The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-03-15 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY.

Joseph Oaks was brought up this morning to receive
sentence for the manslaughter of 1.1101114. Armstrong, at
Buckhoni Weston. Mr. Cole produced evidence to show
that the prisoner was not the aggressor, and that he had
borne an excellent character, and his Lordship, as he had
been imprisoned 13 weeks, ordered him to be kept in
custody till the termination of the assizes.
Joseph HiLbs (18) pleaded guilty to having stolen a
medal and a certain cheque or order for the payment
of money, the property of the Postmaster-General, at
Dorchester, on the 18th July, 1838. Four years penal
servitude.

Witluint- Collis (17) pleaded guilty to stealing £lOO
from the dwellintlionsie of Mr. Thomas Fs' imonds, of
ritudland. Twelve calendar months' imprisonment.
The following persons were also brought up to receive
sentence :

IL dims' Dow was mentenoed to four calendar month,'
imprisonment with had labour, for stabbing Samuel
flown, at Sherbome.

_
EWING{ Drake for 000dCalill the birth of her child at
Kington Magna, one week's imprisonment, she haring
already undergone three months' imprisonment.
Peninalt Miller for • &Walt offence at Abbotsbury,
to be kept in custody till the termination of the assizes.
Pa!rid Greta for stealing a pocket book and other
articles from a house at Portland, was sentenced to four
months' imprisonment with bard labour.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TCESDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice Crowder.)

The learne4 Judge took his neat at half-paat ten.)
. .

•
Bennett v. Redwood. —This was an action brought to
recover payment of a promissory note for £lOO, and 5 per
cent interest. The defendant pleaded that the note was
given without consideration. Mr Coleridge appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Kingdon for the defendant.
Mr. Kingdon, for the defendant (on whom the onus
of proof was thrown by his plea). stated that his client
was formerly in business in Dorchester as assistant to a
veterinary surgeon, and the plaintiff then carried on
business as • publican, being landlord of the Royal Oak
Inn. The defendant was anxious to start in business for
himself, thinking there was a good opening in the town,
hut unfortunately he had no capital. The plaintiff was
an intimate friend of his, and several conversations took
place between them as to the means of raising capital,
and ultimately the plaintiff agreed to lend his assistance
on certain conditions, which were embodied in an agree.
intent drawn up by a lawyer's clerk named Escott, now
dead. This agreement was certainly one of the most
extraordinary documents ever penned, for it did not
bind the plaintiff to advance any money to the defen-
dant, but bound the defendant to pay him one-fifth of
the profits of his business. It recited that the plaintiff
had advanced certain money to the defendant (some £8)
or so up to that time), and the defendant bound himself
to carry on business as • veterinary surgeon during all his
life in Dorchester or the neighbourhood, and to pay the
plaintiff one-fifth of his net profits. The plaintiff was
not bound to advance any money unless he liked, and
further not to be liable for any losses or debts incurred
by the defendant. After this agreement was made, the
plaintiff did from time to time advance small sums of
money for the purpose of purchasing horses, hay, corn,
ke., for the partnership business. Shortly afterwards
the plaintiff, not content with this agreement which
gave him one-fifth of the defendant's profitm without
imposing the slightest liability upon him, told the de-
fendant one day that lie must have a promissory note
fruin him as a collateral security for the performance of
the agreement. The defendant, knowing nothing of
I business% at last consented to sign a promissory note
for £lOO, with Spec cent, interest, which was the note
,on which this station was brought. The business was
carried on from 1854 till the present time, when the de-
fendant, in consequence of the advice which his friends
had given him with respect to this improper and impro-
vident rgreeinent, gave notice to the plaintiff to have
the partnership terminated on the 31st Max-eh, 1857.
The accounts of the partnership hall been made up, and
I it appeared that the plaintiff's share—one-fifth—had
amounted to £4O during the first year, LW during the
second, and 1:64 during the last ; so that the plaintiff
now claimed this 1:100 and also the 5 per cent, upon it,
though he had had 40 per cent, 60 iier cent., and 64
per cent already. On the defendant attempting to ter-
minate the agreement the plaintiff applied for the pay-
ment of this promissory note, and brought this action
for its recovery. The defendant's plea was that the
note was merely given as collateral security.
Mr. Justice Crowder: And that the defendant has paid
the plaintiff his one-fifth share—that is all you have got
to prove.
Mr. Coleridge: But the defendant has not paid the
fifth, lie has only paid a part of the first Tear's share.
Mr. Kingdon : He paid 118 out of the £lO, to which
the first year's share amounted.
. . _ . .

