The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-12 00:00:00

was wrong, and I ealueqsently went with George Heaney
to the defendant's home to see some vouchers. He asked
me into the private parlour, when I said I did Lot think
some of the vouchers, of which there were a peat number.
were genuine. The defendant produced some vouchers, and
I selected fourteen, which were forgeries. The defendant
said Me would pay me for those that were not genuine, but
he made some excuse for not paying me thee, when I ereiled
him by the collar; he rang the bell, upon which his wife
tame into the room, when be threw the vouchers to
her, telling her to take care of them. We then
came out into the bar parlour, and a disagreement arose.
An action was afterwards brought against me for slander,
but that was settled. The defendant proposed to pay his
own coats and stay all proceedings, if I would glee him an
order for wine. I ordered eighteen dozen of wine, which
came to 271., for which I gave a bill at two months. On the
16th of March I was arrested at the suit of the defendant.
The alleged debt was on an I 0 U for 461. I never gave
any 10 U. The I 0 U was dated 24th of January, 1846.
At that time I was not on terms of intimacy with the defen-
dant. lie was the drawer of a bill of exchange for 121., of
which a Mr. Lovelock was the acceptor, and Lovelock hav-
ing failed to honour it when due, I wrote to the defendant,
and said unless it was paid I must put it into the hands of
my attorney. I was taken to Whitecrotostreet prison.
A fter I was in prison I became a bankrupt.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins—Shortly before
I was arrested, I had disposed of a great portion of my pro-
perty. I sent some to Mr. Booth, who was an auctioneer
in the City. it war worth about 6001. The greater portion
of it I had had by use for some time ; a great part of it
was paid foe. Ido not know Sergeant Brennan. I know
Mr. W. C. Newport ; he is clerk to Mr. Pitcher, attorney to
the 'seises's of my bankruptcy. I did not cause the win-
dows of my shop to be whitewashed after my goods were
moved. 1 did order a paper to be put in my shop-window,
saying a few hands were wanted for a country job. Lew.
ream Levy was the sheriff's officer who arrested me. When
I was arrested. I made us observation about the debt; nor
did I offer to pay any part of the debt. 1 did not on
the way to the lock-up offer to pay 301. down. I
did not make a further offer to pay 351. 1 war
willing to pay for the wine I had had of the defendant, for
which I had given a bill. The defendant said he would not
take a farthing tear than the 461. It was not arranged that
the defendant should come to me the day after I was
arrested to see if I had the money to pay he 461. I know
Mr. Curbs; he was clerk to Alston. Everest and Co., of
Hatton-garden. I did not request him while I was in
Whitecrom-street. prison to go to the defendant and inter-
coke for me to get my discharge. Ido not remember Mr.
Curtis coming beck and saying that the defendant would not
have anything to do with my applioation to be let out of
prison, and thathe left it to his attorney I do remember per-
fectly well Mr. Curtis coming and asking me if I had not
written a letter to a Mr. Hempen directing him not to de-
fend the action which the defendant King had brought
agathat me on this very I 0 U. I remember Mr. King
mooring to me when I was ill in the Infirmary of the prison,
and saying if I would sign a letter admitting that I
owed the 461. he would let me out. I said I did
not know for what I owed this 461. King said
it was for wine and law costs. I said I would not sign such
a letter. 1 mule an usignmenewhile in min n for the bene-
fit of my ereeitors. There was no lead buried behind my
new bulling", to my knowledge. I did riot ask Mr. Hemp-
son to ask Kieg to give me my eischarge, but Mr. Newport
said he was a mend of Mr. King's, and ha would ask him to
discharge me. I said I should be obliged to him. I did not
say that it was better the defendant and mysel should settle
our differences, and that I would withdraw the accusation
I had made, by saying that King's haring sacra that I owed
the 4111. was fate, fur that that charge was untrue. I never
told Mr. Newp,t re that I would write a letter to the defend-
ant t 1 that If. et ; but when I was in prison, Mr. Newport
came and said that he had met the defendant in Holborn,
and the all lee required was an apology. I wrote an Imo.
logs, kr..s Mr. Newport came hack and Pal 1 the defendant
wont! net fictive it. My c, rifficate was suepend'd foe
three years. The I 0 U was called fur, hit was not pro-
duced Wore Mr. Commissioner Fane. I never SSW that I
would stab the def edam. I know a Mr. George Henney.
I have never sent several times to the defendant to let me
out, of prison.
Renzamiewl.—When I was in prison Twee ill with the
gout. I had no interest in my goods which were sold when
I was in prison; they were for the benefit of my estate. King
told ine when I was in prison that the 461. was for wine and
law costs. King came to me when in prison and gave me
somethieg to drink.
Mr. Ifutopson was then called, and proved that he was
formerly clerk to Sir. Chieolm, who had been attorney to the
defendant. Had brought actions against Felthouse for Mr.
King. These actions were afterwards taken out of Mr.
Chisolm's hands. One action was for st. Ao. 4d. for goods
supplied to Mr. Felthouse.
Mr. [else ford stated that he was attorney for tee pone-
cu'or, Mr. Fettle:use, and that he preferred the present in-
dictment Cenducted the case of the prosecutor in the
Court of Bankruptcy. At a certificate meeting, held Sept.
