The Express.
London, England, 1862-03-12 00:00:00

THE EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF FORGERY
AGAINST A SURVEYOR.

Thomas H. J. Brown, architect and surveyor,
was brought op our remand, at Bow-street, charged with
altering his own signature to a cheque for the vain of IL,. so
se to make it appear to be a fictitious signature, with a view
to defraud the Bank of London, and also with altering and
falsifying a great number of documents in order to support
a charge he preferred against William Brittain of forging
the signature to that cheque.
Mr. Mullane, solicitor to the Bankers' Association, pro-
secuted on behalf of the Bank of London; and Mr. Abrams,
of Bow-street, defended the prisoner.
The evidence, which was of a most voluarleous &erecter.
including referenoes to various documents lettered from A
to P, and numbered to M 13, and P 11, was proceeded
with.
It will be remembered that the cheque was alleged by
Brittain to have bees given him by the prisoner in part pay-
ment of a BUM of 201. due to him for money expended sad
work done upon the works of the Metrapolitee Central
Buildings Association, is Bennett's-court, Drorydene, of
which the prisoner was the surveyor. Is order to show that
the cheque was not genuine, and could not have been paid
as part of that sum, the prisoner had endeavoured to show
that the payment of the 201. was made by other masa,
sad for this purpose he had made • statement which be
headed is to the kink, together with the whole series of
papers whisk he was now charged with having frodulently
altered. The written statement referred to was delivered
to Mr. Mullen, as instructions for the prosecution of
Brittaia. It was produced in court by the witness Ed-
meads, sod iii the document marked D.
In handing this document in, Mr. Mulleins °teemed that
he had meowed an intimation from Mr. Abrams that ft
would be objected to, on the ground that it was a con-
fidential communication between attorney and client. He
could only say that be had never beau solicitor to the
prisoner. Upon the prisoner allegiog that the cheque was
fictitious and charging Brittain with the forgery, the Bank
of London determined to prosecute, and he (Mr. Mullen.)
acted for the bank, and not for the prisoner. The proceed-
ings were in no way confidential, or in the nature of pro-
ceedings between attorney and
Mr. Abrams contended that the communication was con.
fidential and privileged, and argued the point at some length
and with much ingenuity ; but
Mr. Cowie decided that the statement should be admitted
in evidence.
The statement was accordingly produced by the witness
Ealmeada, and put in as evidence.
A great number of witnesses, including Brittain, having
been examined,
Mr. Mullins was sworn, notwithstanding Mr. Abrams'
reiterated objection that he was the confidential solici-
tor of Mr. Browq, Mr. Mullins entered into an ela-
borate statement of the results of his microaoopic examina-
tion of the various documents, pointing out that all the
alleged alterations, as indicated by the assertions
of Brittain and other witnesses, were in different
coloured ink from the body of the respective do-
cuments, and in the instances of the several cheques
were actually written over the stamped crossings of the
bank. In the clamp attached to the pretended receipt of
the 16th November "14 " had been altered to 16. The
" Wm." on the paper did not correspond with the " Brit-
tein " on the stamp. A portion of the final "n" in
Brittain over-margined the edge of the stamp, and had been
" patched" and "painted" in an ink different from the
writing. on the stamp, but similar to that on the paper
(alleged to be fictitious). In respect to the cheque A, which
Brows had accused Brittain of forging, the original writing
was similar to the ordinary signature of Brown, lot
' in a more recent ink it had been altered and, " touched
up" to Repair different. Mr. Mullis* produced a fez simile
of the cheque in question, that is to say, a factinule as to the
form of the writing, but exhibiting the form of the original
writing in red ink, and the form of the alleged alterations
in black. He also produced similar diagrams relating to
acne of the other documents.
This completed the came for the prosecution.
Mr. Abrams said he should reserve the defauee.
Mr. Mullis. then applied for the prisoner's committal on
three charges—first for forgery and uttering the cheque
for 71., marked A ; seconMy, 'or forging and uttering the
receipt for 201., marked L ; thirdly, for forging and uttering
the 10 U, marked N, for 181. ; and fourthly, for wilful
and corrupt perjury in his evickmoe before the megistratere
upon the charge of forgery against BMWs, in which be
swore that he had not signed the cheque A. and also deposed
to many matters now demonstrated to be falai.
Upon althea* charges the prisoner was ounniitkel for kid.

[Advertisement. )--HouowAY's Oricnizare AND
PULL —All in All Sudielent.—Whoever has once made trial di
them insatiable needle ran truthfully beer testimony to their
curative end peenerratire power against the AWAY maladis el
winter. The Olneswest rubbed on the ding eels musk low
fiddly ha arrentlnit tech, Irritatton, etragettion. sal ell
ether pielard MIONSIS. ta aksersipi ear three, it
OINK_ _14111111.1. seel *Ow elloswet, the Ointment be
well Mew wet the Ilinsin mil ennogi of Ilie 'beet se
i
Una OAM wlile the PM 4silewlste=menem=it
=itlriallei2rpeN
lKv
ruimi7iWZ it kip. aid Itt, Sie Noma IVE