Niblett did not see him in bed with a woman. She had seen him with his coat off, and might also have seen Mrs Rice partly undressed, although he was not positive about it. He most certainly did not lead Mrs Niblett to suppose he was the husband of Mrs Rice. Mrs Rice gave up her room to him, but he did not know where she slept.

He did not tell Mrs Niblett that he could not trust is wife with very much money at the time. He did not know that she was paying 15s. per week for her lodgings. He did not say he would be answerable for the rent.

Mrs Rice got her living by letting lodgings in London. She did not let lodgings at Stratford-on-Avon; she went out with him for a day. That was some 14 years ago. Both the children died in 1878. Mrs Rice was then in London, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Westbourne Park.

He had never had any conversation with Mrs Niblett until she came to Sparsholt. She waited upon himself and Mrs Rice when he was at Bristol. He had coffee in the room, at eight o'clock one night. That was not the time when he had his coat off. If it had no been a respectable lodging-house he should not have gone there. He received the letter produced from Mrs Niblett. The letter was as follows:

The Rev Reichel is quite at liberty to punish Mrs Niblett for anything she has said in her letters to him, but as she has told the plain truth she is not afraid of him. You well know you have come to my house in the name of Mr Rice, and stayed all night with a common street woman. You have come three times to visit her. I have waited on you, and yet you say you have had no conversation with Mrs. Niblett. All you are saying, you are making the thing worse. You have come to a poor but respectable man's house, and made a brothel of it. You heap lies on it, thinking you will frighten me, but you will not. My husband and me are going to Wantage to see the churchwardens. You have the chance to do what you like with me, but you shall clear my house of any stain. It is my living, and no respectable person will come to my house if they knew I had allowed a clergyman to make the use of it you have done. If you stood with 40 others I could point you out. I have far more proof of your guilt than you think I have. You can do what you like. I shall come to Wantage on Saturday if possible.

The reason he did not take proceedings against the woman before was because he was away from home. Caroline King had been abroad when he had been abroad. It was not quite by accident that she was abroad when he was. He had been to hotels with her in Italy and Parish. She had not slept with him at those places, but stayed at a different place. He had not told her to his knowledge that when English people were about they were not to know one another, but he would not swear he had not told her so. He did not think he could have said and forgotten it.

The prisoner came over to Sparsholt and went to Church on Sunday evening the 9th August. He did not preach, but he performed the service. He saw some strangers in the Church. He did not catch sight of her and change colour to his knowledge. He went into the vestry after service. The key of the vestry was at that time lost, and the door was fastened by a piece of wood. He usually went out of the Church by the big door. He might have looked out of the vestry door on that occasion; he did not go out of the vestry door because it required to be fastened from the inside

He remembered asking Mr Jones, his assistant, who were the strangers in Church. When he looked out of the vestry door, he did not see the prisoner to his knowledge. He came out of Church after the usual interval. He could not say it was usual, or that it was not, for him to look out of the vestry door. When he got out, he saw no one to identify them. Mrs Niblett was standing outside the Churchyard gate with Aaron Frogley; he thought it was his sister.

He believed Mrs Niblett said, "Well, Mr Reichel, you know me, of course." He supposed he first said he did not know, because he took her for someone else. He did not recollect saying "Well, I might have wished you good evening." He was very careful not to say anything, because Wm. Frogley and Aaron Frogley were with her, and anything he said might have been perverted. He was not at that time wishing the people to believe he did not go to Bristol; he did not care one way or the other.

Mrs Niblett said "You know me very well, Mr Reichel." He said, "I received two impertinent letters from a Mrs Niblett, and you, I suppose are the person; I will give them to my solicitor."

He did not recollect her saying "I asked you to do that long ago," but he would not swear she did not.

He had heard that she then wrote and signed a document, which was witnessed by the churchwardens and a number of parishioners, and which was the subject matter of the libel indictment; he had not seen the document.

A correspondence had taken place between himself and the Bishop, who had declared he must do something to clear his character. He was advised to take out a summons against the prisoner for libel. He did not go into the witness box at the trial. He was not put into the witness box to prove that he was a clergyman of the Church of England. The summons was dismissed. As soon as application was made that prosecution should be open for him, he went into the witness box and entered into recognizances. He knew that Mrs Niblett was a poor woman, and got her living generally by letting lodgings.

