The Press.
London, England, 1857-01-17 00:00:00

THE FORGERY GANG.

THE reexamination of Saward and Anderson took
place on Wednesday at the Mansion-house, when
the principal witnesses for the prosecution were
called to corroborate the statements of Atwell.
Mr. Doe, an ironfouuder of Osborn•street, White-
chapel, deposed that on the night of the 21st of
December his premises were entered, and an iron
safe broken open. He missed eight returned paid
cheques and two blank cheques taken from his
cheque-book, the counterfoils of which he produced.
The cheques for 46/. ns. and 951. produced, bearing
his signature, were not in his handwriting.
The lodging-house keeper of Leman-street, Good-
man's-fields, identified Anderson as the person who,
under the name of Davis, took apartments in her
house last January.
Davis, the porter at the Hing's Arms, deposed to
having been employed by Anderson to get cashed a
cheque for 93/. on Messrs. Barclay.
Elizabeth Evans, the young woman with whom
Atwell lived, identified Seward as having visited
Atwell in her presence early last year, and as having
left behind him a parcel of nine cheques, now iden-
tified by Mr. Ash, an ironmonger of Upper Thames•
street, whose house bad been robbed in February,
1556, as the nine cheques on Messrs. Smith, Payne,
and Co., stolen.
James Humphreys, Chapel-place, Islington, green-
grocer, deposed, he was out of situation in the month
of February, 1856 ; he advertised for a situation,
which was answered in the name of Hammond ; in
consequence of the letter he went to Oakley-crescent,
and saw a person who he believed to be Anderson,
who engaged him, and sent him to the Camden sta-
tion to look after his luggage; when he went back to
Oakley-crescent Anderson sent him with the cheque
for 91/., produced, to Smith, Payne, and Co.'s, where
it was stopped.
Mr. Mullens said he did not propose to call any
other witnesses that day, but asked for a further
remand.
The prisoners were then remanded until Wednes-
day next at half-past twelve.

JUDGMENT in the famous ease of "Swynfen v.
Swynfen " was delivered on Monday at the Court of
Common Pleas. This case, it will be remembered,
was before the court last term, and excited consider-
able attention. The plaintiff, Mrs. Swynfen, claimed
an estate worth about 80,0001., but on the trial her
counsel, Sir F. Thesiger, had, as she said, compro-
mised the matter without her sanction and against
her wish, and she refused to carry oat the terms of
the compromise. An application was made for an
attachment to compel her to carry out the arrange-
ment, and judgment was now given upon the question
whether the rule for an attachment should be made
absolute.
Mr. Justice CROWDER delivered judgment, pre-
facing his argument by an intimation of bis
opinion :--
The attachment is brought against the plaintiff for not
performing an agreement embodied in an order of Itist

59

rins, which has since been made a rule of court. It
seems to me that there is no sufficient proof of a valid
agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to
warrant the order of ni.a prius, and that therefore the rule
of court founded upon it cannot be enforced by attachment.
The plaintiff contended that this agreement was
entered into by her counsel, Sir Frederic Thesiger,
without her consent, and contrary to her instructions.
She refused to perform it. The defendant contended
that-Ist. Sir F. Thesiger had a -pecial authority
to make it on behalf of his client. 2ndly. That even
if he had no special prior authority, the plaintiff had
subsequently ratified the agreement. 3rdly. That,
independently of any special prior authority or subse-
quent ratification, Sir F. Thesiger had an implied
general authority arising from his position as counsel
to bind his client by that agreement. Mr. Justice
Crowder entered at great length into the arguments on
both sides, bat before doing so alluded in the follow-
ing manner to the unjustifiable language used by
the counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Kennedy, against
Sir Frederic Thesiger :
Before adverting to the affidavits, I feel bound to express
my decided reprobation of the unmeasured and unwarrant-
able language uttered by one of the learned counsel who
argued this rule for the plaintiff against Sir F. Thesiger,
directly charging him with the most dishonourable con-
duct. It is hardly necessary to say that such an unjusti-
fiable attack could not have the slightest tendency to injure
the well-established reputation of Sir F. Thesiger in the
minds of this court, nor indeed could have any other effect
than that of damaging its author. It is the unanimous
opinion of the court that Sir F. Thesiger remains entirely
unsullied in this transaction.

The learned judge then proceeded to deliver his
judgment against the rule on three grounds:-Ist.
That Mrs. Swynfen never gave any special autho-
rity to her counsel to make the arrangement
concluded. 2. That nothing in her subsequent pro-
ceedings amounted to a ratification of what had ori-
ginally been done without her consent. 3. That her
counsel, apart from any special authority or subse-
quent ratification, had no general authority, arising
from the mere relation of counsel and client, to com-
promise a cause against the client's wish or without
the client's consent.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said that the opinion of
his brother Crowder left his brother Williams and
himself no doubt as to the propriety of not granting
an attachment in this case. As the validity or inva-
lidity of that agreement could be decided elsewhere,
they were anxious that the case should be as little
prejudiced as possible by anything they might say.
They, therefore, abstained from discussing the matter
further, and they would only notice the affidavits for
the purpose of expressing commiseration for the
state of that man's mind ‘‘ho could find in them any-
thing to the prejudice of that distinguished advocate
Sir F. Thesiger. The rule for an attachment would
therefore be discharged, but inasmuch as no fault
could be imputed to the party making the applica-
tion, they all agreed that it should be discharged
without costs.
Rule discharged.

Mr. }linos, the Coroner for the Duchy of Lancaster,
committed suicide last Friday night in his lodgings
in Crozier-street by swallowing nearly an ounce of
essential oil of almonds. From the evidence adduced
it appeared that the unfortunate gentleman had
suffered severely from a diseased brain and general
depression of spirits. The medical evidence as to
the cause of death was conclusive. Mr. W. J. Payne,
jun., barrister-at-law, of the Temple, said he knew the
deceased very well, and since 1849, in consequence
of his bad state of health, had acted as his deputy in
holding inquests in the Duchy of Lancaster. During
last week witness received two letters from the
deceased, complaining of illness, which he acknow-
ledged on Thursday. Mr. Payne added that about
two years ago Mr. Higgs, while suffering from severe
illness, asked whether witness saw any harm in a
person, whose life was a burden to himself and of no
use to others, shortening his existence. The Coroner
having remarked on the melancholy nature of the
case, paid a well-deserved tribute to Mr. Higgs's
memory, and left the case to the jury, who instantly
found a verdict of " Temporary insanity."

THE LAMBETH MURDER has this week assumed a
new phase from the singular prevarications of the
husband of the woman, Mr-1. Bacon, charged with the
murder. Mr. Bacon, in his statements to the police,
has not been at all consistent, and the discovery up( n
his left hand of a long, deep, straight, fresh cut,
about which be has prevaricated a good deal, has
attached to him a certain nnplettssnt suspicion.
Inspector Young is prosecuting his investigations.

HORACE MONTEFIORE. charged with the forgeries at
the Cape, was discharged on Thursday for want of
evidence to warrant committal. On leaving the court
he was arrested by a sherifrs officer for debt.
A YOUNG TAILOR blew out his brain,- t 4, Bar•
nard's.inn, on Tuesday, because tho
the chambers refused to marry, him.
a verdict of " Temporary insanity ' was

wins at t 4, Bar.
servant girl cf
At the inque.t
. retarn•d.