The learned Judge observed that that altered the case.
He thought from the learned counsel's statement that
each year's share had been paid. As it had not, it was
quite clear that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount
of his note and interest, deducting the i:3B paid.
Mr. Coleridge: That is all we want.
Mr. Kingdon : My learned friend would be doing •
great service to both parties if he would consent to can-
cel this agreement.
Mr. Justice Crowder said it was certainly& very curious
agreement, and he questioned its legality. He thought
the condition binding the defendant to carry on • certain
business in a certain place during the whole of his life,
would invalidate it.

A verdict was then given for the plaintiff for £77—
being £ll5, principal and interest, mince the £IB paid.
AMC., W. Dore v. Paymer.—Mr. Stock, for the plain-
tiff, stated with some prolixity the circumetances of this
very uninteresting case, which was an action on a run-
ning account between • corn dealer, residing at Mot-
combe, and the executors of Edward ?gluier, the plain-
tiffs brother-in-law. The transactions between the par-
ties began in February 1827, with • loan of £lBO to the
defendant. A promissory note was at first given for this
sum, but afterwards • mortgage deed was executed. In
August of the same year there was • bargain between
the parties for some property, and the defendant became
further indebted £B7. On the 6th of July, 1854, and
again in May, 1856, and April, 1857, the parties came to
a settlement of account'. The plaintiff was examined
to prove his debt, and cross-examined b 7 Mr. Cole to
prove that defendant died very much in debt, and
that there were not sufficient effects. Under the plead-
ings, however, his Lordship held that this defence would
not avail, and that the case was at an end. Judgment for
£I9O 13s. 64. on speciality_ debt, and 1:184 9s. 3d. on pro.
'Mowry notes. Another aillon between the mime parties
was disputed on the ground that defendant did not sign
the note, and had never had • shilling on the promissory
note for £lOO note sued for. Verdict for plaintiff
£lBO. In this case it was proved that interest had
been regularly rid on the note. "It is very odd,
remarked the ju ge," that he didn't recollect he had not
signed the note when he was paying interest. I'll give
execution directly."

LIBEL.
Tom Fry v. William Bryanl—(Bpecial Jury.)—Mr
Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. Stock were counsel for the
plaintiff in this case; and Mr. Slade and Mr. Barstow
for the defendant. The declaration stated that the de-
fendant had written certain libellous words in a letter
concerning the plaintiff, to which defendant pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake said, the plaintiff in this ac-
tion, Mr. TOM Fry, was a respectable young man, son
of a farmer, living in the parish of Iweme, where his
father had been carrying on business as a farmer, occu-
pying • considerable farm, and also some mills, and
renting under • gentleman with whose Dame they would
doubtless be fm.:iliar, Mr. Bowyer Hamer. Defendant
was also a farmer of respectability, occupying • large
farin in the parish, under the same landlord, and the
action was an action of libel, brought against the de-
fendant as the author of a letter imputing immoral and
discreditable conduct to the plaintiff iii this action—such
conduct as would certainly bring him into discredit and
disrepute amonpt his friends, and disparage him in the
good opinion which he was anxious to maintain. He
Was not going to detain them with many remarks on the
nature of this libel, because it was contained in • very
short letter, to which he shouk: presently call attention,
and which he should leave to them. The facts of the
case were very simple and very few: For some time prior
to June last, the plaintiff was engaged to marry a young
widow of good fortune, Mrs. Amelia Foot, the daughter
of. Hrs. J. Good, who was also a widow living in an M-
g parish. It would appear that ill June ISA
!Hrs. Foot, the young widow who was engaged to be
married to Mr. Tom Fry, the plaintiff, had gone to stay
with her uncle Mr. George Good, who lived at Gussage
St. Micluul, and it would seem that on the '2oth of June,
there being at that time Mrs. Foot, Mrs. George Good,
and Mrs. Good present, that on the arrival of the post
• letter mine addressed," Mrs. J. Good, George Good,
Gussage, Cranhorne, Dorset." It would' there-
fore, on the face of it appear to be • letter for Mrs. J.
Good, but addressed to Mr. George Good, whether from
any expectation in the person who wrote it, that her
mother had gone there he could not say. Mrs. Good,
having read the direction, spoke to Mrs. Foot about it.
and said she thought she had better open the letter, and
she did so. It appeared by the er.velope, to have been
posted at Blandford, on the 10th of June, and to have
,
through the Salisbury post-office, and it was as
rig;rol
a
Blandford, June, 1858.
Mr DIII MAD.III,—Excur me for thus addremlug you,
having great respect for yourself and family, remectlng T. F.'s
character. Hk prat, ate character is Infamous, lie keeps • girl
by the name of Russel, at Shroton, and more at lwerne fre-
uututly. U you could hut see wish you could but see for
3 ourself.
roman, yours sincerely,
T. B.