Re-examined by Mr Matthews: Fourteen years ago he offered to educate and marry Caroline King, but she refused, as she had three other offers. He contributed to her support by engaging rooms of her in London. He in no way, directly or indirectly, represented himself as Mr Rice, or as a commercial traveller. He never had any conversation with Mrs Niblett beyond saying "Is Mrs Rice at home," until she came to Sparsholt. He slept in a bedroom at prisoner’s house, opposite the sitting room. That was on the occasion on which coffee was brought to him; it was brought into the sitting room, about eight o’clock in the evening, in the month of June, 1885.

He on that day had some friends who were going to leave him by the early morning train. They did not do So, but went by an afternoon train. Mrs Rice had written to him, asking him to advise her about taking a house in Bristol, and he had promised to go down on that day. In consequence of his friends not leaving him till the afternoon, be could not start for Bristol till that time, and did not reach Bristol until five o'clock, too late to get back that evening. Having looked at the house Mrs Rice wished him to look at, he said they would go and have some dinner and look out for a night's lodging, and Mrs Rice said to him "You may have this room if you like."

That was the bedroom opposite the sitting room. He said to her "What will you do?" and she replied as near as he could recollect—either "I will sleep on the sofa," or ‘‘ My landlady will provide for me." There was sofa in the sitting room.

He then said to her "Now you must go out and have some dinner with me." They went into the town of Bristol and had some dinner in a refreshment room. They then went back, and as his custom was to have some coffee after dinner, he asked for some coffee, and it was brought to them in the sitting room.

He remembered the day, because it was one of the hottest days of last year, and Mrs Rice was complaining very much of the heat. About half-past 10 or 11 o'clock, he asked Mrs Rice for some hot water. Mrs Rice complained very much of the heat, and she may have thrown off some part of her dress; he did not it at all. There was no truth in the statement that she was undressing to go to bed. He took off his coat, and waited for the hot water to be brought to him. He used the hot water and then went to bed. He believed Mrs Rice brought the hot water, but he was not positive about it. Mrs Niblett might have brought in the water. There was not a word of truth in the statement that Mrs Rice slept with him. He did not know where she slept.

On the 9th of June, he was not at Bristol at all, but was at home entertaining friends. He never had a cup of coffee brought to him in the bedroom, he should not think of having coffee so late as that. He did not at any of the visits which he made et Bristol do anything that could bring discredit or disrepute upon Mrs Niblett’s house.

William Frogley was Churchwarden and he had attacked him ever since he had been the Vicar of Sparsholt. He understood that the man referred to by Mrs Niblett as having been to London to find out Mrs Ringley, was Williamm Frogley. He believed he made a present to Mrs Rice of some cider.

Some discussion arose as to the substitution of the letter a for the word the in one of the letters produced, which the prosecutor said he did not alter, to his knowledge, but the judge said it was not a material point at all.

Mr Jelf asked the Judge's permission for the prisoner to make a statement, which was granted.

Mrs Niblett said it was early in last year that a lady of respectable appearance came and asked her is she could accommodate her with board and lodging for a month. She said her husband was traveller for a firm in London, and wishes her to stay at Clifton for a time. She had a house full at the time, but she made arrangements for the lady to sleep at a neighbour's for one or two night. She said she did not want the use of the sitting room until her husband came, when he would pay extra for it.

After about a week or ten days she said her husband was coming to see her. She seemed very anxious that she (Mrs Niblett) should not answer the door to him when he came, but she was in a back room when he did come and she (Mrs Niblett) answered the door. He said "Does Mrs Rice live here?" and she said "Yes, said; are you Mr Rice?" and he said "I am". He went upstairs and had dinner. He left in the afternoon.

He came again in about six or seven days. Mrs Rice told her he was going to sleep there that night; this was on the 9th of June. They went out in the afternoon and were not back again until after ten o'clock. By the order of Mrs Rice she prepared a cup of coffee and a sponge cake, which she said Mr Rice liked before going to bed. Mr Reichel and Mrs Rice were both partly undressed.

The next morning she took some hot water to the bedroom. Mrs Rice came out of Mr Reichel’s bedroom in her nightdress and took a letter. She went into the room with the water, and Mr Reichel was in bed. He went away in the afternoon. He gave Mrs Rice in her presence a £5 note and half-a-sovereign, and asked her to promise not to spent the money, because it was not due until July. He told her (Mrs Niblett) he should be constantly calling to see the money paid.

When she went away she owed 27s. for board and lodging, and that was the reasons she wrote to Mr Reichel in the way she did. During the time she was there seven or eight gentlemen called to see her, and she began to get suspicious. One gentleman told her she was only a common woman. She went to her minister and told him all about it before she wrote to Mr Reichel.

