The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-08-14 00:00:00

r~ I f~ company with witness's broth nese at his desire, arcons- Itt lie tt partied him and ',yawner to the . Inn, where they drank a pint of cider. The prisoner accoinpanied witness hom the Castle Inn to her lather's house, where he remained about half an hour. It sags lair time at Frome. and prisoner asked witness en walk down and as. the fair. Witness assented, and accninparjed pintoner, who told her that he had an aunt living on the Coated' Walk, and a sked her to accompany him there. She went to where the houses terminated, and then said she would go no further. Prisoner re plied that it was not worth while to turn back then, as itis aunt lived at a very short distance forward. Witness then walked on beyond the turnpike gate, nearly a mile. When they had arrived at this place, the prisoner laid hands on witness, and thing her violently on the ground. rfhe witness here described minutely the prieoney's situation, and her own as she lay or. the ground, and the indecent liberties which he had taken with her.l The witness screamed violently, and pristim.r mita "d —n thee month," and thrum his hand into her mouth. At this moment a man came tip, and cried out " hollow.". The prisoner answered " hollow" anti the man said " have you got any one there but yourself ?" and the prisoner an. steered" I have not. ' At this time witness was beneath the prisoner,. but just then he withdrew his hand from her mouth, and she shrieked. The man then raid," thee villain hart got a woman them, and do'st want to murder her." The primmer replied " I'll murder thee if thee arn't off" Witness by this time had risen from the ground, hat prisoner threw her down again, and it was only by force the man could keep him from her. Witness beg. ged the man to proien her, and he and prisoner had a acuthe, during which she escaped anti ran off. Not knowing her way, abe went the road from Frome instead of returning to it, but had not proceeded far whe> the prisoner again overtook her, and infOrmed her that she was going a wnmg way, and that a lane which he pointed out on one side of the road was the right way to Frome. With much reluctance witness went down the lane, and prisoner with her, and when they came to a gate, the prisoner too her in his arms. threw her over the gate, followed himrelf, and then snagged her to a hedge that was near. II ere he repeated his at. tempt. and when witness would not consent, lie beat her violently, end torn bee clothes into shreds. Ile asked her " whether she wou'al sire up ?" and witness replied " she would not." Prisoner thin carried her in his arms and threatened to drown her in a • tream, unon which she cried out for mercy. He then put her head under the mire and water, and witness felt herself nearly suffocated. Prisoner detained her in this field for severalhours. At length a dog came near and began to bask, and witness said, " thank (iikL, 1 ere is my father," upon which the prisoner became alarmed, and cft her. Witness followed him that she might find her way to wards home. She arrived home about three o'clock in the morn nd was let in b her brother. She was confined to the house tor three weeks, and during that time was nearly tlearivett of her sight. Wantss is twenty-three years of age. She had never known the prisoner before this occasion. James Chilcot. a hatter, living at Frome, said, he was walking on the road about two miles from Frome, and wits attracted by a shriek, es if some one was in distress. He hastened to the spot, and found the proaecutrix and the prisoner in the situation described by the fernier; she appeared in a state of frenzy, and ran away inimedietely. .John Smith, the brother of the proaecutrix, opened the door for his sister the night she was assaulted ; he &set ibeit her appearance when she came home as most lamentable. She was blind, and kept her bed for three weeks after. krilltam Hash, a surgeon at Frame, was called upon to attend the prisoner the day after the assault was alleged in have been corn. she appeared to have been treated violently ; there were marks on her throat, evidently from pressure, and her eyes were much swollen, as if she had received blows on the face. James Smith, the father of the prosecutrix, and a man of decent appearance, proved that his daughter had detailed to him all the circumstances of the assault the morning subsequent to its occurrence. In this case Mr. BAILEY conducted the prosecution, and Mr. tivxNlwo, who appeared on behalf of the prisoner, addressed the Jury, insisting that the mosecutrix's conduct was imprudent, and her relation inconsistent and incredible. The prisoner was found Guilty. Sentence not mimed. John Gone was indicted for aiding and assisting Mary Ann Gone to conceal the birth of a female bastard child, with intent to ob struct justice. The prosecution was instituted by the Parish Officers of Sheptnn Mallet, where the prisoner lived, and was conducted by Mr. JEREMY. Mr. JAIDIN appeared fur the prisoner. Berne the case was proceeded with, lie. JAR MN said he felt it his duty to submit that the charge made against the prisoner was not a legal offence. Mr. Justice LITT ernac Er confessed the prosecution was a very navel one, but under all the circumstances, as the prisoner had pleaded to the indictment, lie would allow it to be tried. Elizabeth Mansion sworn-1 live at Tanner's-grave, near Shen ton. CM the morning of the 2lith Slay_, Mary Ann (Jane came to my house. She appeared in an indifferent state of health. She asked to be allowed to lie on the bed. I allowed her, and in a few hours she was taken ill, like a married woman after having been delivered of a child. In two days after I accompanied Mary Ann (Yana to a Magistrate. The prisoner is the father of Mary Ann Slane. I saw the prisoner on the 3lttit May, and charged him whit le sing his daughter at my house pennyless, aleno t naked, and w ale as • Tromso must be. The prisoner replied, " I did mot know she Ire a child," and I answered, " You must have known it." The prisoner then told me that if I would keep Mary Ann (lane for a few days he would pay me for my maintenance. I said I would not, anti threatened to apply to the parish, and he begged of me not. Mary Ann (lane gave me a garter. %Villiam Parker said—l am a turnkey et Shepton Mallet Gttol, and by direction of alt. Morgan, the Magistrate, I accompanied the prisoner, who voluntarily said he would show me where the child was secreted. He conducted me to a pond partly hid with bushes and brambles. lie pointed to a pavicular spot, and said, '• It w•• there I threw it in." A search war then made, and a pavan nam I Norton. alto had a rake, discovered the child. It was alien up, placed in a basket, and taken to the gaol. Next day a coroner's in I test was held upon the laxly. There was a garter round it. 