The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-21 00:00:00

bank in Liverpool. They amounted to. about £6O. I
asked where he had hen living; and he'said at Roby.
He did not tell me that he Was going to remove his
lodgings to Liverpool. It would be about tYeo
when I apprehended the prisoner. ‘Vhett t entered the
office, it presented the tistiat appearance of a place of
business: There was paper lying on .differea desks.
This eoneltided the case,fer the prosecution. Mr: Brett
then rose to address the jury on behalf of the t)risOner:
He commenced a most eloquent speech by tem.menting
upon the nature of the
,Charge prefthed. igaitist the
prisoner, and the opinions that Vide entertained by the
public with reference to his guilt, and afterwards pro-
ceeded to argue upon the facts of the case. The pri-
soner, he said, as they had hoard) was Charged with
having forged the signature. tif 111 t, Bdott, the elder, to
the guarantee which had been read. The only way
in which the prosecution had sought to establish the
charge" of forgery Was by saying that he wrote the 'sig-
nature upon the document, or else that he Was present
at the time that somebody else trete the signattire ; but-
to justify them in iledliii a t erdiet of guilty, he sub-
mitted that they must make out that either he wrote
the signature himself, or that he *as present when
another person wrote it, and thus assisted in the aline,
It was not so essential that they should show his hand-
writing as it was essential that they should show that he
Was present. They were not able to prove to their
satisfaction either that he Wrdte the signature or was
present at the tinie When it was written. The
nett charge that they clime to wits that he afterwards
uttered the forged guarantee with a guilty knowledge.
It was not enough to shoW that he uttered. the note for
the purpose of making use of it, but they must go further
and shoye that at the tinie lie did so lielne3V that 't V" a
a forged doCument. It
to show that he had *as sefiicierdiOrthe;
h,-,a a suspicion that somethi:ng
'was going on wrong on the part of his partner but
they must go the length to prove to their satisfaction
that at the time
IL:, sent the letter he knew it was a
—6..1. They would, no doubt, have ne difficulty in
coming to the conclusion that a forgery had taken place,
but there was no evidence to show that the prisoner
Cornmitted.forgery: lie challenged any of them to lay
hand or! ariy.e:ilderide td shoW teat the sionatUre was
in the,p,risoner's handwriting, ',,,NVny, :they;would see at
time, that *lige the prisoner
.*as living .in, the town,
where there were hundreds of persons who knew his
hendwriting,-,andwho were skilled., in reading-the most.
difficult handwriting, bowpver :much .altered,: vet not
Ode single indiiidiial,had been,enlled to prove that the
handwritinc, on the doctiment was his, and therefore he
assumed that it was not his. It was more likely
that Mr. Scott, who knew his father's signa-
ture, and who was a man of very reserved and
close mind, and while he knew his business was failing,
and that he would very soon be in difficulties, yet he
had never mentioned the circumstance to his father, who
Was a person most likely to assiA and sympathise with
him, that. he (Mr.Sciitt,jurt ) bad obtained the sign-
WhiEh was dttdatied td .the gnarahtee; without
tiakieg the pristine!' acquainted with the fact. , Then,
if they Caine, to the, concluiion that, the batiOriting
upon the docuMent 'Was,not the prisoner's, what evidence
had,theY that be was
,present when
°, the..aignatitre was
attached: , The , witness Rawlinsoin -would not swear
Whether 411 i. ,Powell, was in the office at ,the ,tinie
siglieet tifhtie Wit,deßs; ho, thodglit itliat after
reading the evidence they *mild have no douot that the
signature was not put upon it at the time he signed it.
Therefore, that, part of the case failed, and he assumed
that there was no evidence to prove their satisfaction
that he forged the document ; and if they eatne to atty
conclusion that conclusion must be that somebody :else
forged the document hi his absence. The learned tdiiti-
sel.,*€nt,oh
pto Adintyleutt ,dpOn,tbie Cotintg,titiqing tho
d.detinAnt knowing; it to be forged.' He said he-had adoubt
to say NViiethef there teas Salciefit eiridertee to justify.
them in saying that he uttered it at ail. They found the
'document' in the possession of Mr. Scott, juu.; and the
lICA. to Lumg I,lmy c.•
head of it was in a letter forwarded to
London, which was written by the prisoner. He did
not pretend to deny that the prisoner wrote the letter.
If they, could conic to the conclusion that he put the
document into-the letter, or that he ordered the clerk to
take the letter to the Post-office, or posted it himself, or
sent anybody elle: The jury was composed of men of
business, arid they would know that it was usual fur the
healer pahner &f fat firth toisinlply att;:;?.d to cdrre-
spondenee ; and therefore it 'was easy to suPpose-that
Mr. Scott said to Mr. Powell " Write a letter, as I am
going to send a guarantee to Messrs. Absalom, Crocker,
and Townsend; I have got it from my father." If Mr.
PoWell did write the letter, and placed it upon. Mr.
Scott's desk, then-he apprehended that there was no
uttering in the case at all. Mr. Brett afterwards
addressed the jury at conside'rable length upOn the eii-
deuce, and then called several witnesses who had known
the prisoner from his infancy to prove ,his previous
character.—His lordship then summed up the evidence,
pointing out to the jury the most material points for
their consideration ' • after which, one of the jury, requested
that they might have the real signature of Mr. Scott;
Senior, Which, after Sonie disCuSsion, was complied
With, The jury thin retired. Sin their retnrn, after
,?ti absenee Oil more than ,three • hours, the foreman
announced that they found the prisoner guilty of utter-
ing a certain document, knowing the 'genie to be forged;
at the same time accompanying the verdict with a recom;•
mendation to mercy, on the- ground that they thought
his senior p.irtner had exercised a strong influence over
him.—Mr. Aspinall stated that there was another charge
against' the prisoner, of forging three bills of exchange,
amounting, altogether, to £1,428 19s. 3d. His lordship
said he did not think it necessary to go into that,
as he had been' found guilty. The prisoner was then
asked whether he bad anything to say why the
court should not proceed to pass sentence upon
hint according; to law; but he , Made lid reply.
His Lordship, ih seritending the prisoner, said he had
been convicted of uttering the guarantee df £5,000, well
kno*hig it to have been. forged. ' He had had the
advantage of being tried before a jury composed of men
of business,—men who could appreciate the topics and
arguments which had been so ably andjudiqioucly used
in his defence, but they had found themselves compelled
to come to the conclusion that when he uttered that
guarantee lie knew it to be forged, but they had accom-
panied their verdict by a recommendation to mercy, upon
the ground that he had probably been influenced by
his wily partner, who had absconded. He had also
been given a good character. It appeared previous .to
this charge their was no imputation upon -his character,
and it was certainly a very melancholy thing that a
young person, of the character he had had previous: to
this occurrence, should stand in the dock that day on such -
a charge. He was desirous of giving every considera-
tion of the character the witnesses had given hilt, and
the recommendation of the jury, but he thought it would
not.be consistent with his duty if he was to pass upon
him a light sentence. The prisoner was then sentenced
to seven years' penal servitude.