Star. — London, England, 1822-12-09 00:00:00

. • TIME Hew suift the plutons Time puts on, To urge his flight away! To-day's soon yesterday; anon, To-morrow is today ! Titus days, and weeks, and months, and years, Depart from mortal view ; ♦s sadly, through this " Vale of Tears," ()w journey we pursue! Yet grieve not, Nan, tbat thus he flies, Ile hastes thee to thy rest; The drooping wretch that soonest dies, auonekt with the blest! OLD BAILEY SESSION& put to the bar to take Saturday, John Wait was his trial on an indictment, charging him with forging and counterfeiting a certain power of attorney for the sum of £2189. 17s. Id. and uttering the same with the intent to defraud the Bank of England. Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET having stated the cir cumstance; of the case as they afterwards appeared in evidence, proceeded to call his witnesses. Francis Field, a clerk in the Bank of England, pro duced the ledger of that Establishment. On referring. to that book, he found that there was there entered a credit to John Wait and John Cox for £2,189 17i. Id. 3 per cent. Consols. It was entered in July, 1818, and was placed to the joint names of those persons. • John Underhill, a stock-jobber, deposed, that in September, 1821, he received a letter from a person of the name of Wait, at Bristol. The letter pro duced was that letter. In consequence of that letter he 'made application in the regular course to the , Bank of England, for a power of attorney. He re ceived that which was now produced, which was filled up, all but the signatures and attestation. This , he sent down to Bristol, directed to Mr. John Wait. - John J. Jeffrey served the notice, of which a copy was „produced, en the prisoner, on the 22d of No vember, 1822. This was a mice calling upon him to produce such letters as he had received from the last witness, respecting the power of attorney alluded to. Mr. Underhill, in continuation, stated, he directed • his letter, enclosing his power of attorney, to John Wait, No. 5, Wilson-street, Bristol. On the 17th of September, 1822, he received a second letter from Mr.. Wait, enclosing a power of attorney, which he believed was the same he had previously sent down, and which was now produced. He carried this power of attorney to the Bank the same day, and requested to act upon it, but was not permitted. In consequence of what passed at the Bank, he wrote an the same day to Mr. John Wait, directed as before. Cross-examined.—He could not positively swear that the power which he received per post from Bristol was the same lie had sent down to Mr. Wait. The prisoner was a stranger to him. Re-examined.—When he applied in the first in stance in September, 1821, for a power of attorney, he wrote his application on paper as was customary, and put it in a box appointed for that purpose. The, paper produced contained his instruction, and it was in consequence of that he received the power which be afterwards for warded to Bristol. Mr. Field again called.—He looked at the power produced. He filled it up on the 24th of September, 1821. It was filled up tram the instructions recog nized by the last witness, as having been the same which he deposited in the box of the Bank of England. William Drury deposed that lie lived at Birming ham, and was formerly in the service of the prisoner, from the 20th of June, 1818, till the latter end of May, 1819. During that time he was in the habit of seeing him write. The letters produced were, in his belief, the writing of the prisoner. In cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant PELL, wit ness said he believed the body of both letters to be the hand-writing of the prisoner, but his opinion was mainly founded on the signatures. He did not know why the prisoner had dismissed him from his service. Robert Sherlock had also lived in the service of the prisoner for eight or nine months. He knew his hand-writing, and believed the two letters produced to hive been written by him. In cross-examination, witness said there had been something between him and the prisoner, respecting a note which was in the till. The prisoner said the same note was not in the till in the morning which was there the night before. Witness quitted Bir mingham in consequence of an error with the Excise, which he afterwards settled. Re-examined.