'a as: pristine; atterwanta said to tile, he supposed it would be worse for him now he had told where lie threw the child. The !prier given by Mary Ann 6anc to the first witness, and that found round the body of the child, were now produced, and a...peered to be precisely of the same description. John Mines is a surgeon at :Menton ; attended the inquest at S'iepton Gaul ; examined the body of a female child. The garter yruiluced by the last witness was tied round the hotly. The child v,:ts full sized. as it the mother hail gone her regular time. There e. eft certain appearances about the child which led witness to be. icve that the mother had not been attended by a person of any bk'll. The um'Alical cord was not tied, and the child might have tied from hemorrhage foe want of that precaution. In thin respect the treatment of the child had been impraer. There were no marks of external violence on the body. Witness subsequently examined Mary Ann thine. llas no reason to suppose that the child was not born alive. It appeared to have arrived at the regular perio3 of gestation. air. JERE asw stated that the mother of the child had been yea tuMed before the Grand Jury ; but considering the relationship which existed between her and the prisoner, he felt that he ought not to place her in the witness box. The CAN for the ptuaecution, therefor., rented upon the evidence already produced. The Learned JUDGE was of opinion that it had not been proved that the child was born alive: he, therefore, directed the Jury to utquit the prisoner. Ilia Lordship added, that if the prisoner had beet found guilty, he would submit the ease to the twelve Judges, as it was a perfectly novel one. Mary Asa Game, the mother of the child, was also indicted fur cooctaling the birth, bat Mr. Justice byrrtnitiol.t having in-' formed the Grand Jury, that although a woman could he punished for secreting the birth of a child, it was not an indictable offence, sad they could not find the bills unless they believed murder had been committed, they hod, in their discretion, ignored the bills Although it did not appear on the trial, it was uhderhoot; tint the es!dence heron the Cir.utd Jury was of a nature, which gave reason to aunt-ode that the Frisoner was guilty of the horrible crime of tecest. PROSECUTION USHER THE GAME LAWS. J. 0414 Palmer was indicted for being found at night in a wood, r..l!td tslillah WOW, armed with a gun and with the intent of kill. ipg game. Ronras conducted the rrosecution, and Mr. By MPAS ap peared for the prisoner. James George sworn—ls the son of Mr. Luttrell's gamekeeper. Knows the prisoner. Was employed in I , y her %catching a wood of IV r. Luttrell's, in the pariah of %ritnr,nnb. A bout two t.'olock on the morning of the 24th November, witness heard the tso shots. Boon eta he observed two men arinvil with gums Laming towaeds him and his psr.y. The luisei.er's brother was tine of those men. and witness imtnediately apprehended hint. The other man escaped. NVitaess searched the prisoner's brother, and totintl a loaded gun in his hand, and a powder.boen, suog..p: ic h, ard a brace of Pheasants, in his pocket. George Griffiths was in company with James George at Shilah IVood en themoming of the 24th November. ithent piActl up a hat and gun in the wood that mornin;;. The gun and That now produced were the sante be then picked up. John Smith, • guntuaker, theta swore, that the gun found by Grifdzha was one he had repaired fur the prisoner. It Wigi Wino proved that the prisoner wall overheard to say, " Isaac Palmer wan caugin in the tact, but I ran away." It was also sworn that the bat produced was the property of the prisoner. C. Buransa, for the defence, contended that the evidence was I,of sufficient to warrant the Jury in convicting the prisoner. Ater consulting a nu: anent, the Jury returned a Yeitlict of ELECTION RIOT. ..... _ William Leidy. Knight, and John Au fell, were in djcted for riotously assembling with other persons, at Frtmie.SA. %sod. in this county. and assaulting Welter Long, the tithing nam of the parish, in the execution of his duty. Dam CY Noted, that this caw arose out of the late election tar Smiuset. At that time Mr. Il unt came. forwanl as a candidate, sad having frequently harangu:d the people of Frome, a very strorg feeling WAS excited in that town in his favour. He was In cis habit of stealing out epithets of abuse against all persons and (loses. but his hostility was directed most especially against the Itorneys. Mr. Hunt had given them the name of bud-ritarks, and at etis period they were known by no other name amongst the lower claims in Frame, who conceived that all their troubles had nriecn i7An tutornies. whom Mr. Hunt acquainted them were their worst enemies. This feeling prevailed so strongly at Frome, that during the. continuance of the election no attorney could appear in the streets without being insultul and assailed with cries of " no land. sliari,s. — The turbulent spirit which prevailed, however, (lid sot confine itself to words, but manifested itself in a wore violent and ktalsarful manner. The town of Fronie, it would seem, was in a . .tgas cf. et... 1. inued Cut f:oni the first visit of Mr. Hunt. At one period it became so intolerable, that a number of the respectable in habitants were sworn Ina.' special constables, in order to preserve the peace of the town. It was on the 17th June the occurrence took place whirls led to the pretent indictment. Mr. William Messner, a respectable solicitor, residing at Frome, had some quarrel with Mr. Hunt, and this, joined with his being an attor ney, rendered him peculiarly obnoxious to die populace. On the evening in question lie was approaching his own house, when he was set upon by a large mob, who pelted him with stones. Hap pily lie got home in safety, but not before he had noticed the pa wner Lesly, who appeared very active in the riot, and said to Mr. Alelmi!er, "If you come here again you shall get it." In the evening of the same day a mob of nearly 400 persons assembled in the market-place. and Walter Long, the tithing-man of the parish, went amongst them with his coostable's staff, and endea voured to disperse them ; out instead of dispersing. they assailed him with atones and hisses. The three prisoners would be proved to have assisted in this riot, and if they s hould, he submitted that they ought to be punished, and was assurred the Jury would do Weir duty by finding them guilty. George 3lersiter, sworn—ls a solicitor; lives at Frome. On the 17th Jane was passing near the market-place, and observed a mob of about 3410 persona surrounding and hooting eta few respects! le persons. It was about eight o'clock in the evening. Witness was passim: through Cork-street approaching his own house. A de tachment of about one hundred persona came towards witness from the market-place. At tit is period Me. Justice liiTTLEDAI.V. interposed, and ob *emit, that as this riot had only arisen out of en electioneering dis pute, and had in it nothing of a very serious character as affected the peace of the country, lie would recommend that the prisoners should be allowed to withdraw their plea of Not Huilty, and to plead Guilty, and that the prosecution should be alsindotted, upon the prisoners entering into their own recegniaances bOl. to keep the peace for twelve months. The Counsel for the prosecution unhesitatingly concurred in the propri ty of his Lordship's suggestion, and upon entering into their recognizance% and raying a timid la. each, the prisoners were discharged. CIVIL SIDE. [Before Mr. Justice 6 /Anis." ENGLAND V. LYE. Mr. Sergeant WI rim (with whom was Mr. BUMP.IIO, stated that in this case the plaintiff was a farmer, living near Wait•Lantbrook, and the defendant, a butcher, residing in the tame place. The action was brought to recover compensation in damages for an in. jury of a most aggravated description. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had him apprehended and taken before a Magistrate, and then rn ifk a charge of felony against hint falsely and mali ciously, and without sufficient or even probable cruse. The cir cumstances under which this charge was made agai tst the plain tiff were as follow:—In June, lttli, the defendant was pass. ing the road at New Cross, in the parish of Kingsbury Episcopti, with a cart I 'den with pork. He stopped at the house of a black• smith there to sell his pork. at which house the plaintiff was. Lye asked him if he would purchase any of the pork, to which England replied that lie did not want any. Afterwards, however, he in ' gutted the price of the pork, and upon examining it he altered his resolution, mid determined to buy eotne. Lye went from his cart, and whilst he was absent, plaintiff selected two pieces of the pork, which he took with him, desiring the blacksmith's wife to acquaint Lye when lie returned that he (England) had taken two pieces of the pork, and that Lye might come down to his holm to ace the meat weighed, and receive his money. It would be proved that the blackeinith's wife communicated this message to the defendant, but it would appear that lie and England had previously had some dispute, and the latter found it necessary to institute legal proceedings against the defendant, who seemed to retain a remem brance of the circuinstance'when he made this vindictive and mali cious charge against England. The defendant had actually to'd A person who would be produced, that England had rag. out of him, and that he would row have something back. It was in pur suance of this threat, no doubt, that he had charged England be fore a Magistrate, with stealing his pork. There was no felony committed by the plaintiff; the Jury would perceive, nor were there any grounds for charging him with such offence. In the absence of any probable grounds, combined with the expression he had used, lie suhmitted it was not WO much to say, that the defendant bad charged the plaintiff from malignant motives. If the evidence produced supported the fact, and that the Jury should come to this conclusion, he was convinced they would award da mages commensurafe to the nature of the injury wantonly inflicted on the feeiloge and character of the plaintiff. Witnesses were then called, and fully supported the statement of plaintiff'S' Counsel. Mr. ERSKINE, for the defendant, pointed the attention of the Jury to the warrant issued by the Nlagistiate for the apprehension or Englend. Ile contended that it contained no charge of felony. It simply charged England with having taken the pork, which con fessedly he bad done. The charge of felony was suggested by the plaintiff himself, and was mentioned in the declaration for the purpose of aggravating the damages, and by this means compas sing the ruin of the defendant. The action was trifling in its nature, and most oppressive and malignant in its intention. Ile therefore trusted that it the Jury found a verdict, the damages would be very moderate indeed, as his client was a very poor man, and must be ruined by heavy damages. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages M. AN]) OTHERS T. BARRETT• Mr. C. TAU Nrom stated, that the plaintiffs were assignees of Mr. Wm. Mills, who had carried on business extensively at Bath as an oil-merchant. The defendant was also a merchant, residing in London. The present action was brought to recover the value of ten casks of oil, which the bankrupt had purchased from the de. fentltun, and which were actually delivered by the latter at the Steel-yard IVherf, London. After the delivery, however, Barrett, it would seem, learned that Mills was becoming embarrassed in his circumstances, and in order to repossess himself of his goods, he used the right of stoppage in transit's over them. These were the simple facts of the cause, affd these facts being proved, the Jury were bound to act upon the sound legal principle that the last per son who sold to a bankrupt was not to be placed in a better situa tion titan any of his other creditors, but that'll the effects of a bank rupt were to be divided equally amongst them. In accordance with this prieciple, the assignees, suing fur the benefit of the creditors generally, felt it their duty to bring the present action. William Mills, the bankrupt, was then placed in the witness box, and was about to be sworn, when Mr. Sergeant ‘Vilde, who was for the defendant, objected, to his competency as a witness, lie having been convicted of a conspiracy to keep nut of the way a witness who was bound to appear against him (Mills) on a prose cution fur smuggling. After much argument in support of as well as. against the ob jection, the Learned Judge decided that the conviction referred to renderest Mills an incompetent witness; however, he would give the plaintiffs leave to move the Court above on die point. Plaintiffs' Counsel then stated, that Mills's evidence was so es sential to support the case, that they could not hope to succeed witheut it. They thereline consented that the plaintiff should be nonsuited. ACTION FOR SEDUCTION. EVANS V. IIIII.PIN. This was nn action brought by a father to recover compensation 10 damages for the injury sustained in the lose of his daughter's services, through her seduction by the defendant. Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom were Mr. F. C. WYLLIAMS and Mr. Easel wet) stated the case. Ile commenced by observing. that in the great variety of cases which it was the ditty of conrwel to lay before a Jury, it did frequently happen that the instructions they received were not borne out by the evidence, and that griev ances, represented as of a very aggravated character, were only proved to have been grievances in statement. He had no reason tiprin earth to doubt the accuracy of the instructions whinnied to him is the present instance, and he well knew that the interests of as client were never advanced by overcharging a statement. The Jury were already aware that this was an action brought by a father to recover compensation for the seduction of his daughter, and how. ' ever well disposed he might be to refrain from giving any over charged colouring to his statement, if he could state such a case without feeling, he must be indeed insensible. Ile could not help feeling how such an occurrence as the seduction of a daughter must affect a father, when it was followed by the birth of • child, in whose innocent face the father could read nothing but the shame of another branch of his family, when that I new relation, which should be the source of hope, consolation, and happiness, is only the cause of agony and distress, and in the fea tures of the little one lie sees nothing but the disgrace of another dearer and nearer relative. The plaintiff, Evans, was the father of other daughters. Ile had admitted into his house the defendant, I who had arrived at a sufficient time of life to have a control over I himself. That defendant destroyed his happiness. The plaintiff I was an innkeeper in the town of 13ridgewater. The defendant was at a time of life when confidence might be reposed in him. Ile stood with an unimpeachable character, and his station in life and reputation proved his tishess to be received in the character in which he came to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff' hod looked forward to an union between his daughter and the defendant as a source of happiness to all parties. The prospect was now altered. The defendant had reduced the daughter .o a state its which she had become an object of shame and pity to all who were acquainted with her. Ile was utterly ignorant of any one fact which the de fendant could bring forward in extenuation of his conduct. He slid not know whether lie meant to say that lie -vas not old enough to haveacquired a control over his passions, or that he had visited at the plaintiff's house as an honourable suitor and was trusted, or that the plaintiff dill not watch him like a thief in his house.. It would be proved that the plaintiff's family conducted them selves respectably, and in a manner suitable to their situation in