The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-08 00:00:00

Tins.lliaans.PZEßAOll.

The history of this, a Scotch ;mince, was given ja our
report of the prone dings on it. on the Bth of last month, on
which day, and also on the 18 b of the tame month, wit-
nesses were examined 11l support of the claim of Mr. Conste-
bi• Maxwell, of Yorkshire.
Other witnesses were now examined f r the same claimant
by Mr. Wortley and Mr. Flemming, and cross-examined by
Mr five on behalf of Mr. Malw.ll, of Cer.achati, in fico,
land, who is also a claimant, but has not yet pre s tiled his
petition for the peerage to her Majesty. The testimony of
the witneeses won confined to ancient documents and searches
for sand g document', in order to let in secondary evidinoe
of their content'.
Tl•e ease was aljourned. for takiog further examination,
to the 21st nat.
Taos TRACY PEERAOI.

Sir F Kelly said he spp•ared for Mr. Bourdillsn,wbo was
the agent for the late claimant, David Tracey. He hat
di d some weskit ego, Mr. Bourdillos'a ie.structions rees►rt,
and so did his (Sir F. Helly'sl as counsel in the case; hat
he was at present instructed by Mr. Boureillon to appear
before their lordships and may that durieg the time he w■s
agent for the late element he conducted himselt with the
u•mwat propriety, and he was present at their lordships' bar,
and rooy to answer any questions which their lordships
should he plosed to pot to I rm.
Lord Brougham—ls he not instructed by the new claim-
ant (the son of the 1 at claimant)?
Sir F. IL is now solicitor for the new claimant,
whose petition has been presen•ed to the rrown, and has been
by the crown referred to the ArtorneyHeneral, beors whom
the case rots. He (Sir F. Belly) was not iestructed en that
obits.

Bourdalon, jun , examined by Lerd Broughem, lasi
his 'ether and partner was ahroid, at Ostend, for the he lie fit
of his health. The order to attend their lordships was made
en witness and not en his father, who had gone abroad the
16th of May before their their lordships mode the order. His
father attended their lordships on the investigations that took
plat" In 1847.8, as the solicitor who had the conduct of
the orte. Witness communicated to his father what
took place on the 18th of May ; he was not aware his father
was expected to attend their lordships—he was not in feet in
• state of health to attend. Witness as partner with his
father conducted the late claimant's cue with him in 1848—
he was not concerned in the claim furnished by the late
claimant's father in 183.5 —it was not until 1841 that witness
became connec'ed wish the claim.

Lord Brougham.—You then relied on an entry in •
prayer-book which the house, in 1843, adjudged to be •
forgery. After that you, as the solicitor, was concerned in
the production of a tomb-stone case before the Douse. Wit-
nesses were produced on the part of the crown last August
to show that that was a fabrication, and then their lordships
without coming to a decision in that case gave you time to
brine from America a witness who, it was said, would con-
tradict the witnesses for the crown. Has any person been
sent v.) America to fetch the witnt se ?

_
Mr. Bourdillon, to this and other questions, said •
Capita Cotter was sent. He left England in March
hat. The reason of his not going sooner was because
then was not money enough. There was some
money subscribed by persons for the purpose of es-
tsblishinq this claim. There was about 3,0001, alto-
gethe r collected. Mr. Tracy had been a wine merchant. The
money was subscribed chi. fly in London. There were only
two subscriptions from Dublin. There were a .me in Chelten-
ham.

Lord Brougham, addressing the chairman of the com-
mittee, said he could not help regretting the course that
their lordships had taken last year in letting
this cue stand over, in order to give the late
claimant time to get, a witness from America, for that was a
mere sham, as he suspected at the .ime; and he told his
noble and I- send friend (the Lord Chancellor) that even it
the witness Magennis was present, h s evict ace, whatever
it might be, could not alter the case. Now it was manifest
that a gross fraud ha been committed on the house, with
the hope of thereby obtaining a title, not only a title to 'dig-
nity but also to an estate. Their lordships were now in
volved in a great difficulty and emberraument, because it
appeared clearly that a gloss breach of privilege—as clear a
fraud u was ever perpetrated—has been committed en the
house, and the author of this grossest of all frauds that he
had ever heard of was now dead. It appears that persons in
different parts of the country subunit) d, as if to a joint
stock cimpany, 'peculating on that claim. These rupee,
being assured by the claimant that his case only required
some money to go on with, went to Mr. Bourdillon,
the agent, and he advised them that the claim
was good, and the dupes then sabectibed their
mone to carry on this gross fraud. What he
woul.l propose to their lordships is that this evident,—
this most extraordinary and important evidence now Wien
he printed, so that their lordships and his nob's and learned
friends notnow present may apply their minds to it, and let
the consideration of the cuss stand over fur some time, so as
to avoid, in their lordsh ipe indignation, doing anything irregu•
lar, and to vindicate the) house effectually, and show putties
for the future how unsafe it may be for them to engage in
so dangerous a proceeding.
Lord Campbell said he agreed in the course proposed by
his noble and learned friend. Their lordships were placed in
a great difficulty how to come to any oonclunon in this cos
under the c - umstay. es. When the late claimant petitioned
the be maned • 1839

