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

CROWN
COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice KEATING.)
SENTENCES.

Ice
of
he

THE WINTER ASSIZES.

Robert Gickson, not in the calender, pleaded guilty to
a charge of bigamy, and was sentenced to twelve months'
imprisonment with hard labour.
John Kelly, not in the calendar, was sentenced to
eight months' imprisonment with hard labour, for hav-
ing committed burglary, to which he bad pleaded guilty.
Dorothy Smithson, surrendered to her bail, and on
being arraigned pleaded guilty to a charge preferred
against her of having, at Blackburn, on the 17th of
October, unlawfully endeavoured to conceal the birth of
a child of which she had been delivered. The prisoner
was sentenced to two calendar months' imprisonment
with hard labour.

THE CHARGE OF FORGERY AGAINST A LIVERPOOL
TEA MERCHANT.

Richard Woodward Powell (26), described in the
calendar as well educated, was placed in the dock to
answer a charge preferred against him, of having, at
Liverpool, on the 17th of May last, feloniously
uttered and put off a. certain forged guarantee for
the payment of £5,000 ; also three bills of exchange
for the payment of money, with intent to defraud,
he well knowing the same to be forged. The first
count was only gone into. The prisoner on enter,
ing the dock was attired in an Inverness wrapper,
which he, in a cool manner, took off and placed upon
the rail of the dock ; he also wore a pair of yellow kid
gloves, and throughout the trial stood in a firm posture,
holding Lis head high, and looking direct g the judge;
with the exception. that tit different portions of the
evidence he #fis flaked to. shed tears, and turn his fchcz
the iVitness-fox, and more espezialiy when. the
ivitnesses were called to pri-fre his previous character.
Mr. J. B. Aspinall appeared for the prosecution; 1%1--
Temple, Q.C., watched tl,- "

on nenalf of Mr. Scott,

and Mr. Brett, Q.C., assisted by Mr. Deighton,
defended the 'prisoner, Mr, Aspinall) lit stating the
Case tot the piiiseeliticiii; 4:did the pi-hi:*f at the liter was
the junior partner of, a. firni of tea Merchants, who up
to recently carried cri business in Literpoot, :tinder the
style of Scott, - Powell, and C 0.,. and the indictment
Charged hiiii with haling forged the signature ,of
guarantee for £5;000, lvhieii purpoitecl to be that of John
Scqt, ;the, father of _the,Prisener's partner: The &Cu-
hient Which thby.alleited,fie lia4 fdigecl the Sigriatiire to
was a guarantee for £5,066 to Messrs. Absalom, Crocker;
and Townsend) wholesale tea merchants in London,
who had for some time supplied the firm with tea.
Previous .to the month of May last there was a con-
siderable balance standing in Messrs. Absalom, Crocker,
and Townsend's books, against Scott, :Powell, and Co.,
Who still requiring further godds *tote intotniiiig the
.tii•byhttoti Of . thh, fain. &Me cotrt?s took
illtirdate!y, eutcl_cd he
DrOsetutori agreeing ti.; teetti. Powell and On.,
with OA on .I:lnditioti that they forwarded them a
Oirentee for the payment of the money. This guaran-
ee was pretended to have been obtnined from Scott's