lire. The daughters assisted the father and mother in the conduct of their estaleislinient. Several coaches called at the plaintiff". house, some of them late at night, anti this circumstance would give the defendant au opportunity of proving that the plaintiff' sometimes permitted his daughters to stay up when he and his wife, who were ohl, retired to bed. But lie challenged the defendant to prove that either of those young ladies were ever suffered by their parents to remain up without some other member of the family. The Jury should decide, therefore. whether a man should treat every one who conies as a suitor to his daughter as a villain. The defendant came as a suitor; lie seduced the plaintiff's daughter to grata:) , his desires ; blic did so, became pregnant, and was de. serted. Ile hoped the Jury were parents and When ; he trusted their own feelings would prompt them 'to do justice, when the -honour and the feelings of a parent and a foler tvere concerned. Unless th• defendant could shake nut some distinct subject of pal. li•tton, lie deribttel not that the plaintiff would not be tent home with his shame incensed, but that the verdict of the Jury would show not only how they estimated itse conduct of the defendant, but also how much they sympat)tised with the father. Ile should tall the unhappy young woman whose misfortunes were the cause of this action. ! lie had never seen her, hut he knew his client's case depended in a grist areaaure on site: she aaii. It was unfortunate tor this yeung THE BRITISH PRESS. woman,that he who washer seducer was now her opponent. Perhaps the defendant would conce i ve th at s he was not aufhetently injured, and that her ruin wait now to be completed. Whatever may have been the course pursued towards the daughter, whatever her con duct may have been, the injury which the father sustained was beyond all doubt. Whilst he made this observation, it was his duty to add,that he entertained no apprehension of a well-founded attack ' upon the character of this young woman. Ilis instructions rept es vented her as respectable in every particular, except in her fall to the defendant. The defendant, who had destroyed the horns of the father, should be the lam man to increase his misfortunes. If the defendant attacked the character of the daughter with success, the Jury, in doing justice, should still respect the father's feelings ; but if the defendant should attack the daughter's character without success, the Jury would show their sense of the feelings of that man Who could first destroy a young woman's happiness, and in evease the injury by an attempt to destroy her character. he Jury, however. would not find that the unhappy young woman was guilty of any errors except those for which the defendant was responsible. Ile was confident, therefore, that they would do justice, under all those circumstances; and as bi the amount of the compensation which they were called upnn to award, he would make no observation upon it; but concluded by informing them that the amount of damages ought to depend altogether upon the evidence which should be submitted to them. Sarah Evans, a modest end interesting looking woman, was then sworn. She said-11y father is an innkeeper at Bridgewater. 1 a:witted him in the business. I have known the defendant 10 or II sears. Ile has paid attention to me for eight or nine years or more. He frequently visited at my father's, and was accepted as my suitor. About 1823 1 first had reason to regret my intimacy with him. In 1024, I became a mother. My father hat since been at the expense of maintaining the child. lie paid the expenses of my acconchement. My father has seven other children. I have two bro thers d five sisters. Since I had the misfortune of becoming preg nant, 111 r. Bulpin has paid nit many visits. Cross-examined-1 have a sister married since 1823. She used to sleep with me before her marriage. I had no connexion with Mr. Bulpin befnte 1023. He never visited me since my confine ment. Ile visited me a week or two before it. My sister is married to a Mr. Way. She was married in November. She and I were confined about the same time. Mr. Way visited at my father's house a year or more Entire his marriage with my sister. Mr. Bul pin sometimes visited so late as twelve or one o'clock at night. I once remember receiving a message from hint, anti coming from my bed-room, to which I had retired, to see him. It has never hap pened that a signal was made to me, by th owing something ut the window. 1 a:so have an action against Mr. Bulpin, intlepeacient of the present action. He-examined—The other action it for breach of promise of mar riage. Mr. Bulpin was received by me on honourable terms. I always considered him my intended husband. I have sometimes vat up fer the arrival of the coaches; some of my family always re mained up with me. When I went from my bed-mom to Mr. Bul pin it was reluctantly ; I did not go upon the first message, nor until Mr. Bulpin sent to say he would not detain me more than a minute. .fly mother is living. 1 am about twenty-nine years of age. Mr. Bulpin may be about thirty-three. Richard Key said—l am a coach-master. I know the plaintiff, William Evans. A coach of mine stops at his inn. On that ac , count Igo almost every night to hit house. I knew Miss Sarah Evans from her childhood. IlaYe constantly seen her. I know the defendant, and have constantly seen him at Mr. Evans's. He appeared to be a suitor of Miss S trait ii:Van!, and such I consider ed him for years. I never saw Sarah Evans sit up for the coaches by herself. It is absolutely necessery that some one should sit up at Mr. Emma's. Cross-examined—l have seen Mr. Bulpin at Mr. Evans's so late as twelve or one o'clock at night. I was at Wells this time two years. ,Mr. Evans was there also and his wife. I never Raw Evans about the streets of Wells with a common prostitute. lie never asked me to shake hands with a Miss Fly. There was tome joke about it at the Christopher Inn as we were all sitting smoking. 1 believe Evans caned a woman in by way of jest. William Evans,jun.—l am the son of the plaintiff and the bto thee of Sarah Evans. I know lir. Bulpin, who was a visitor at my father's house fur many yearn. I have married bis sister. lie was received at my father's house as a visitor to my sister, being my brother-in-law. I once went to Bulpin, and told him it was represented that he was scandalizing my sister's character. This was betide my sister's confinement. Bulpin's reply was, that " lie never scandalized toy sister, nor had any occasion to do so, nor that lie never intended to do so." 