C 2311111 to sums, __- to this house in (as Vie-
coact Tracy), he (Lord Campbell) was then Solicitor-Gene-
ral, and the petition being referred to him, there was laid be-
fore him by the claimant an old prayer book, with an entry
of the year 1732, which, if true, would prove the ernnexion
of the claimant with Judge Tracy, and establish his claim
in fact. He had suspicions of the genuineness of the entry,
but unwilling to t .Ite on himself to decide the
case, he recommended to her Majesty to refer
the case to this house, which was done; and the
house, in 1843, after full examination, aijudged that the
claimant bad not made out his claim (see 10 Clerk and
Fin. 154), being cf opinion that the entry west a forgery.
The Catmint then resorted to the new rase of the tombstone,
OW produced under circumstances of strong su-picion of its
genuineness. After that case had occupied the house for
seem time, a witness was bronchi who proved that the stone
represented as an ancient tombstone, was cut by himself in
1844-5. Some of their lordships having a doubt of that wit-
ness's ability to cut such an inscription, he was put to the
test in an adjoining room, and there he cut the same letters.
it was to be regretted lb t their lords) ips could not deal
with that claimant, on account of his death. Were it sot
tar that he would certainly move the house to refer the ease
M the Attorney-General, to be dealt with by him. He did
not throw out any imputations on Mr. Bourdillon, or on his
father, while he said that this was a ease of the grossest
fraud on the house. Their lordships will have to consider
how in claims to dignities such gross practices shall be pre-
vented.—The motion to print the evidence was then agreed
to, and the committee rase.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.—YESTERDAL
SIITDOM 111 MANDR—Beroar LORD Drill" MR. JUSTICE PATE/SON,
ML JUSTICE COLLUDES, AND MI. JUSTICE Eaus.
SCOTT v. FaIitRIB.—BILL STEALING.

In this ease, which was partly heard on Friday, the let
inst., and fully reported in the Express of the 2nd ing ,
Mr. Butt to-day, on behalf of the plaintiff, followed Mr.
Cockburn, who addressed the court on the former OCC4IIOII,
and in showing cause spinet the rule for a new trial which
had been obtained by Mr. Serjeant Jones, contended that
the mere fact of Mr. Ccekburn, upon the trial of the case,
having read certain letters of a party of the name of Scull
to the jury, and not afterwards calling that person as a
with's., was ;no ground upon which the court would
grant a new trial. It was the intention of Mr.
Cockbara on the trial, when he read the letters of
Haxall to the jury, to have called that individual as a wit-
ness before them ; but, having received an intimation that
he could not be relied upon, his learned friend had not
thought it expedient to put him into the box. The defend-
ant, however, had not been in any way injured by Haxell
not having been cared, because Mr. Cockburn, in his reply
to the jury, most emphatically called upon them to dismiss
from their minds any impression that they might have re.
aired from having heard the levers read, because he had
not called the wrier to prove them. The letters written by
Hush to the plaintiff, Lieut. Scott. stated that his bills had
Sgot into bad hands, but the last of those letters was dated
e 31st of May, 1848, which was before the defendant ever
had the hills in his possession, therefore he could not be
damaged, in the opinion of the jury, by being regarded as
" the bad hands" onto which Haxall stated they had fallen.
With reference to the merits of the ease, it was shown by
the testimony produced at the trial that the defendant
Ferris was aware of the manner in which the bills had been
obtained originally from the plaintiff, by the fact of his
having offered a witness of the name of Abel to let him
" stead in," which meant that he should receive something
for himself If he could persuade Lieutenant Scott to
give three or four hundred pounds to recover bask
tes'en of the bills which had been stolen from
insa7The defendant had no right to complain of Hthall's
letters being read, inasmuch as they only went to prove the
fact which he himself admitted, viz., that the bills had been
filth* first instance stolen from Liens. Scott.
Mr. M. Smith, who was with Mr. Cockburn and Mr.
Batt, contended that is Mr. Justice Coleridge was satisfied
with the verdict upon the general evidence adduced in the
toese, the mere fact of Buell not being examised was not a
sufficient ground for a new tried being granted. The present
ease was one in which a feigned issue had been directed, for
the purpose of satisfying the conscience of the court as to
whether the warrant of attorney given by the plaintiff to the
defendant had been obtained by fraud, and the 'curt
being satisfied upon that point, no immaterial objection, like
the one raised on behalf of the defendant, could be allowed
to forma reason foe granting • new trial. As Mr. Cockburn
and the learned jags who tried the thee had most pertieu-
larly warned the jury against giving any weight to ILmell's
letters, the court would not now assume that the defendant
had been injured by their having been read. It haprened
sometimes that a learned counsel might intend to mil a wit-
ness, and afterwards alter his mind, because he had reason
to believe that that witness was not to be trusted, or had
been tampered with by the other side, bat that would be no
ground for applying for a new trial.