Mr Jelf, addressing the jury for the defence, in the course of an eloquent address, said the prosecutor been in the parish of Sparsholt as its Vicar and as the spiritual adviser of the parishioners since the years 1872 or 1873, He had just conducted the Easter services of the Church, and he had now come there, as he had said to vindicate his character. That was the reason why he took up that prosecution. He took the prisoner before the magistrates on the charge of liber, and the libel was the subject matter of that document which had been placed in Court before them, and which was made in order to send to the Bishop, that the parishioners of that unhappy parish might have the opportunity of enquiring and taking steps to see whether their dear old Church of England should any longer be in the hands of a pastor such as that.

The desire of Mr Reichel apparently was to come into a Court of justice to satisfy his Bishop, his parish, and the rest of the world that he was innocent of having seduced his own housemaid, and kept up a connection with her for many years. But other indictments had been preferred against the poor woman, Mrs Niblett, and she was not on her trial for sending threatening letters with intent to extort money, and were it not for the fortunate circumstances that they had a learned Judge who permitted prisoners in cases of this sort to make a statement, the woman would not have been able to say a word.

The learned gentleman reviewed the history of the case from its commencement, and contended that the letters written by Mrs Niblett were not with a view to extort money, but with the intention of claiming what was due to her. There were certain threats in the letters, but they must consider that the letters were written by a woman who felt that a great injury had been done to her by the conduct of the prosecutor.

He urged upon the jury to take into consideration the circumstances that led to the writing of the letters, and what was in the woman's mind when she wrote them. He then called:

Henry Wilton, a barrister’s clerk, who had lodged in Mrs. Niblett's house; Elizabeth Owen, formerly a district visitor at Clifton; and George Webber, a grocer at Bristol, all of whom gave the prisoner an excellent character, and spoke of the respectability of her house.

Mr Matthews, on behalf of the prosecution, made an earnest and eloquent appeal to the jury to well consider the facts that had been laid before them. His client had had one of the most cruel things done to him that could possibly be done to any man. The sins of his youth had been dangled before his eyes, as an awful spectre, and made known to the whole world. Had he not done all in his power to make reparation for those sins? He had offered to educate and marry the girl whom he had wronged 14 years ago, but she had refused.

He asked the jury to look upon the prisoner, who had a hold upon the prosecutor, through having found something in his writing, and was trying by threatening to expose him, to extort money from him, and to get a plum for her lodging house, which did not often come to her share.

After half-an-hour’s adjournment, the learned Judge summed up the case, about an hour being taken in delivery. He said the question before them for decision was a case that had been placed before them with some degree of feeling, and naturally so. The defendant was accused of having threatened to publish certain matters or things against Mr Reichel.

What they had to consider was not whether she was telling the truth, or whether Mr Reichel was telling the truth. They had to consider whether the letters were sent to him to extort money. If they thought that she wrote to him, not with the intention of extorting money, but with the intention of obtaining from him payment of money due from him, for himself or Mrs Rice, and that she believed what she wrote to be true, that she regarded as an injury what he had done to her, then they ought not to convict her upon that indictment.

Did they believe that the woman who was illiterate, wrote those letters when in a passion, believing what she wrote to be true, and that she supposed an injury bad been done to the good fame of her house? Mr Matthews we had observed that Mr Reichel was rather on his trial than the prisoner. He quite understood the position in which Mr Reichel was placed but that was not the question which they had to consider. The question was not how it would affect Mr Reichel’s character, but was the woman guilty of the crime for which she was charged? That was the point.

He thought there was no crime so fearfully cruel as that of attempting to extort money by threats of exposure, by bringing forward the early sins of a man's youth, when he had reached mature age, and had lived for many years an irreproachable life. It would be wilfully cruel, because it was true, to say to him—If you do not pay me a sum of money, I will expose the crimes or the sins which you committed 20 years ago when you were a young man.

It was true, also, that there was a great difference between an early fault which had been deeply repented of, and long since dropped, and a fault commenced in youth and carried on to middle age; and although it would be a very wicked thing to say to Mr Reichel—You seduced a woman fourteen years ago, and unless you pay me money I will expose you; but the position was somewhat different when the offence was supposed to be true and a person said—You came to use my house as a brothel, you met a woman at my house two or three months ago who had been your late servant, whom you seduced 14 years ago; who had children by you, with whom you have cohabited at various places. He did not say that Mr Reichel had done this, but he did say that the two cases differed materially.

The learned Judge then reviewed the whole of the evidence, pointing out that the prisoner was an illiterate and ignorant woman, and the letters appeared to have been written when she was very angry. It was for the jury to consider what was in her mind when she wrote those letters, He certainly should have thought that writing abusive letters was the not to extort money from a person. He was not the Judge in the case, the jury were the Judges.