'Winn is a grazier and jobber. Some time ago he rented land to the value of from 10001. to 1,3011/. a year. lie still possesses as much land, but I can't say what rent lie pays. Mr. BUMPAS (with whom was Mr. CARTES thea addressed the Jury fur the defendant. He said there was no doubt that cases often differed in fact front what they appeared in the state ment. The present ease was an instance of this nature ; but it was also one of those casts which lie felt It was difficult for the Jury to look at with iumattial feelings. Ida cautioned the Jury against being led away by the representation which would be made by Ida learned friend, than whom there was no man better able to pro duce a poweuful impression on the minds of the Jury. His learned friend said he did not know the person of Miss Evans, but no doubt he was aware of the effect which her demeanor and appear ance were calculated to produce. But whatever should have been the appearance or demeanour of 3lissEvans, his client had not instructed him to throw out any general imputations upon her character. The defendant was a man of too much honour and too much feeling to give any such instruction to his Counsel, and above ' all things would never unnecessarily inflict a pang upon a woman with whom he had been connected as he was with the Plaintiff's daughter. As to her injuries, oho had taken the means of procuring redress for them, and it was the duty of the Jury entirely to exclude her case from their consideration. They had only to consider what the father ought to receive at their hands.by way of compensation. He would not say that the da mages should be confined to the sum actually expended by the tattier during the confinement of his daughter. It may be a great deal, or only a little, more ; 'out the amount, of cuurse, should de pend altogether upon the circumstances of the case. He dad not deny that Mr. Bulpin was the father of the child, and therefore he admitted that a verdict must pass against die defendant. However, when an attempt was made to show the plaintiff's family was well regulated, he confessed he thought it extremely singular that both the sisters sliduld be found in the same situation, neatly at the same time. Miss Sarah Evans had stated that her sister was mar ried in November, and had a child in die following, April. Now, however such a circumstance might be deplored, it must be ad mitted that it was a very extraordinary coincidence to have hap pened in the same family. Ile did not mean to throw any asper sion upon the character of Miss Sarah Evans by this observation. His client would not inflict an intentional or unnecessary injury upon her for any consideration. But when it was said that Mr. Ilulpin had come to an age when he ought to be able to control his feelings, he might he allowed to remark that Miss Evans too had arrived at an age when she ought to have been able to control her passions. Nature and experience combined to prove that women were not less capable of controlling their passions than men : both, therefore, should have controlled their passions, but both had been misled to do what neither intended. If an attack was made on his client by saying that he came to an age when he might control his pas. lions, the remark would apply with ten-fold force to Miss Evans, whose duty it was not to allow her passions to conquer her, nor to bring sarrow on her father. Without meaning to throw any imputation on her, lie would say that the censure should not fall on the man only, but equally on both, as both were equally imprudent. Ile was sure if he had the honour of addressing females they would feel the fall force of his observations. They would say with him, that when a female had come to an age when she can estimate the consequences of indiscretion, she is equally to blame with the man. To recur once more to the facts of the case. They had it in evi dence that Mint Sarah Evans was visited by Mr. Bulpin up to the period of her confinement. Now he should call a witness to prove what was the father's conduct a little subsequent to that event. Would the Jury believe that the father had said he would never allow his daughter to marry 111 r. Bulpin, and that if she did marry him, she should never enter his house again, nor he would never own her as his daughter? lie said further, that lie would ruin the defendant by law, and that threat he was endeavouring to put in execution by multiplying actions. This action was no sooner over, than another would collie on, in which Miss Sarah Evans would be the plaintiff The father thetefore was more desirous to indulge his own vindictive feelings than to consult the honour and happiness of his daughter. The cenduct and feelings of a person who came forward in the character Mr. Evans did, ought to be taken into consideration. If the Jury lotted he was regardless of those high I feelings of honour which a man ought to possess when he sought redress for his injured feelings, the Jury were bound to ' take it into their consideration. He who came forward to complain of outraged morals, ought himself to be a men of moral and good chat otter. Persons coming like him into a Court of Justice ought not to give loose to their own passions, and vet expect that the passions of all other men were to be restrained. He thought he should be able to prove that the plaintiff's conduct was such, that it was no wonder, nay, that it was probable, such circumstances as had occurred should occur in his faintly. After hearing the witnesses he should produce, the Jury need rot wonder that both his daughters were in the alone situation nearly at the same time. If he proved this, they should not award him the da mages that they would, lied lie been a moral and well-conducted fattier. It would cuttion them against the effects of the talent and ability with which this case would be represented at the other side. Let them recollect, however, that there was no evidence of any deliberate intention to seduce. Two persons, of nearly the name Age, were much together, and in all unguanleal liniment forgot Meinselves. Both parties were equally to blame. It was not like an aggravated ease, where arts were used by the man to seduce a girl younger than himself. It was a case of human frailty—of momentary forgetfulness, which had produced most unfortunate consequences, which the defendant regretted as much as it was possible for any man to do. Mr. Sergeant 11'11.De said, he understood front his Learned Friend's address lie intended to offer evidence of die immoral con duct of the plaintiff; but lie submitted that such evidence was not admissible in a ease like the present. After some argument, the Learned Judge overruled the objec tion, and witnesses were called for the defence. John S. Carver said—l know both the plaintiff and defendant. 1 also know Miss Sarah Evans. I recollect the time of her confinement. I visited Mr. Evans about that time to speak to him concerning a marriage with 3lr. Bulpin. 11Ir. Evans said he should be glad to have an arrangement, and with obliged tome fur coining. At that time he seemed perfectly willing to a marriage between 31r. Bulpin and his daughter. lie said if lie, Bulpin, would act honourably by his daughter, he would receive hint as he would any other of his children. I had some further converotion with Evans about a fort night after. He then said he never would acknowledge Bulpin as his son-in-law, nor ever give his daughter a farthing if she married him. On my first interview with Evans I was accompanied by a Mr. Francis, who came to me the next morning, and told me some thing Evans had said, which induced me to decline interfering. have heard Mr. Evans say several times that he would ruin Bulpin by law if he could. John Silk said, I am an officer of the Customs at Bridge water. In April, 1112.1, I bud a meeting at the Crown Inn, with Mr. Evans. A person named George Eadles was pre sent, as well as several other persons. The conversation commenced by a Mr. Knights asking Evans, how he got on with 3liss Fly at the %Veils Assists ? He replied, very well; that he took pleasure in walking arm and arm with her opposite the house where his wife and the rest of his witnesses were, so that his wife might see her if she chose. Evans added, that he took Miss Fly to the Somerset Hotel, where wine of his witnesses were; that he introduced her to them, and asked his son-in-law to shake hands with her. With respect to the defendant, he said, he would grind him to ashes. Evans has a farm called Poker's Farm ; and he said he kept .Miss Fly there for his own accommodation, anti that of his friends. He afterwasd* obser►ed that his wife knew of this, and