father, and on the 18th of May last the prosecutors
received a letter in the handwriting of, the prisoner, oh
behalf of the firm, in which was enclosed the gtiii-rinteki
for any sum which,Stfitt; Cot iiiight be Indebted
td them, not eideeditig £5,000, for the next twelve months.
tte should be able to show the circumstances under which
the guarantee was prepared. In cases of this description
it was usually well for counsel to show how the forged
document came into the hands of the parties; but
although it was a very unusual thing
.for persons who
committed acts of this sort,, to let g third person into
the fact, because ,thq iinsAqpd such
bill in this case lie should be able'to
kit, through the medium of the witness Rawlinson, and
the document itself, that it was in their possession. He
would tell theM that he was in the office
4.*. ~n tne 17th
day of May, on which the guarantee purported to- bear
date ; having been called in by the . prisoner's partner,
Scott, and ordered the boy to copy the document,
which he did in the presence of the two partners.
This, the boy would tell theM, was father ditraordirldfb
because he had neVer been allowed td write at hig zrias=
ter's desk before ; Mit; upon, this,,oeCasion,, Stott; wild
no doubt had taken the ,principal 'dart the transaction,,
wias,,standiug .at the fire, and teld the boy to copy it 'at
his desk. The boy, having finished the document, was
requested by Scott to attach his signature, as a witness,
to the original document; but the lad, being astonished
somewhat at his employer's conduct, hesitated some time,
when Scott told him it was all right, whereupon the
lad wrote his name' upon the guarantee: The lad would
also fell them that the prisoner was present at-that time,
and would also state that at the' time he simied the
guarantee he believed Mr. Scott's father's signature was
not at that time attached to the doeument. The
learned gentleman concluded by stating that he would
prove that the prisoner was present at the copying of
the document, and knew what was going on.--EdwardAbsalom was then called and examined. lie stated
that he was the, senior:Mel:Aber of the firm of Absalotn;
rocker; and Townsend, tea
,merchants, 23, )tae-lane,Condon. They.,had had,clealing4 for some time with
the Liverpbbl frill df Scott, Powell, and Co. The
dealings. with them consisted in supplying them with
tea; and in advancing the duty. The duty was paid
eirery alternate month. On the 17th May last they owed
his firm a large amount of money. They were then
requiring further tea. Previous to May they had a
guarantee from Mr. Scott, purporting to bear his
father's signature, which has since also turned out to be
a forgery. In May they applied to his firm for some
more tea, but having an objection to the form of the
former guarantee, he announced to them that they
should require a new one, and forwarded a copy of the
guarantee they wished to have. On the 18th of May
he received the guarantee badki with the ,signature df
John Scott Written iipon. it; Thd lead was in the hand-
tvriting of the prisoner; Tlie Ono litodiiced is it. The
tttter was theilitit in, and read by the clerk of arraigns.
was ,kite'