—After the business of the note, the prisoner wished witness to continue with him, and gave him a character to his next employer. John Hall, a glass merchant at Bristol, deposed that he knew the prisoner, and had been acquainted with him 40 or 50 years. In the spring of 1821, the prisoner called on him, and asked him the name of his broker, as he said he had 1,2001. or 1,4001. stock to sell. Witness mentioned the name of the witness Underhill. In cross-examination, witness said he always be lieved the prisoner was a man of good character. William Shepherd, a stationer residing in Bristol, said that he knew the prisoner, and understood that he lived in Wilson-street, Bi istol. In the latter end of the year 1821, the prisoner came w him and asked, him to be a witness to his writing his name to a power of attorney. He came into his shop, and asked witness to fill up a blank with the words 22d Oc tober, which he did. There was an attestation to the power. Prisoner directed witness to write the words, " The above-named John Wait." Saw the prisoner sign the deed a Mr. Davis was in the shop at the time. After the power was signed it was returned to the prisoner. Mr. Davis witnessed it as well as witness. The power produced was the same wit nessed by witness. In cross-examination, witness stated that he did not add the name of John Cox to that•of John Wait, when he wrote the words—" the above-named John Wait: He only attested the signature of John Wait. He did not recollect saying before the Magistrates of Bristol that he believed the words " John Cox" were of his hand-writing, although he did not remember writing them. He' did not believe the words— John Cox" were his hand-writing, although they were like it. . • Examined by Mr. Justice BAYLRY.—Never saw any John Cos execute that deed ; nor did ever see John Cox and the prisoneettigetherida after the matter became a subject of inquiry-before the Magistrates. Mr. Thomas Davis, an auctioneer, 'residing in Corn-street, Bristol, lived opposite the last witness.— He looked at the power of attorney produced, and remembered attesting it in Mr. Shepherd's shop ; the prisoner was present. He saw the prisoner execute it. Mr. John Cox was not present, nor did witness know such a person. He believed, at the time he witnessed the signature of the prisoner, that the name of John Cox was not included in the attestation. He did not think he could have written his own name Without seeing it. The name of John Cox was not signed opposite the seal at the time he witnessed it. John Cox was called ; but before he was examined, Mr. SerjeantPiu. submitted, that the person whose name was forged to a power of attorney could not be a witness to prove that forgery. Mr. Justice BAYLEY and Mr. Baron GARROW had no doubt that the witness was a perfectly competent witness, and he was examined accordingly. Mr. Cox then deposed that he was a solicitor at Rington, in Somersetshire, within twelve miles of Bristol. He then produced the probate of the will of James Fitchard. Under the first codicil, this will gave to John and Stephen Cox, C2OOO in trust, to pay the interest to his wife during her life, and then to be divided between them equally, or their heirs. The trustees appointed to the will were John Wait, of the City of Bristol, and John Nash. Nash never acted ; and, in consequence, witness, who was the John Cox alluded to, went to the Castle Bank to have the money invested. On this occasion, witness xnen cloned to the hanker, that Mr. Wait wished to invest a stun in the three per Cent. Consols, under the will of the late Mr. Fitchard ; and mentioned that Mr. Nash, who was the other trustee, had declined to act. Witness added, that as Mrs. Fitchard might live for a long time to come, it would be prudent to nomi nate another trustee. It was then suggested and agreed to by witness, to have his name coupled with that of Mr. Wait in the purchase ; and the stock was accordingly purchased in their joint names. Witness never gave a power of attorney to empower the sale of that stock. He looked at the power of attorney produced : the signature, " John Cox," to that power had not been written by him. Cross-examined.—Field saw this power in the hand of Mr. Day; the clerk of the Magistrates, at Bristol. The signature, " John Cox," which he then saw to the power, was not in the same state in which it now was. The C was of a different character quite, and had since been altered in the shape. The present C was similar to his usual mode of writing his signa ture ; the former was not it was quite of an opposite character; and he had so mentioned to several people, remarking, that it was not an imitation of his hand writing; and he also observed that the words, " John Cox" in the attestation,were precisely the same as the signature; It was clear that an alteration had since been made in the signature to make it more like his. Wit ness never received the dividends upon the stock. William Cox was a seaman in the pilot-service, near Bristol. In the beginning of October last his boat was hired to go to Ciovelly, on the coast of Devonshire,within 98 miles of Bristol. He was to take a Gentleman and put him on board a brig called the Aurora, bound for America. He went, and arrived at Clovelly on Friday evening, 4th of October. He found the prisoner there, and he came on board.