gave hint - liberty. I then asked him if it was prudent for a man going to vindicate the innocence of his daughter, to state such things in a public company ? Evans replied to this observation by some abusive epithet. lie appeared perfectly sober, and his observations were not in joke. George Eadles, is a isrmer, residing at Bridgwater. Was at " The Crown" in April, 1825, when Silk and Evans were there. The latter said. that when at Wells Assizes he walked with Miss Fly opposite his wife's lodgings, and afterwards introduced her to his son-In-law. lie athied that he kept her at the farm for the ac commodation of himself aid his friends. When reproved for this by the last witness, and others of the company, he said lie had a • right to use his own house as he pleased. Evans was perfectly • serious at this time. Mr. Sergeiall WILDE then, replied. Afters *hart consultation, the Jury found for the Plaintiff. Damages-243UL - - NORTHERN CIRCUIT. FORGERY. LANCASTER, AUG. 11. IVm. Williams PerkinTs, - agetl2li, was indicted for having, on the 19th illy of June last, forged, and uttered as true,* forged order for the payment of 1731., purporting to lie drawly by John Wakefield and Son, of Kendal, upon Messrs. Masteritian and Co. of London, with intent to defraud the said Messrs. 111as unman. The prisoner, who is a clerk in the house of Dugdale and Co. of Manchester, is a young man of very gentlemanly appearance, and his tielf-possesaion never left him during the whole trial. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Sergeant C:ttosa and Mr. Tttioat ; and the defence by Mr. J. WILLIams, Mr. 1). F. Joxes, and Mr. COLTNAN• Mr. Sergeant Coosa stated the case for the prosecution. In the month of June last a letter was received by 31eitsra. Masterman, bankers, in London. This letter contained a check for 173/., put.. porting to have been drawn by their correspondents, Wakefield and Co., bankers, nt Kendal, and made payable to Mr. F. Evershain, by whom the letter purported to have been written, and whose sig. nature it bore. The writer of the letter requested that the amount of the check should be enclosed to hint in a letter, directed to 1" Mr. F. Eversham, Ilen and Chickens, Birmingham, care of Mr. John Smith." The check having been discovered by Masterman and Co. to be a forgery, a letter was written as directed, and a Bow street officer was sent down to Birmingham, to arrest the person who should receive the letter ; before the arrival ~ 1 the Bow-street officer at Birmingham, the Postmaster received a letter, signed " F. Eeersham," requesting that all letters for him should be for warded to Manchester, to be left at the post-office until called fOr. The answer of Masterman and Co. was forwarded to Manchester, whither the Bow-street officer immediately repaired. The letter arrived at 31ancheater on the 24th of June. and the officer regularly 'attended fir three or four days at the Post-office, to apprehend the person who might call for it. (In the night of the 28th of June, about five minutes before the office closed, the prisoner called for the letter, and the officer, who was at the time in the office, went outside, and stood by the prisoner until he received the letter and paid the pos'age, when he was taken into custody, was hurried into a hackney-coach and conveyed to the New Batley, Where he was searched, but the letter was not found, as it was supposed that lie threw it out of the coach-window. The foll Owing witnesaes were then called : Daniel, Auldretl-1 am a partner in the house of Maatermann and Co., bankers, London. It is part of my business to opea all the' country letters which come to our house. We ate agents for Wakefield and Co., of Kendal. On the 234 of June last I re ceived the letter now produced, containing a bill and an enclosure. I gave the letter to our corresponding clerk, Mr. Peel, and told film to attend to it. Joseph Peel—l am clerk in the home of Masterman and Co. I recollect that on the 2341 of June, Mr. Mildred gave me a letter, containing an enclosure (a check). It is my peculiar province to inspect the correspondence, and upon inspecting this check, 1 dia. covered that it was a forgery. It is wholly unlike the signature of either of the partners in the house of Wakefield aed Co. Mr. W. Bainbridge—l am &clerk in the house of Wakefield and Co., bankers, at Kendal. The signature to the check now produced is not in the hand.ivriting of either of the partners. These checks are never written by clerks, but by procuration. Cron-examined •by Mr. 3: WILLIAMS—Some of the letters of the sf.maiure are not unlike the signature of Mr. Edward Wake field ; but there is not such a similarity as would impose upon per sons acquaitred with his hand-writing. • The following letter, in which the check was enclosed, and the check, were then put in and read : " :Ilessrs. 31asterman and Co. " Gentlemen —We will thank you to pay t'ae bearer, Mr. Francis Evershain, 173/., and place the same to the di bit of our ace runts. We are, your obedient servants, " JOHN WAKEFIELD and CO." " Eccles, 6 Alo. 19th, 1826. " Messrs. Mastemian and Co. " Respected Friends—Ai. I shall not be' in London f a fort night, I will thank thee to remit the amount of the enclosed draft to me, to the care of John Smith, Hen and Chickens, Birmingham, BS 1 Alan leave to.morrow. " F. EVERSHA.M." The check was not stamped. Mr. J. WILLIA sts submitted, that en unstamped check, drawn at a distance of twenty miles front London, was held to be inadmis sible evidence in a civil ease; and the offence of forging such an in strument could not amount to a capital felony. In support of his objection, the Learned Counsel cited the case of the "King v. Moffat," Ist Leach. Ale. Sergeant Cross said, the point now raised kid been discus sed, and decided in the negative by the twelve Judge., in the case of the " King v. ilawkgood." Mr. Justice Pant: over-ruled the objection. Thomas Gates.—l am a Solicitor, practising in London. The Papers produced were put into my hands on the 23d of June last, by ,llasterman and Co. I directed a letter to be written in answer, directed to Francis Eversham, lien and Chickens, Birmingham. I put the answer into the Post. Office in London. John Helmsley—l keep the Post-Office at Birmingham. On the 24th of June last, I received a letter front Mr. Freeling. the Secre r-.•ry of the General Post Office, enclosing one addressed " Francis Eversham, lien and Chickens, Birmingham, to the care of John Smith." On the evening before, I received a letter signed " Fran. cis E eersham."