I The handwriting of this was different to the writing
on the envelope. They would probably say that the
I address en the envelope bore no resemblance to the
letter in the inside. 'the initials T. F. were those of
Toni Fry, and it was at once supposed by Mrs. Good,
that they hail reference to the plaintiff, who we, at that
time engaged to be married to Mrs. Foot. tin that Mrs.
Good, having read it, and seeing the contents, and not
knowing whether it was for her or Mrs. J. Good, pas:ed
it to Mrs. Foot, and she on seeing it, of course enter-
tained no doubt that it had reference to Mr. Tout Fry.
One did not wonder that a lady in that mention should
allow suspicion to be awakened in her mind—it easily
found ingress on occasions of that kind, and perhaps not
the less easily, because this young lady happened to be
a widow. She might have been not quite so unsophisti-
cated as a maiden laity; her suspicion was aroused ' • she
had some sort of mistrust, and the consequence had been
that—en'Arely through this matter—this marriage had
been broken off.
The Judge: There is no special damage pleaded.
Mr. Slade: You lay much stress upon that which you
haven't complained of.
Mr. Serjeant Kinglake proceeded to say that the
anonymoun letter was handed over to Mr. George Good,
the uncle, who had an interview with Mr. Tom Fry on
the subject, and that individual—a gentleman of unim-
peachable character as far lie knew—at once took steps
for the puristic of ascertaining, if possible, tl.e author,
mid the result of very great pains and care was to lead
ti A condos that the letter was the handwriting of
the defendant He should call before them not only
persons who had been familiar with the defendant's
handwriting, but" Experts"-I'scientific gentlemen whose
pursuit in life had been to discover forgeries, and
similarities, and they would tell them that there was
scarcely any disguise in this handwriting, and that it
was so similar in its charncter to that of the defendant
that no other opinion could be arrived at than that it
had been relinesi by hint. The learned Serjeant, after
particularising some of the similarities besought than to
hear the case out and not to conic tea hasty conclusion.
The following evidence was then called :
Mrs. Millis Good : I sin the wife of Mr. George
Good, of Gussage, in thin county. 1 bare a niece
named Amelia Foot, she is • widow, aged about four-
and-twenty ' • she was staying at our house in June last,
on a visit, tier mother's name is Mrs. John Good, and
she is married to my husband's brother, and liven at
Piiiiperne, about 4 miles from us. On the I.otlt June,
this letter arrived by post at our house. It is addressed
to "Mrs. J. Good." It was brought to time ; I took it
to Mrs. Foot, and said there Is a letter curiously
directed, I don't know whether it is directed to you or
to me ; shall 1 open it ? she said yes, alit! I did. After
reading the first two or three lines, 1 gave it to Mrs.
Foot, with an apology for opening it: I thought it con-
cerned her from having reference to "T. F.;' we sup-
pmed it alluded to Mr. Tom Fry. He had visited Mrs.
Foot occasionally.
rrosii•examined.—Mr. Fry's mother and defendant's
wife were, we understood, related. I do not know de-
fendant's writing ; I have seen his handwriting, but out
nut well enough acquainted with it to be able to form
a judgment.
Mrs. Amelia Foot: Jam a widow; my mother's name
is Ann Good; her husband's name was John. In June
last I was staying at my uncle's, Mr. George Good's, at
(lineage. At that time Mr. Toni Fry was paying his
addresses to me; I remember the arrival of the post
with that letter. I requested my uncle to make inqui•
ries, and the letter was handed over to him. Crum-
exaluined : I read the letter, and had no doubt the
T. F. meant Tom Fry. There was no legal engagement
between Mr. Fry and myself.
Mr. William Shipp : I aux post-muter of Blandford.
There is the Blandford, post mark on this letter, which
was posted on the 19th of June. The Salisbury post
mark bears date the 20th. It was posted between 11
and 5 in the evening. We should forward the letter
to Wimborne ; there it would be re-sorted to Salisbury.
Mrs. Ann Good: I am the widow of John Good, anti
live at Pimperne. I know Mr. Tout Fry. son of Mr.
Fry, of Iwerne. He banded the letter to me ; I read it
and gave it to him again. I believe the T. F. to refer to
Tom Fry.
Mr. Two Fry: I am the plaintiff in thin action. I
assist my father in managing his fano and his mills. I
hail been paying my addresses to Mrs. Amelia Foot for
about four years. I visited her more than once at
(league in July. Her uncle delivered to ine. I think
on the sth July, an anonymous letter. I took it home,
examined it, and showed it to some friends. 1 took it
to Mrs. John Good Q. Were you under an engage-
ment to Mrs. Fool?—.t. I was paying my addresses to
her.—Q. In consequence of that letter has that been
broken off ?—A. It has.—Mr. Blade: I object to that.—
The Judge: There is no special damage laid.—Mr.
Stook would not proceed further.—Witness continued :
I at once formed the opinion it was written by defen-
dant, and told Mr. Good so. I compared it with the
rate books—the churchwardens' book and the poor-book.
On that I consulted Mr. Atkinson. I was at Blandfuni
market on the 19th day of June, and saw the defendant
at Fllandford on that day. I was there at one, and left
at five, and saw defendant in the interim.
Cross•exatnined :—He is generally there market days.
My impression was at first that It was Mr. 13ryant's
handwriting. He was the only party who ever accused
me of this slander. I was accused by the family. I
don't say he accused me.
Mr. Slade: Why you said so just now.
Witness: I don't mean to nay he accused me, but it
was the talk in his house.—The Judge: Do you mean it
was only in his house you heard it —Witness : That was
the first time I beard it.—Mr. Blade: Havn't you heard
It in different places? A. No, except since the letter I
have been joked about it. His son was one who spoke
to nie about it. It was talked of through his house.
Mr. Blade: Do you mean to say it was the common
talk of the house, "Tom Fry keeps a girl at Shroton."
(lAughter.)—Witness : Yes. I thought it was his
writing directly. I didn't at once tell Mr. Good of it.
Before I sent a lawyer's letter to Mr. Bryant I don't
recollect that I asked any one to ask if he was the
author of this letter. I formed the conclusion, and
then went to any lawyer. Our family and the
defendant's are connected. We are first cousins. My
sisters had frequently passed the evenings at Mrs.
Bryant's.
Its-examined: I heard the slander first from the de-
. fendant'n MAI. I don't know that it was uttered in the
presence of the defendant. There was not a word of
truth in the charge.
Mr. John Fry examined by Sergeant Kinglake : Are
you the father of the last witness.—Witness : I believe
I AUL (Loud laughter.) I rent alarm at I werne outlet
Mr. Boyer, assisted by my son. The defendant did
rent under the same landlord. lam chinchwarden of