~• Liverpool, 17th May, 1860.
Miisks. Absalom, Crocker, and Townsend.
Gentlemen,---We beg to enclose you a guarantee signed,
&c., and we hope we may now do business to the mutual
advantage of all parties concerned. We will thank you to
return the other guarantee. Scorr, POWELL & CO.
The guarantee was also read, and purported to bear the
signature of John Scott, Llangollen, and was to the
effect that he would be responsible for any sum which
Scott, Powell, and Co. might contract, not exceeding
£5,000, for twelve months from the date of the forged
document. —Examination resumed : The document,
with the exception of the signature, was prepared 'in
London. On the faith of this guarantee they supplied
them with tea.—Cross-examined by Mr. Brett : We
began to do business with Scott, the prisoner's partner,
about seven years ago. At that time the prisoner was
not in the firm. He became a member of the firm about
three years ago. We had done a considerable business
with Scott before the prisoner joined him. The terms
on which we did business with Scott, Powell, and Co.,
was the same as that done with Mr. Scott. Scott owed
a large amount at the time the prisoner became a
member of the firm. I never visited Liverpool at all
myself. Scott occasionally came to London, and I from
time to time saw him there. I did not see him person-
ally in London in May last, but I believe he was in per-
sonal communication with our firm in that month. I
never saw Mr. Powell before the 17th of May.—William
Edward Rawlinson, a youth 17 years of age, was then
examined. He said—On the 17th of May last I was an
apprentice in the employ of Messrs. Scott, Powell, and
Co., in Pekin-buildings, Harrington-street. I had then
been with them about five months. On the day in
question Mr. Scott called me into his office. When • I
entered I found Mr. Powell was also in the office. Mr.
Scott pointed to a document on the table, at the same
time directing me to copy it. I made -the. ropy upon
ftientVa desk. I had never none coat before.- -rue
document produced is the document I copied.. Mr.
Scott told me to put my name to it. I looked
at him in astonishment, when he said "It's all
right." Cross-examined by Mr. Brett—During, the
time that I was in. Scott, Powell, and Co.'s service
I usually received my instructions from Mr. Scott. Mr.
Powell generally kept the books and did the correspon-
dence. The distance from Mr. Scott's desk to the
prisoner's was about six feet ; but on this occasion, when
Mr. Scott told me to copy the guarantee, he was stand-
ing at the fire. When I went into the room, Mr.
Powell was writing at his desk. I don't remember
whether Mr. Powell left the office while I was copying
the document. I will not undertake to say that he did
not. I cannot swear that Mr. Powell was present when.
Mr. Scott told me to attach my signature to the docu-
ment. When I had copied the paper, I came into my
own office, leaving Mr. Scott in the room. I remained
on the premises, until young Mr. Scott absconded on the
14th of November last.—Re-examined by Mr. Aspinall :
The fire is about seven or eight feet from the desk.—
John Scott was called, and deposed : am-the father of
Mr. Scott, the senior member of the firm of Scott,
- Powell, and Co., which existed in Liveitool. On the
17th of May last I was residing at Llangollen. I have
lived there for upwards of three years. I have two
residences. I was•not in Liverpool, on,the 17th of May.
I cannot say how long it was previous to that that I was
in Liverpool. The name of John Scott, attached to the,
guarantee produced, is not in my handwriting. I never
authorised anybody to write it for me. I never
-signed a guarantee at all for Messrs. Scott, Powell, and
Co., nor was ever applied to to do so.—Cross-examined
by Mr. Brett : I originally put my son into this business.
I am now living upon my means, and have retired from
business. I was formerly a draper in the city of
- Gloucester. I was aware when Powell entered into
partnership with my son. I did not know what Mr.
Powell's father was. I understood when Mr. Powell
entered into the firm with my son, he brought £3,000
with the business. My son occasionally visited me at
Llangollen, and I stayed with him when I was in
Liverpool. It was my house where he stayed at in
Liverpool. It was situated in Chatham-street. A
short time previous to my son absconding, he told me he
was going away for ten or twelve days. lam not
aware, in fact I will swear I don't know that my son
has left the country ; but I understood he went, and
was heard of in London. My son never told me that
the accounts in London were against him. He never
asked me to render them any assistance. There was
never any conversation with me and my son to lead him
to suppose that I would give him assistance. My
son also put £2,000 into the firm.—Laycock, a
detective officer in the borough police, was called,
and stated that on the Ist of December last
the prisoner was given into custody,, and I conse-
quently apprehended him at his office. I charged him
with forging a guarantee upon a firm in London. He
replied, "I had nothing at all to do with it. I cau-
tioned Mr. Scott about it previously." I took him to the
police office. When we got there I searched him, and
found upon him some cheques, £5O or £6O in gold, and
two small tickets. I asked the prisoner what the tickets
referred to, and he said to some luggage at the Lime-
street Railway Station. I went there and obtained three
portmanteaus, which I took to the police station. I did
not show them to the prisoner. I searched them, and
found a large quantity of clothes, a medicine chest, a
case containing two revolvers. In one of the portman-
teaus I found £lOO in gold, in another £lBO, and at the
office I found £270, all in gold, in the safe. Cross-
examined by Mr. Brett : When I apprehended the-
prisoner he was speaking to his attorney, who was in
the office. I said " Are you ready, because I am going
to take you in custody upon a charge of forging a
guarantee upon a firm in London." Mr. Robinson, the
attorney for the prosecution, went down with me when
I apprehended the prisoner. The depositions of the
witness, as taken before the magistrates, were
• then handed to the witness,_ who, after reading
, them, said " I will not now swear - that I
. used the word 'guarantee' when I took him in custody."
(The deposition stated that he swore that he used the
words "forging a bill of credit.") I did not caution
him before I took him in charge. The cheques I found
in the prisoner's possession yere Welsh cheques upon a