He pointed out to them their duty, and he impressed upon them that the question they had to consider was not as to how it would affect Mr Reichel's character, but whether the letters were written with a bona fide intention to extort money, or were written by an angry woman claiming compensation for injury supposed to be done to her house, and for payment of money owing to her.

The Jury retired for about a quarter-of-an-hour, and on returning into Court gave a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Some discussion then arose as to the charge of libel being proceeded with.

The Judge said in the case of libel there was a matter of privilege and justification.

Mr Matthews said he was prepared to meet the plea of justification.

Eventually Mr Matthews and Mr Jelf consulted privately with his lordship and the charge of libel was afterwards withdrawn, Mr Jelf having apologised for suggesting that Mr Reichel had tried to shirk from the enquiry. He now thought he had invited the fullest inquiry into the matter.

Newcastle Evening Chronicle - Friday 7 May 1886

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A CLERGYMAN.

SINGULAR ALLEGATIONS OF IMMORALITY.

Mr. Justice Stephens was occupied at the Reading Assize Court the greater portion of yesterday in trying a singular libel cruet, brought as • criminal action against Mrs Elizabeth Niblett, the keeper of a temperance eating house at Clifton, Bristol, by the Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichel, the vicar of Sparsholt, near Wantage, Berks.

Several indictments were preferred against the accused. the first investigated being an indictment under Lord Campbell's Act, in which Mrs. Niblett was accused of threatening, in July last, to publish divers matters affecting Mr. Reichel, with intent to extort money.

In the indictment tried the question of the truth of the libel was not practically involved, it being the object of the enactment, as Mr. Matthews explained, to prevent persons who might become acquainted with any indiscretion in another person's life, from extorting blackmail. Mr. Reichel himself went into the witness-box, and deposed to having received the two following letters by post on July 16 and 20 last:—

8, Ashton Place, Clifton. Bristol.

Sir,—Will you oblige me by not sending any more letters to my house? Let me tell you I am made holder of a respectable house, not a brothel, which you have tried to make it. The person you address as Mrs. Rice is not at my house. As soon as she returned back I turned her out. I would not keep such cattle in my place. Furthermore, I mean to take proceedings against you. You came here and called yourself Mr. Rice, a commercial traveller, well knowing you were a minister of the Church of England, and gave my house a nice name. Remember it is my living, which I have always got respectably until your companion, Miss King, came to it. There is not a common woman on the streets of Bristol more common than she has made herself to every man in the neighbourhood. If you do not come to some terms with this affair I shall go to my own minister of the parish, and state the whole case to him, for I think it right you should be found out.—Mrs. Niblett—Awaiting your reply——.

Sir,—As I have not heard from you I shall come to the vicarage one day this week to see if you do not come to some terms. I shall then go to the gentleman who went to London to find out Mrs. Ringley. I have no doubt I shall be paid well for what I can tell him. You know well l am telling the truth, which you cannot deny. You came to my house and staid one night with the common thing you called Mrs. Rice, who is none other than your old housemaid, who has had two children by you. This is not half I know. I found something in your writing which she left to the waste paper, which is quite enough to prove what I have told. Don't think for a moment I am going to let this drop quietly, for I will expose you if I have to do it whilst you are in the pulpit.

Mr. Reichel added that after service on Sunday evening August 29, he saw the prisoner outside his church, with the churchwarden Aaron Frogley, but he declined to discuss the matter with them.

Previously he replied to the two letters, as follows:

Perhaps it may be an undeserved kindness to point out to the sender that in writing as she has done, with the view of extorting money, she has rendered herself liable to proceedings which may result in fine and imprisonment to her. Mr. Reichel is not aware that he has had any dealings or conversation with Mr. Niblett.

In examination the rev. gentleman admitted he had written to and visited Mrs. Rice at prisoner's house, and though he denied anything improper took place on the occasion of his visits, he confessed that he had been intimate with her—that, in fact. Mrs. Rice was an assumed name, her real name was Caroline King, that she was formerly for about two years his housekeeper, that fourteen years ago he took her for a day's excursion to Stratford-upon- Avon and there seduced her. He denied any impropriety occurring between himself and the girl in his own house. He was a single man. Caroline King had had two children, but he was not sure that he was their father. They were now dead. He admitted the following letter to Mrs. Rice was in his handwriting:—

A very few lines to inquire where are you? I did not get the Pall Mall? Was it ever sent? With no postmark to guide me I did not know whether you have remained in town or gone to your late address, or gone elsewhere to the sea. So I will say no more to-day beyond sending what I always do, in greater abundance still

He had also visited her as Mrs. Ringley, 43, Edbrooke Road, Westbourne Park, occasionally. He always retained apartments for her there, for which he paid 10s. per week. He denied giving her the burial and marriage fees. He did not know of her whereabouts now. He had been on the Continent with her. After the interview in August prisoner made a declaration to some parishioners, which resulted in a correspondence between himself and his bishop, and this resulted in his taking out a summons against the defendant for libel.