the parish, and produce the churchwardens' books for
Lady-day, Is:10. The entries are in Mr. Bryant's hand•
writing. I have two poor's rates in 1852, also in 111:4
handwriting. I was with him when he made one of the
rates, and saw him write. I produce also • letter of 3rd
November, 1855, addressed to Inc by defendant, and
some hula of account. I believe this letter to be the
defendant's handwriting.
Cross-examined.—My wife and defendant are first
cousins. I have not applied for Mr. Bryant's fann for
myself or my son ; my son has applied for it. Q. Have
you hacked your son's application up? A. I don't know
that I have. Question repeated with the lame answer;
at length witness said lie would swear he had not. Did
not tell Mr. Bower he would see the rent paid. When
the farm was to be let, I asked for it, lestwise my son
did, and I went with him. Mr. Slade : What do you
mean by just now telling theme gentlemen you didn't
know! The witness gave his answer in so low a tone
that what he said did not reach us. He said he told Mr.
Bower Bryant had written a letter. Bryant did not
get the notice to quit till September. Q. When did you
tell Mr. Bower Bryant had written the letter! A.
Sometime in July.
Ite-examined.-1 showed the letter to Mr. Bower; lie
read it. I went about the farm after the notice to quit.
Thomas Bowyer Bower, Esq. :—I reside at Iwerne ;
the greater part of the parish belongs to me, and I am a
justice of the peace for the county. Both plaintiff and
defendant last summer had been my tenants for
years, and 1 was well acquainted with both. I
had opportunities every half-year for 12 years of
seeing the hand writing of Bryant. The
letter was brought to me. I examined it and com-
pared it with the church-rate. I thought at the time
it was Mr. Bryant's hand-writing. I formed that opinion
partly on my knowledge of his hand-writing partly on
the comparison. The T. B. struck me particularly.
The same initalo have been put oppo,ite my cottages
in the church-rate. Afterwards I had great doubts,
because Mr. Bryant declared to me he was innocent of
it. I gave him notice to quit partly on this account. I
was very sorry to part with him, he was an excellent
tenant' but Mr. Fry was an older tenant, and he said
he would not live iu the parish with him.
Crosieexamined : Iliad heard before I saw the letter
that Fry charged Bryant. Without the production of
the books, I should have said the writing was similar
to his. Defendant had been in Iwerue 12 years, and was
tenant before for souls years of • farm a few miles off.
Fry and his son applied for the farm. The application
was for the farm for the son. They are nut to have it.
I told them I had left it to Mr. Poole, and had nothing
11110 re to do with it. [The witness handed in receipts in
the defendant's handwriting.]
Mr. Burt: I live at lwerne and know the parties to
this action. I have had frequent opportunities of seeing
the defendant's handwriting. When I first saw it I
thought on the mere inspection of it it was defendant's
—that is my opinion to-day. I have compared it with
the church-rate, and believe it to be in his handwriting.
There is a peculiar dash. The "S D" the " ch" the
" at" all strike me as agreeing with his handwriting.
His " i's" were not dotted. I could find no dots in any
of his books.
Cross-examined: I believe this to be his handwriting.
(The witness pointed out several instances of similarity
in the rate book.] The flourish of the "d" is invariably
Ins noole. I never 1441 V one made in any other way.—
Mr. Slade : Very well, then I'll just trouble you to look
at that book. Look at" Lord Rivers."—Witness: That
appears to be different. Mr. Slade : Look at this notice
and see how many of the " Fs" are dotted. Witness: This
notice was posted after it was said that lie did not dot
his "i's." (Laughter.) [Another paper was handed up,
and witness said one of the "i's" was dotted and one
not.—Mr. Slade : Look at that page, I'll show you
three instances of the "d" not finished as you say.
How is it written ?—Witness: Different to this.
[Other instances were shown, but witness said the " d's"
were made in • different way.] Another washauded
up. Witness: That's not written by him. (Laughter.)
Mr. Joseph May, manager of the National Provincial
Bank at Blandford. said they were more accustomed to
the signatures of parties, than general writing The
defendant formerly banked with him for souie year..
The letter was brought to him with the rate book. He
made a comparison, and according to his judgment he
identified thr writing, without knowing whose it was.
Was particularly struck with the initials "T. B."
Cross-examined : My opinion is fonned in comparison
and not knowledge of his hand-writing. It io 7 or 8
yaars wince he left and went to the rival bank.
Mr. Edward Warren Lamport, one of the masters of
of the Grammar School of Wimborne, said lie had known
the defeudant 14 years, and had been at his bowie.
From comparison with the church-rate book and the
letter, he believed the hand writings to be frte similrs.
The "y " was generally without a bowl. The letter
was in • natural hand, there did not appear to be any
disguise.
The Rev. W. Blennerhanet. vicar of Iwerne, said he
was well acquainted with both parties. 'The writing
in the letter and the rate-book corresponded. Rather
suspected they were by one hand. Cross-examined.—
The defendant is a very respectable man. If his atten-
tion had not been drawn to the comparison, he did not
know that lie should have concluded it to be Mr.
Bryant's handwriting, of which he had seen but very