— (The letter, which was put in and read, directed the Postmaster to forward to Manchester all letters directed to F. Evershain.l—l re-directed the letter which I received from Lon. don, to the Post-Office, Manchester. Mr. Richard Hutchins ‘l'hitelock—l keep the Post-Office at Manchester. On the 24th of June, I received a letter addressed to Francis Eversham. It was put into the call box, under the letter E." It remsined in the " call for" box on the Monday, Wed nesday, and Thursday following. John Nightingale-1 ant a clerk in the Manchester Post-Office. It was not put into the "call-for" box until the 28 . h of Jure. About five or six ininstren before ten o'clock on that night, a per son called at the Post-Office. A Bow-street officer, named With. ner, was then in the office. The person who called stood at the window, and said, " Francis Eversharn." I said, " Francis Eversham, ?ost-Office ?" and he answered " Yes." I then asked him from what place he expected the letter, and he said " London." I could see his figure, but not his face, during the time that he re mained at the window. In order to give the officer time to go round to the window, I ask. d the person, " Is your name Ever. shrm, or Haveraliam ?" He route, that his name commenced with an " E." At this time, I saw the officer standing beside hint, and having read the direction aloud, I handed it to him, and said at the time, "Is that your letter ?" He said, " It is." Ile dun paid me the postage, three shillings, and put the letter iwo his pocket. - - - - • Richard Gardiner—l am a police officer belonging to Bow -street; I went in the first instance to Birmingham. to wait at the po-t -office there, but I afterwards went to itlanchester. I arrived at Manchester nt six o'clock on Sunday morning, and I was in ea.! ) , attendance there until the following Wednesday evening. I recol. lect a person coming fore letter; 1 went round to the outside, and then discovered that that person was the prisoner at the bar; I have ft) doubt of the pri,toner's identity. I heard the clerk ask the pri soner hitt name; I saw the prisoner pay the postage and receive the letter. %Viten the prisoner had put the letter into his pocket, I went up to hint and said, " Mr. Eversham, I want a word with you ;" I then took hold aids arm ; I informed hint that 1 was an officer, and that he was now in my custody. He exclaimed, " Good God !" and asked me what for? I told hint that I could nut then explain what for, but that it would soon explain all. After walk ing a little, we got into a hackney coach ; I sat in the front of the coach, and the prisoner in the hind part. Before we gut into the coach, the prisoner attempted to escape, but I prevented him. When we got into the coach, the prisoner put his hand on the win. Clow ; I said, " Sit still, and take your hand in," and I looked into his hand, but there was nothing in it. When we got to die Police office, I asked him for the letter which he had got at the nosi-office. lie replied, " What letter? I have received no letter." Shortly afterwards the prisoner said that he had gone to the post-office to inquire for a letter which be expected to receive front his father. I left him in custody, and then went to his lodgings, which were in Oxford-road. 1 had previously taken some keys from the pri toner's person. Lavender and myself searched the prisoner's lodg ings ; there was a box in one corner of the room, which was opened by one of the keys which I had taken front the prisoner; in that box we found some scraps of paper, which Lavender signed. Cross-examined--The prisoner gave us his address, which La- I vender put down on paper. We did not know his lodgings until the prisoner told us where they were. The evening on which I ap prchentkd the prisoner, I sent the Win= round, offering a re. ward for the discovery of tile letter. which I suppnerd had bets thrown sway, and t caused an advertisement to be pul,l:4 lt d toil same effect. In the advertisement I dereribed the place where supposed the letter had been Inst. TVe letter was never found. tound in the prism er's pocket one half sovereign in gold, an d lla fed. in silver. I have Irequently been employed by the Inneluu bunker.. Thej do not pay me by the yob, but I drawn obey e;h u I went it. _ _ _ ........ In reply to a question from the Bench, the witness st ate d ihat he would not receive more pay in case the prisoner were convicted. Mr. Justice should indeed be surprised if the b uibee i paid only upon convicttnn. Cross-examination resumed by Mr. WILLIAM-1 never i n. qttited whether I gave W4tisraciion in this business or not. I h ave not been tokl that any body has binned me for the loss of the lett er . I was in perfect health when I seised the prisoner. The p e „, office was shut, and I did rot thing it necesrary to apply f ora. sistance, because the prisoner moved so quietly. A letter From the prisoner's father was found upon his person. I have se es 3 4. Dug&le, a merchant of Manchester. I saw hint at 111 0 ,,, treee office. I never told either Mr. Dugdale or the prisoner's fahh or any body in their presence, that the letar was put into the prisoner's left hand trousers pocket. fte.csamined—lt is a matter of entire indifference to metaled ) " the prisoner be convicted or not. Stephen Lavender sworn—l superintend the mike et It". cheater. I accompanied the last witness to the prison er 'alyo gii ,.. We got the address from the prisoner. Witntas p •d d dend "". scraps of paper, which had been found in a box in the pri sso y,t, lodgings, and also some sheets of letter paper, w hi c h b id been found in an open drawer in the prisoner's sittitte. t c on . Those scraps of paper were found in a snuff-hos in the nrisoner's box ; the names of Fort and Co., and of sonic other firms near Manchester, were written upon them, and they were put in for th e purpose of showing that the prisoner made a practice of intatin g . the hand-writing of different persons. The watermark on thy sheets of paper corresponded with the water-mark upon the le.: to addressed to Messrs. SlNtterman and Co. Sarah Wallon—l lived as servant in the henise where the tr i une , lodged. The pr soner had lodged th:re for eighteen months, H. occupiel a bed-co trn and sitting-room jointly with another flews, of the name of Griffiths. The little drawer, from which the palle t produced by the last witness wu taken, was common to bats 0 4 lodgers. Cross-examined—The only persons who lived in the house woe the pri ce:cr, 31r. Griffiths, ply two brothers, and my Itt.hand, d'd not know the prisoner before he came to lodge in tie house. For any thing I knew he always bore a good character. The was a salon' an in the warehouse of Mr. Dugthle, at Manehes. ter. John Griffiths—l lodged with the prisorer for eighteen mont h .. The little drawer was common to us both, but I never used it. The letter parer now p•rxhiced was not placed in the drawer by me. Csosssexaminetl—l know the prisoner's hand •writing, having seen him write eight or nine years ago. In my opinion the writing allies cheek does not at all resemble the prisoner's handswriting. Ido not think the letter resembles the prisoner's writing. I have been acquainted with the prisoner for ten yams. He is now twenty. six years of age, and, as far as I have known him, his character hss been most respectable. Ilia hahrs were very abstemious. He was rather dose-handed than otherwise, and never appeared lo be short of money. Ile is respectably connected. Re-examined—The other young men of the house used to be is and out of the room occasionally. Hy the Coart—l think that the writing on the scrap of p a p er , found in the prisoner's snufLbox and desk. does not bear tile least resemblance to the handswriting of the prisoner. Lavender recalled. —I have compared the paper on which the letter addressed to Messrs. Mastermed was wriven, with ihe pa. per found in the prisoner's box, and I find the wirer mark to cor- respond. The same coincidence occurs with regard to the paper found in the table drawer. . . The paper found in the open drawer was withdrawn by the prosecutor. This was the ease for the prosecution. to ru a l d lo d w reft ing an wri y pocket wished th e Mr. Justice PARK expressed an opinion, that no evidence had been offered to support the charge of forgery The charge was now reduced to one of " uttering, knowing it to he forged." whichtten arvn nat u re,l. , t t t l e h eo l :fm f e o lt.: ,stretea,t charge broughtmraerygp prepared ro c eo f dr e c al cha th ei this statement, b o ae r ry toiti withe n o s c e k o e rspu sa tiche y ie., statement, which he read in a distinct and firm tone ()Evoke. "My boot, and Gentlemen of the Jury-1 have lately learned Counsel se arc t : a po n r t c : ne n7t e l t ri t e p h ncott that circumstances dua h rcitv e Ti oil p ri sonero th e Jury,Rving been drew a-a formke d I i ati observations as appear to be applicable to the case. Being tinse -1 cust tined to maters of this description, I hope to receive a patient and merciful i..didgcnce, fully trusting that you and his Lordship will pay more attention to the matter detailed than to the mum in which it is disclosed, and that you will not he influenced by thy misrepresentations and prejudices, wit; Jr you may have heard be. fore you entered that box. All I ask for is an impartial trial, regulated only by the weight and credit of the testimony given as both sides. The charge preferred against nic, you perceive, is two-fold ; the first, that on the 111th of June last, I forged and counterfeited an order net forth in this indictment in the names of John iVakefield and Sons, of Kendal. upon Messrs. Master. man and Co. bankers, London, for 1734.