— Witness remained on board two days. He never had any conversation with the prisoner. Thomas Evans, a Police-officer at Bristol, in con sequence of information he received, accompanied the water-bailiff down the river. He found what he sought in Pennarth roads. He meant the prisoner. He found him in a small vessel, and told him he had a warrant against him. The prisoner only asked him how he knew he was there? Witness knew the prisoner for twenty years. He knew he lived at No. 5, Wilson street, Bristol. James Wimble, a servant in the Post-office at Bris tol, knew the prisoner, and had delivered letters to him; he lived at No.s,Wilson-street, Bristol. He was a gentleman of respectable connexions. ' The documentary evidence was now put in and read. The first was a letter, as follows, from the prisoner to Mr. Underhill, the stock-broker : _ _ " 5, Wilson-street, Bristol, Sept. 25, 1821. " Sta—l am recommended by Mr. John Hall, of this city, glazier, to employ you to sell or buy stock when I should have occasion. I am desirous of selling stock to the amount of 2,1891. 17s. Id. in the 3 per Cent. Consols, standing in the names of John Wait and John Cox, and will hank you to send me the form of a power of attorney for that purpose. 4 ' To Mr. Underhill. (Signed) "JOHN WAIT." The second letter was as follows : " s,Wilson.street, Bristol, Sept. 17, 1822. " Six—Enclosed you have the power executed. It was signed so far back as October. We suppose that makes no difference We did not want the money then, therefore have let the money remain till now. Please to sell out, and, if possible, let me have the money by return of post." (Signed) "To Mr. Underhill. (Signed) "JOHN WAIT." The third letter was written by Mr. Underhill to the prisoner, informing him that the Bank of England had refused to permit the sale of the stock to which he alluded, as there was a difference in the manner in which the signature of John Cox was signed to the power and other signatures of his, and directing him to beg of Mr. Cox to write to the Accountant-Gene ral of the Bank, to state that he did not always sign his name in the same way. There was a fourth letter, from Mr. Cox to the Ac countant-General of the Bank of England, to the fol lowing effect : " Slit—Having received information that the Bank is in pos_ ses,ion of a power of attorney, purporting to have been signed by John Wait and myself, for the sale of stock standing in our names, if such be the fact, I beg distinctly to say that I have not executed such a power, nor have I seen it. Under these circum stances, I beg you will not proceed unless you have a letter from me. (Signed) "JOHN COX." The power of attorney was then read, and corn pared with the indictment. The case for the prose cution was here closed. Mr. Justice BAYLEY now asked the prisoner whe ther he had anything to say in his defence ? The prisoner said lie had nothing to say, and would leave his case to his Counsel. The following witnesses were then called to speak in his defence: Mr. Charles Jones, wine and brandy-merchant, Mat k-lane, London, deposed to his knowledge of the prisoner for several years. He had been in partner ship with him for five years, during which time he saw him write three or four times a day. He had teen the letter which had been read, dated Sept. 1822, before. It was shewn to him by a person from the Dank of England, and he was subpcensted to give • evidetico. On now, as'well as•befort, looking at 111 1 .3 Wirt be thought the two letters, " i t," in the name of Wait, were something like Mr. Wait's writing; every other part bethought very unlike his writing, and he did not believe it to be his. This he commu nicated to the person who called on him from the Bank of England, and to whom he had•expressed a wish that he might not be called against the priso ner; indeed, he had since been informed it would not be necessary for -him to attend. The general Charac ter of Mr. Wait was that of a most honourable and upright man. Mr. Moore, who