Mr. Netherclifre, of St. Marlin's Inc, fati-aimilist to
the British Mu ouni. .ail lie act turned his attention to
writing for 40 yearc, sail has been engaged upon
I lebrew and (reek writingx. Was engaged in Ifigrk es
and thivirben lard June, and had given evidence in many
courts—on the last occasion be was examined fur three
hours suits half. (Laughter.) In July lad his anew
thin WM called to the note, and lie comparod it with 4
other documents and found them all alike. The tuin of
the " " was a very singular character. It was like a
Greek IL The capital 3 and other letters are (.eculiar.
The witness handed a glass to the learned judge, who,
after looking through it. said lie had a much better glass
than the svitness—a larger magnifier, but he could we
nothing like what the witness spoke to. The witness
(most patheticall)), " dear !" (Much laughter.)
The witness was asked to explain what he was looking
at, lie replied at the " tf." 111,, said the Judge we've
been looking at " ty." "Oh dear !" again ejacu-
lated the witness, amidst great laughter. He was nut
confining himself to a dngle letter, but to numerous in-
stances, in which he found a correspoudence. The wit-
witness gave a very long account of the coincidence, in
the writing.
In cross-examination, be said he was • fac-similist —a
person who made legal forgeries, Ile received a guinea
for his opinion—a regular retainer, like the learned
counsel. Mr. Slade: but I don't get lade the box.
(Laughter.) Very often, the witness:mid, he wagon the
losing side, become he was retained by persons who
were clearly wrong. Mr. Slade : Well then, they buy
your opinion. Witness: no they don't, I'm too old for
that. (Laughter.)
Mr. Henry Adler, of Hatton Garden, engraver, said
he had been for many years engaged in the exaniination
of handwriting, sometimes for the purpose of detecting
forgeries, and sometimes for the purpose of tracing
y letters. He was examined by the Lords of
the Admiralty in the case of some anonymous letters
ne3t about the Franklin expedition, and he was also in
Hrykrs and Lod!, Dinerhea. He had examined the
letters in this case, with the rate book, and wine bills.
and was of opinion they were written by tile same per-
son. .