•parab/e tor the beans, Francis Eversham, which was to be placed (as the docun:rot crates) to the credit of the drawers. This lam charged salt having clone with latent to defraud Messrs—Maxtennan and Co.— The twanatil charge is, that I uttered the said order, well know ing it to b! forged and counterfeited, and -that I did so with intent - to defraud Messrs. Masterman and - Co. Gentlemen, the mode which has bees resorted to for the purpose of proving these two charges requires your most serious attention, because it ap pears to toe ( with due submission to his Lordship's better judg. went) to be of a singular and complex nature—extremely ques tionable in itself, and doubtful (even if believed) in its efficiency to establish either of the two charges. Gentlemen, 1 shall come at once to the evidence which has been brought forward to establish my guilt. I ask you, gentlemen. is Gardiner to be de pended upon or not? Is his story, in all its parts, consistent wish itself—probable in its nature—or consistent with the diffe r. nt circumstances that preceded, or with what occurred subse• qucn ly to my apprdtension ? To these questions 1 invite your attention. In order to come to a just conclusion upon these questions, you must bear in mind that Gardiner has sworn that he was sent down from London to watch the letter —that on the night of the 23th of June he was in the post.office for that pur pose ; that about five or ten minutes betime ten o'clock a person came to the window and asked for the letter; that he tlien left the office and went round to the window, where he saw me standing; that he stood close by me on my right ; that he heard the post-office clerk read the direction, and ilok me if that was my Icier ; that I said it wos; that I received the letter, paid three shillings postage, and put the letter in o my right hard breeches pocket; that he addressed himself to me, saying," 3lr. Evershain.l want a word with you ;" that I said, " what about?" That he then Pelted me, and said he was an officer, and that I Must consider myself in custody ; that I asked him " what for ?" That he said lie could not explain there, that I must go with hint to a place where he would explain ; that I walked very fast the at the fine having fast hold of my sleeve); that there was a coach standing at the corner of St. At ne's-square ; that lie desired me to go into it ; that I resisted and endeavoured to escape ; that he get rue into the coach, and drove off to the Police Office, where Ito, assisted by 31r. Laeeneler, immidiarcly searched my person. but could not find the letter; that they took out of my pockets Ifs. 6d. in silver, and a letter (which I had lately received front my fi•ther); that I then told them where I lodged ; that they went to my lodglnes and searched them, ai.d, that they found there, amongst other t! ingot, three sovereigns and sonic sheets of paper. Ile has also t •Id you, Gentlemen. whilst I was in the coach, he saw me put my hand (cldnehed as if something was in it) to the win dow of the co ich ; that he told me to keep my hand quiet ; that he drnw my hand back and opened it, but that I had nothing in it. This, Gentlemen, is the evidence up in which you are to form a judvient of my guilt or Innocence. Nothing can be more imposing than the mixture of facts with falsehoods--nothing so difficult, in a case like this, as to separate one from the other. I must, therefore, in the absence of d stittct evidence, have recourse to such othermeans as this cade admits of; and, I pray of you. lien:lnnen, to remember • that the scene of action, as fixed by Gardiner, is incapable of direct conirad•ction ; I ain therefore forced to call to my aid the scattered circumstances that surround the transaction ; and, I trust, I shall eyed -twiny do so to his detection, and to your perfect satideactio That Gardiner apprehended me is perfectly true, but not at the Post Office window, nor in the way he has described. I was apprehended at wire distance front the Post Office, and in a way very different fear's that which lie has descrittel to you. Gentlemen. before I enter into furti.cr commentary upon his part of the case. I shall call your attention to an earlier part of the evening, which (al -1 though a• presint it may appear irrelevant) you will find extremely imaterial in the c. urse or this indothy. (The prisoner here entered into ade ail of e way in which he had spent the day, and of the j persons ws one he had met, and conversed with, as afterwards spa • peared in evidence. up to the time of his apprehension, and added. that the 111 s. which was found in his pocket, was change which • he received at n public house, where he paid Is. fal. for some ale and a sandwich.) My Lord and Gentlemen, I submit that this fact, Panicle, that the money found in my pocket corresponded in . amount with the change which I hail lout a few minutes before et the public-house, incomes (although trifling as it may appear, it abstracted front the other circumstances) a matter of considerable • importance in a case of this description. It has been stated by the witnesses for the prosecution, that the person who received the I letter paid three shillings postage. If I had been that person, I my silver would have been reduced to fifteen shillings and sixpence, as a matter of course. This is a fact that can't betray the truth, nor mislead your judgment—it forms a material and infallible part of the transaction, at.d upon that fact I submit (with great humility to your Lordship). you, gentlemen of the Jury, may re.y with safety for your government. It is not likely I should have I got change for a sovereign, In order to pay Is. 6d. at a politic t house, if I had 3s. in toy pocket at the time. This fact is, I sub , mit, decisive in this case, and that the present charge is either the result of gross blunder or falsehood. You will also be ar in mind, I gentlemen, that when I met Dlr. Harding, near the Post-office, and walked with him to Exchange-street, 1 had a cigar in constant • use. Now it is remarkable, in a case where testimony is so mate . vial, that neither Gardiner nor Nightingale have described the per . son applying km the letter, as smoking at the window of the Past- I office. This omission is rather singular, because 1 never was with : out the cigar from the time I lett Mr. Handing, until I was a ppre. !tended by Gardiner. That 1 declare to you, gentlemen, . lento tact ; and, consequently, forms another ground of suspicion , I us to the accuracy of the evidence of Gardiner. He must have seen • the cigar, and Nightingale might have seen or smelt it at the a dow. Both tae, however, Went upon that point. Besides, it ~G, tem tb i n Tr;