had been a partner with the pri• soner and the last witness for five years, expressed his doubt as to the writing of the letters produced being that of the prisoner, James George, Esq. Mayor of Bristol, had known the prisoner for sixteen or seventeen years ; he consi dered his character for probity and integrity to be very good. To a question from Mr. Justice Bayley, he replied that he had lost sight of the prisoner for the last four or five years. Mr. Cave, one of the Sheriffs of Bristol, had known the prisoner for thirty-five years: since he had known him his character had been most respectable. Sir Richard Vaughan also spoke to the character of the prisoner as being excellent. Hl3 family was• highly respectable. He had not known him for the last foul or five years. Richard Hart Davis, M.P. for Bristol, had known the prisoner from his youth, and considered his cha racter for integrity of the strictest kind. Edward Protheroe, Esq. the late Member for Bris tol, the Rev. Mr. Biddulph, the Rev. Mr. Roberts, and several other witnesses were then called, who gave the prisoner the very highest character. One of them, a Mr. Reynolds, said that he had not re ceived a subpoena to attend; he had heard that the trial of Mr. Wait was to come on as that day, and from the high opinion which he entertained of his character, he had voluntarily come forward to speak in behalf-of it. Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence with his usual impartiality. There were two questions, he said, for tile cpnsideration of the Jury:—first, was the signature of Mr. Cox to the instrument set out in the indictment a forgery ? and next, did the prisoner utter it, knowing it to be forged ? If they were sa tisfied as to his guilt on these points, it was sufficiently clear that the forgery had been uttered in the city of London, and no doubt could be entertained that it hadisten uttered with a view to defraud the Gover nor and Company of the Bank of England. As the prisoner had received a character of the very highest description, from persons of the very highest re, spectabilite, he should briefly inform them of the weight • which they ought to attach to testunony of such a nature. If the character which a prisoner re ceived were so excellent as to create a doubt whether he could have committed the crime laid to his charge, it was their duty to give him the benefit of that doubt; but if the evidence of his guilt were so clear and overpowering, as to do away with even the sha dow of a doubt, then, notwithstanding the excellent character which be might have hitherto sustained, it was their painful duty—but still it was their duty—to protect the interests of society by returning a verdict of guilty against him. 'They would consider whether there were any circumstances in the present case which led them to doubt of the prisoner's guilt, and if there were, then it would be their duty to acquit him ; but if not, to give that verdict which would, best satisfy the objects of justice, and most protect the welfai e of the community. The Jury retired, and in a short time returned with their verdict, pronouncing the prisoner Guilty, but earnestly recommending him to mercy, on the ground of his former good character. Mr. Justice BAYLKY said, he would take care that their recommendation was communicated to the Crown, to whom all these cases were referred. The prisoner is a man of very respectable appear ance, about 45 years of age, and formerly carried on business to a great extent at Bristol and Birmingham. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, DECEMBER 7. LIBEL ON TILE DUKE OF YORK, DUKE OF OLOU.• CESTER, &C . Thomas Webb was indicted for a series of libels upon his Royal Highness the Duke of York, as Com mander-in-Chief of the Forces, his Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, as Colonel, and Surgeon-Major Hay, and the other Surgeons, of the 3d Regiment of Guards. Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the prosecution, stated, that on the 26th of April, 1816, John Haig, a private in the. 3d Guards, died of an inflammation in his bowels, and from that period to the present time, the defend ant, who is married to a sister of the deceased, conti nued to stick up written placards about Westminster, headed " Notice—Military Black Job," reflecting most severely upon the conduct, not only of the Sur geon who attended Haig in his last illness, but upon the character of the Dukes of York and Gloucester, falsely represented as refusing the prisoner the infor mation which he considered necessary respecting the cause of his brother•in-law's death. The prisoner made various applications to every department of the War Office as well as the regimental Officers on the subject, and received satisfactory answers from all quarters ; but that did not prevent the prisoner from grossly libelling the persons above alluded to, from May, 1816, to the present time. It was not, said Mr. Adolphus, the wish of the prosecutors that heavy pu nishment should be inflicted on the prisoner, but to convince him and the Public that his statements were totally void of foundation. The prisoner persisted in saying and publishing that Haig came by his death from a mortification in his arm, which was let blood on the 2d day of the month in which he died, although 'he was permitted to see the reports of the medical officers who examined the body. Mr. Hay and the other Surgeons were called, who proved the Learned Gentleman's statement as far as they were concerned. Witnesses were also called to prove the remaining parts of the Counsel's speech. The defendant read a written defence, which occu pied about two hours, and which embraced various ' topics, such as Radicals, Boroughmongcrs, Reform in Parliament, Corrupt Ministers, Felons, the late Queen, Navy and Army, &c. Indeed, it touched upon almost every subject excepting his own defence. The Jury found him Guilty ; and Mr. BaonetticK again stated to the Court the desire of his clients nut to press for even an exemplary sentence, on condition of his desisting in future how such prt.ceedings.— , Judgment deterred. UNIVERSITY INTRLkkENCE. ••••.••,•••• •••••=Mft CAMBRT ME, DECEMBER R • Friday, at a Congregation, the It v. Daniel Crewel. r e g o ,, of Trinity College, was created D. D. by Royal Mandate. The Rev. Lewis Boirerbank, of Trinity College, was on th e same day admitted M.A. The following Gentlemen were on Frkliy appointed Eaa. miners of the Questfoolsts The Rev. Charies•Ffeencla Brotnheed, M.A. Trinity Ca m , The Rev. W. Greenwood, M.A. Corpus Christi College. The Rev. Temple Chevalier, M.A. Catharine HalL Joshua King, Esq. M.A. Queen's College. Wednesday the following Gentlemen were appointed adds, tional Examiners of the Questionists: The Rev. Richard Dawes, M.A. Downing College. The Rev. Joseph Cape, M.A. Clare Hall. The Rev. }Award Woolnough, of Christ College, and the Rev. Edward Butterworth Shaw, of talus College, were cra Wednesday admitted Masters of Arts. The subject for the Chancellor's English Poem for the es autos year is—Australasia. OXFORD, DECEMBER 7. The following Subjects are proposed for the Chancsrors rises, for the ensuing year, via. For Latin Verses—Arts Geologies. For an English Fasay-70ii Public Spirit amongst the Ant km% For a Latin Essay.—Conditio Servorunt apud Antigun , . The first of the above Subjects Is intended for those tends. men of the University who have not exceeded four years front the time of their matriculation; and the other two for such as have exceeded four, but not completed seven years. Sir Roger Newdigate's Prise.—For the hest Composition la English Verse ' not containing either more cr fewer than Fifty Lilies, by any Under-Graduate who has not exceeded four.yr.in from the time of his matriculation—Stonelterge. Saturday, William Unwin (Frost's Kin), George Morris, of the county of Hants; William George Lambert, of the county of Wilts ; and Edward Powlett Blunt, of the county of Hants, were admitted Scholars of Corpus Christi College. Sunday, the Rev. It. Davies, M.A. of Oriel Culeße, was glutted, by the Bishop of Hereford, to 'the Vicarage of lhatoc, Monmouthshire. Thursday, the following Degrees were conferred: 31ASTZEIS CV •11.11. The Rev. John Vali: Moore, Exeter College. George Francis Grey, Fellow of University College. Walter Calverley Trevelyan, University College. BACIIILORS CF AP. it. Day Perry I.e Grice, Esq. Oriel College, Grand Compounder, Arthur William Gregory, St. Alban Hall. William Robert Blake, Postmaster of Merton College. Henry Neech, ditto. Arthur Bennet Nlesham, Scholar of Corpus Christi College. Charles Hubert Parker, Lincoln College. Francis Charles blassingberd, Deasy of Magdalen College. James Edwards, Demy of Magdalen College. Charles John Aleredith, Clerk of Magdalen College. Hugh Stowell, St. Edmund Hall. Robert Orgill Leman, Trinity College. Thomas Heeling, Wadham College. erederick Septimus Emly, Wadham College. James John Hamilton, Christ Church. William Harvey, Brasennose College. Samuel Maddock, Scholar of Brasennose College. James Garbett, ditto. Edward Hawkins, Scholar of Pembroke