Mr. Slade said, agriculture in this county must be ex.
treinely nourishing, otherwise they could hardly suppose
a young fanner like the plaintiff could indulge in the
luxury of a special jury for such a case as this, lie had
no doubt that when his old schoolfellow, Mr. Bower,
came to re-let his farm he would hear this in mind.
!Laughter.) lie really should have thought a young
yeoman would not consider that any grave and serious
reflection had been cast on his character by such a
miserably small libel as this. One thing was very
clear ; it had not done him any mischief, for although his
learned friend, with that hardihood which distinguished
hian, ventured to say that the young widow bad been
lost through this letter, if the match had been broken
off on this account they would have had it on the re-
cord, as a matter of special damage, and his learned
friend would have put it to the jury that he was en.
titled to special compenottion for toeing the charms and
advantages, the comfort and the society of Mrs. Foot.
(A laugh.) Why the wooing had lasted four years, and
at the end of the four years lie did not appear to be a
bit further advanced than at the beginning. (Loud
laughter.) Young ladies might wait, but widows had
no time to lose; and it was not the libel that he kept a
girl (which to some would have been rather the reverse
of disparagement), but the length of the gentleman's
wooing which induced her to to put an cud to so boot-
less a pursuit. (Much laughter.) It was on account of
this young gentleman being rather slack and slow, and
it was an impertinence iu his learned friend to suggest
that it was in consaluenoe of the libel that the match
was broken off. V. ere the yeomen of Dorsetshire so
thin-skinned, that, when they are accused of keeping •
girl at lwerne, they were to summon a special jury of
12 gentlemen, and put them to the trouble and expense
of coining there to try such a trumpery case? These
fac-similists were to be picked up as plentifully as black•
berries--you might buy them, like surveyors, on both
sides ; they told them they were retained like lawyers,
and any one who knew anything about human nature,
would know that when they had once touched the
gold, they would not give an opinion against the views
of their employer. The learned counsel was proceeding
to cite a case which had occurred in the Special Coln-
mission, to show how easily people were mistaken, when
he was stopped by the Judge, on the objection of the
Sergeant, and, contenting himself with the remark that
lie found it in Mr. Baron Alderson's book, he proceeded
to remark on the absence of all motive and object on the
part of the defendant, observing that he should call him
into the box, and he would deny on oath that he knew
anything of the letter, and if after that they found •
verdict for the plaintiff, they could only don> by declar-
ing Mr. Bryant guilty of perjury. The learned gentle-
man then called :