In re-examination: He had offered years ago to educate Caroline King and marry her, but she declined.

The learned Judge allowed the accused to make her statement, and she reiterated the accusation contained in her letter that the reverend gentleman visited her house, passing himself off as a commercial gentleman, and that he was the husband of Mrs. Rice, and that they slept together as husband and wife. Mrs. Rice had not paid her for all her board, there being some 27s. due, and this was why she wrote.

The Judge said it was for the jury to consider from the letters, whether she was seeking to extort money. or merely seeking her own. Incidentally, the truth of her story might be of importance, as showing the cause for her anger; and, taking into account the fact that she was uneducated, it might explain the mode of composition.

The jury acquitted the accused, and, after some discussion. the libel case was not pressed.

Birmingham Mail - Friday 7 May 1886

At Reading yesterday, before Mr. Justice Stephen, Elizabeth Niblett was indicted under Lord Campbell Act, 6 and 7 Viet., c. 96, for unlawfully threatening to publish divers matters and things touching the Rev. Oswald Reichel, Vicar of Sparsholt, with intent to extort money from him.

The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner, who kept small temperance hotel in Bristol, had written two letters in July last imputing to the prosecutor that he had come to her house under an assumed name, and had passed the night there with woman who was lodging there at the time, but who had formerly been in his service a housemaid, and by whom be had had two children. The letters contained expressions that if the prosecutor did not come to terms with the writer, she would expose him, if necessary while be was in his own pulpit.

No notice having been taken the prosecutor, the prisoner on the 9th of August, which was a Sunday, went to Sparsholt and waylaid Mr. Reichel as he left the church, and answer bis enquiry admitted that she was the writer of the two letters.

Mr. Reichel was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr. Jelf, in the course of which, after explaining that the bishop of the diocese had required him publicly to clear his character, he said he had taken out summons for libel before the magistrates, which had been dismissed. He had, however, been bound over at his own request to prosecute, and true bill for libel had been found against the prisoner as well as one on the present charge.

Asked whether it was not true that he had slept with the woman named in the letter and that she was his mistress at the time, the prosecutor swore it was false; but he admitted that he had seduced her 14 years ago, and had seen her from time to time since up to last October. He also swore it was false that he represented himself as commercial traveller to Mrs. Niblett under the name of Rice, or that he had any conversation with her whatever.

In re-examination by Mr. Matthews, the witness denied positively that he had been guilty of any immorality at Mrs, Niblett’s house, and with reference to the seduction explained that he had offered to educate the woman and to marry her, but she would not consent.

The prisoner made long statement, insisting upon the truth of her charges, and adding that the prosecutor had told her she should paid all that was due to her by the woman who lodged with her, and that in fact when she wrote the letters sum of 27s. remained unpaid.

Mr. Jelf then addressed the jury. After complaining strongly of the fiction of the prosecutor in not proceeding first with the charge of libel, which alone could raise the issue properly as to the prosecutor’s conduct, so to satisfy the Bishop, he asked the jury say that the intent to extort money, which was the gist of the charge they had to try, was not made out, but that the two letters really meant no more than that the prisoner had it in view to take civil proceedings for compensation in a just claim for the injury which had been done to the reputation of her bouse.

The learned Judge said in summing up, that the sole question for the jury to consider was whether the two letters were written with intent to extort money. The truth of the accusations, though not really legal issue, was also to a certain extent relevant, and if the jury thought the letters were written with view to obtain money which was due, or money by way of compensation for the injury done to the good fame of her house, or for some wrong which she believed she had sustained, then they ought to acquit her.

The jury retired, and after a short absence came into court with a verdict of not guilty.

A discussion then took place whether the indictment for libel, to which a justification had been pleaded, should be proceeded with, and ultimately, Mr. Jelf having stated that he exonerated Mr. Reichel from any desire to shirk the enquiry, Mr. Matthews said in these circumstances he should offer no evidence.

Mr. Justice Stephen expressed an opinion that the course taken was a reasonable one, and directed a verdict of "Not guilty."