College. Edward Kitson Scholar of Ballot College. John Harding, Kitson, College. Alexander Atherton Park, ditto. George Lowdon Hanson, Queen's College. John Matson bodd, Probationer Scholar of Queen's College. Frederick Maxwell.Danscrn, Queen's College. John Nelson, Exhibitioner of St. John's College. Frederic Griffith, Jesus College. William Henry Cynric Lloyd, Scholar of Jesus College. Thomas hlorgan, Jesus College. Thomas Davidson, Worcester College. At an Ordination , in the parish church of St. Swithin, Winchester, on Sunday, by the lhshop of Hereford, the lava lag Gentlemen were ordained : DRACONS. Wm. Blackstone Lee, M.A. e e ilow of New C o llege, O x ford. Benjamin Croft Goddiscro, B.A. Worcester College, Oxford. Morris Yescombe, v.A. nieter College, Oxford. Robert Burn, B.A. St. Edmund Han, Oxford. Thomas Lamle Magdalen College, Cambridge. Richard }Luisley, St. John's College, Cambridge. PRIESTS. Wm. Cotton Insley, B.A. Fellow of New College, Oxford. \Vm. Bury, B. A. ditto. Richard Davies, B.A. Oriel College, Oxford. Henry Barrett Leonard, B.A. Merton College, Oxford. Isaac Roney, Trinity College, Cambridge. Stephenson, ditto. John Tendall, Magdalen College, Cambridge. Joseph Edwards, St. John's College, Cambridge. ECCLESIASTICAL PROMOTIONS. . The Rev. Thomas Atkinson, to the Rectory of 'St. Edmund the Martyr, F..xeter. The Rev. G. H. Greensll, A.M. Fellow of Christ College, Cambridge, to the Perpetual Curacy of (Word, Oxford:Aire. The Rev. Robert Gordon Andrews, %LA. M.ister of Grant ham School, to the Living of Houghon-the:hill, Lincolnshire, vacant by the resignation of the lion. and Rev. Richard Cost. BI wins. Nov. 29, the Lady of the Rev. K Marshall, of IDley, near Oxford, of a daughter. Dec. I, at R.-Ile Vue Lodge, Richmond, the Lady of Capt. Stanhope Badcock, of a daughter. Nov. 26, at Springhill, the Lady of Captain Douglas, R.N. of a daughter. Sept. 10, at the Cape of Good Hope, the Lady of James Duff Watt, Esq. Deputy Commissary-General to the Forces. of a son. MARRIED. At Hardwicke, the Rev. H. W. Simpson, to Elizabeth 80. Della, only daughter of the late J. D. Skinny, Esq. Rev. Richard Cobbbld, of Caius Cora ge, Cambridge, to Mary Ann, only child of Mr. Jeptha Waller, Holiesley Grove, Suffolk. Rev. Charles Dunne, Rector of Earls Croome, to Letitia inn, eldest daughter of the late Wm. H. Beauchamp, of Forthamp ton, Gloucestershire, Ku!. Rt.v. JaMes Mitchell, to Jessie, youngest daughter of the la;e Mr. William Kinnaird, of FAlinburgh. Nov. 46, at the Holy Trinity Church, Hull, the Rev.Georgc Browne, of St. Alban's, to Grace, second daughter of the late Thomas Riddell, Esq. of hu ll. Thursday, at St. George's, Hanover-square, John Cornwall, Esq. to Charlotte Susan, daughter of Sir John Gregory Shaw, Bart. of Kenward. _ At Seaton Ross, near Pocklington, Mr. John Gibson, his rant preacher preacher in the connection of Primitive 31ethoilists, Pi:k ering, to Miss Catherine Cook, daughter of lilt-. George Cook, of the former place. DIED. Friday, at his house in Great aussel.street, Bloomsbury, ia the 57th year of his age, William Blair, Kig. sa:;;e.or. Saturday, at Stoke Newington, in his 76th year, John Aikir, M. D. _ At his house, in Westgate-street, Bury, aged 80. the Vet-. John Cotman, Rector of Longhorn, Suffolk, Chaplain to the Earl of Clarendon, and of Corns College, Cambridge. Sunday se'nnight, the Rev. Samuel Routh, 5.T.11. Rector of Boyton, Wilts, Vicar of Wieklewond, Norlolk, and formerly Fellow of bflagdolen Colltge. '1 he former Living is in thr git s i of that Society, and the latttr 1:1 that of It. I lettr, Fsq. N.l Dec. 1, at l3righton, aged _ti, F. norm', Esq. B.C.L. ao3 Fellow of New College. Nov. 28, at Northallerton, the Rev. James Wilkinson, Vic?-t. of Hutton Lionville, and for nearly hair a century Curate at Northalletton, and 1-lead-Master of the Cratturar &hoar at that place. Faithful in the tWeharge of his pastoral duties i. was 'universally esteemed wherever they were extended; and Swift's-Village Curate scarcely excelled hint in clerical industry. Thursday se'nuight, at his fathet's home, in Heri, aged Or Frederick bliddlettn, youngest son of the Rev. Thomas Fenton. Rector of Boyton. lilontlay, Mr. William Head, a small fish-carer, residing ilea the Souris dlill, in Yar ttttt wth : hc was sinking a well on same part of his premises, wlv-11 about twelve feet down, the earth caved in upon hint, and on being taken out about seven 1 ou:s at tenvards, life was extinct. LONDON: Limited and pithh,hed hy Lau. hey; Vaclitti , place, Temple-Da. , 'I Q II t • ii i