Mr. Bryant, the defendant, who was sworn and said,
I am related to the pleintiff. Last Iweme feast the
sisters of the plaintiff dined and slept at my house. We
were on good terms. On a Sunday morning I received a
letter from Mr. Atkinson, and the next day went and
saw my attorney, at Blandford. That letter is not iny
handwriting, I know nothing about it. The first time I
saw it was when it was shown to me by Mr. Atkinson.
He said the blame was laid to use of the inside, and to
at; son of the outside.
Cross-examined: I was quite astonished at it. I
couldn't say that I had not heard that he kept a girl at
Shroton. I heard it in my house in Whitsun week, I
heard his sisters talking about it. I did not hear it from
my son. I sometimes puts dots to my i's sometimes not.
Q. How is that ? A. Well, I don't know, according as
I feel inclined I suppose. (Laughter.) It don't appear
that! have put many dots in the rate. (A paper handed
up.) I wrote this in October. ; there am strong
dots in that. The 1111011y11101111 letter is too small for my
hand-writing. The T.B. resembles my writing. I *eel
the "could, but I never wrote it. I can't say whether
I always make my dlike this. There aro letteri hors like 4
those I make. I don't always write alike. There is a'
likeness between the "d" and that which I make. I
don't think the 31111.11 are like mine. I do not think
the large It's are so like mine that you can't tell the.
difference. I was at Blasolforci on the 19th June. 1
know a person of the name of Hoskins. I had a carter
of that 111111 C. I never in my life wrote a letter to Lord
Rivers and put the name of Hoskins to it. I never told
Mr. Illennerbassett that the story of Torn Fry was all
true, and I could prove it. The Sergeant : Now
Mr. Blennerhassett is here. Witness: Yes, but he
won't say that. (Laughter.) I told him there ap-
Trared to be something in it, on account of what Miss
y said,
Mrs. Bryant : lam the wife or the defendant. We
were at breakfast when the letter came from Mr.
Atkinson. On the Wednesday week following, I went
to Mr. Atkinson's, and then for the first time I saw the
letter. He said they blamed any husband for the inside
and my son for the outside. I said they must be two
rogues if they did it; I said it evidently had been
copied, it was so much like it; I swear it is not their
handwriting,
('rose-examined : It is written after his style. It is
very close like it, but it would not take a very clever
person to copy it. It is an excellent copy. I think
there could not be a better copy. Any one can see it.
Q. Copied! from what? Witness : Why from the poor'
book no doubt. Those books are in the hands of those
who amused may husband. Q. What Mr. Fry? A. Yes,
Q. Then you think they copied it? A. That's what I
suspect.
--Bryant, son of defendant : I do not believe that to be
in the lianowritin. of my father. The outside is not
mine. I know nothing at all about the letter.
Cross•examined : There is a resemblance ; I call
it slight, and do not airee with my mother in think'
ing it very like. I could not mistake it for Italy father's
handwriting. Some of the letters are like, others are
not.

Samuel Hall, draper's assi.tant, at landlord, and
cousin to Fry, was called, but be could give no material
evidence.

Mr. James Ingrain, farmer, at Shroton, said he had
bad letters from Mr. Bryant, and from them he did
not believe the letter was in his handwriting, T. B.
was very like, but the other was not like his ordinary
handwriting. If it was his lie must have tried to dis.
guise it.
Cruss-exasnined nit has always been my opinion. I
have said it wan a very Close resemblance. 1 might have
said no to Fry. SO far as the character of the baud-
writing goes it is very much alike, but it is much
smeller.

Mr. Edwin Oakley, cashier at the Wilts and Dorset
Bank, said Mr. Bryant kept an acc, t there, and he
WM acquainted with his handwriting. If a cheque were
drawn in that handwriting he should not cash it. There
is a certain likeness.

Crosaezaiiiinc,l: Some of the letters are made like
his (cheque handed up.) The is are not dotted iu this.
I don't call the Co alike, but them is a similitude.
Mr. Slade summed up this evidence, and after allu-
ding to the cheque which had been rummaged up by the
rival bank, which Mr. Bryant left, no doubt, for very
satisfactory reasons, he said he was not going to insult
them by saying there was not a strong resemblance
between the writings. The handwriting was imitated.
He would undertake to may that if Mr. Bryant wrote the
letter, this was the first time that any man had been
found ass enough and fool enough to write such a letter
in his own natural hand—to send it to his cousin, know-
ing that be bad pages and pages of handwriting that he
could easily compare with the letter. He would be like
a wood cock, putting its own head into the springe. It
was not for him to say who wrote the letter. He knew
who had the motive ' • lie knew who sought to avail him-
self of tha man's being turned out of his farm. Who
had dared to instruct his learned friend in the course of
bis Old Bailey cross-examination—(a laugh)—to insinuate
that the defendant had written a letter to Lord Rivers,
and forged the name of Hoskins to it. Hoskins was
dead—his friend thought "head men tell no tales." A
more unworthy suggestion he never heard. Did they
remember also the insinuation that the defendant was
stating falsely what had been said to Mr. Blenner-
hassett ? Mr. Blennerhassett was at hand, why was lie
not put into the boa? Did they remember again the
insinuation that the report was first raised in the house
of defendant? Why it turned out that it was first
mentioned by plaintiff's own sister.
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake replied, and the Judge, in sum-
ming up the evidence, commented on various parts of
the case. He thought the answers given by Mr. Fry
were not frank or candid respecting the defeniLuit's
farm. He did apply for it for his sou, there could be no
doubt about it. That they tried to get the farm was
quite clear. Rzspecting the writing, his lordship re-
marked that the defendant never dotted his i's—that was
quite clear—there was page after page with this omis-
sion. But then the defence got hold of a notice (this
unfortunate piece of paper his lordship called it), in
which the defendant, after this talk shout his not dot-
ting his i's, had written very largely awl dotted his i's
with great diNtinctness. If they thought lie was then
manufacturing a piece of evidence it was certainly very
damaging to MM. His lordship in conclusion, said, it
remained for them to consider whether the evidence of
the defendant could be relied on. He was a farmer,
And moved in a very respectable station of life, and lie
stated on his oath that the writing was not his, and
that lie knew nothing of the affair until he received an
attorney's letter. If, therefore, they considered the
letter was not in his handwriting, they would return a
verdict for the defendant; if, notwithstanding the oath
lie had taken, they were of oh that the letter was
in his handwriting, then they would of course return a
verdict in accordance with their opinions, and fix the
damages at such a sum as the merits of the case de-
manded.

At half-past seven the jury retired to consider their
verdict, and in about ten minutes the foreman an-
nounced that they were not likely speedily to agree;
they were accordingly locked up in the grand jury room,
and at half-psst eight they returned into court and an-
nounced a verdict fur the plaintiff—damages, one
farthing.

WEDNESDAY.

XIIi l'rius business being over, Crown cases were
taken.
- ••

Charles Bishop (41) was charged with stealing a silver
watch from the dwelling of John Paul, at Bridport.
Prisoner was undefended, bat urged in extenuation
drunkenness, and he was not aware how the watch came
into his pocket. Eight months' hard labour.
(forks Fur (25) and Greurge Hun, charged, the former
with stealing, and the latter with receiving, a cheese, the
property of Luke Groves, at l)oreliester. Mr. Compton
prosecuted, arid Mr. Vole defended. The jury acquitted
Holt. Fox pleaded guilty, and a previous conviction
being proved against him he was sentenced to ten
calendar months' hard labour.

IVIIB charged with anther:ling money from
his employer, Matthew Paull, of Burdock. Mr.
Ffooks pro,ecuted. Prisoner was charged on an indict-
ment containing three counts, on one of which he was
acquitted on Tuesday. ile was now charged with
receiving ti liii. from John tiymes and not accounting
for the same. The jury found him guilty on this count,
and he was sencenoed to ten months' hard labour.

(Before Mr. Justice CROWDER.)
Ambrose lidless was indicted for feloniously setting
fire to a stack of barley, the property of Mr L. Andrews,
of Okeford Fitzpaine. Mr. Stock prosecuted, and Mr.
Edwards defended. Prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Between one and two o'clock on the 24th of last Novem-
ber, prisoner came on horseback to Mr. Andrews, and
informed him that his barley rick was on fire. He
went to the spot, and found the stack nearly consumed.
Prisoner hod been seen by a fanner named Robmis,
on the road leading from Okeford to Ildchalwell. At
that time the rick was not on fire. Ile lust sight of the
prisoner about two minutes, and when he again saw
him the rick was blazing. Thomas l'errick said he saw
the prismier running away from the direction of the
rick. There was no evidence to prove that he coin.
nutted the offence, the jury therefore returned a verdict
of Not
(Before Mr. Baron WsTsos.)

The case of JaIIICJ Th 4111«,, of Sturininster, who stunts
charged with co 1111 l iitting an unnatural crime at Belchal-
well, is postponed until the Midsummer assize. the
chief witness having met with a serious accident, which
incapaciated him twin attending, in order to give evi-
dence. His Lordship said an application had been made
for hail ; but he could not grant it, as the offence was
of too serious a nature. Hu will therefore reluain in
prison till July nest.