1816, he attended and examined King as to the debt the
bankrupt owed Lim ; he stated that the bankrupt owed him
altogether 11.31. He asked the defendant how he made out
the 461. for which he said be had an I 0 U. The defendant
replied 271. for wine and at for money lent. He then said
that would only meke it 361., when the defendant said dues
was 101. more for money lent. No 10 U was produced
before the commissioner, and he (witness) never taw it till it
was produced on the last trial. A vary long affidavit of the
defendant's was then put in and read, which stated that the
reason the defendant was unprepared with his defence, on
the former trial, was, that one Arnie Hemmen, clerk to
Mr. Richardson, who had been formerly the defendant's
attorney, hod git possession of the I U U ; that he met, on
the day cf t.isl. Amiss Hempen in court, and asked for the
I 0 U ; that liemmon said he would give it up if he was
paid 1/.. which was given him, but he then left the court,
and did not return till after thejury had given their verdict,
when the I 0 U was banded to them, and the jury stated
their opinion that it was a genuine document.
This being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Serjeant
Wilkins objected that there was no cam to go to the jury,
inasmuch as the indictment was only supported by the evi-
dence of the prosecutor, and that was not sufficient, as he
ought to have been corroborated.
Mr. Justice Erle overruled the objection, observing that
if there was ane thing in the point, the defendant would have
the benefit of it hereafter.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins then proceeded to address the jury.
He said, it was not because he had Mien, these objeetloas
that it was to he supposed he had a had case on the merit,
He should prove, by the evidence of respectable and un-
tainted witnesses, that the persecutor yes altogether infa-
mous, and the-. he was not to be billiard on his oath. lie
had perjured himself over and over again in the witneas-
box. His learned friend bad not dared to ask the question
whether the signature to the I 0 U wasters, prosecutor's or not.
He should prove by most respectable witnesses that the
I 0 U was signed by the prosecutor ; and, moreover, he
should show that the document was produced before Mr.
Commissioner Fane, and that he expressed his belief that it
was genuine, Hislearned friend had used the expulsion in
his opening address that it was true the persecutor had not
always cor.dueted himself quite with. propriety. Why, he
bad concealed his goods, eudeavoured to defraud his credi-
tors, whitewashed the windows of his shop, stuck up a
notice that a few hands were wanted for a country job, and
had inteuded to go to New York. It was by the exertion of
the present defendant, Mr. King, that the property con.
sealed by the prosecutor was discovered hence the rancour
with which he regarded him. If the evidence of Felthouse
could be supported, why was not his brother and his ap-
prentice carted ? What was the conduct of the prosecutor
on his wee to the lock .up ? He first offered to pay 301. out
of the 46e, and then 361. If the lOU was a forgery,
why did the prosecutor offer to pay any part of
it ? The learned sergeant concluded a very eloquent speech
by calling on the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty to
the unfounded charge which was now brought against the I
defendant. The following witnerses were then called:
Peter P.alph said lie knew both the prosecutor and defendant
Lived next door to the Hand and Flower, Believed the
prosecutor proswarepa his addreeses to witness's daughter in.
law. When the py actor was arrested he (the witness)
went to the prosecutor's house. The prosecutor was in the
habit of having beer and a small quantity of spirits.—On
cross-exemination this witness said that he thought the
I 0 U was not signed bytehe prosecutor ;it wee not like
Felthouse's signature. l had a hundred of Fathom-o's
eignatnees. Witness had brought an Action against the
defendant for money owi• g, on which occasion the defendant
produced an I 0 U for 3.51., purporting to be given by wit-
ness, which he never knew anything of.
Lawrence Levi. the sheriff's officer, proved arresting the
prosecutor at the Hand and Flower, in the Hammersmith-
road. On the way to the lock-up the prosecutor said he
would endeavour to raise 301. to pay this defendant.
Wm. Curtis said that in March, 1546, he wee clerk to
Marrs. Everest and Co. To the best of his I chef the sign: tore
to the 10 U was in Felthouse's handwriting. Mr. Felt-
bouee requested Lim to go to th • defendant. lie went to I
him and inquired if any terms could be come to in order to
liberate Felthouse. The en fendant refused to hold any conver-
sation with him in the absenceof his attorney. (On the 1 0 U
being handed to the witness he said that be thought since
be last saw it the edges had been made smooth, u if cut with
a pair of scissor'.? On cross-e, am,nation this witness said
that he defended the prosecutor io an action brought against
him by the defendant en this I 0 U for 46/. No particulars
of demand were delivered to him as Mr. Felthou.se's attor-
ney, Ile believed the signature to be Felthouse's, but the
rest was not.
Wee. C. Newport stated that he war clerk to ?dr. Factor,
solicitor to the amignees of Mr. Felthouse. The signature to
the 10 U he believed to be in Felthouse'e handwriting.
Property belonging to the rotate was discovered throueh the
ezertiora of Mr. King; that property realised 3001. Set-
joint Brennan, the police officer, was employed to trace the
propetty. War present at all the extunivations of Mr. Felt.
Weise, sad from his demeanour ton those occasions he would
not believe hint on his oath. Took a letter from the roe.
cator to the defendant, in which is. offtred to withdraw all
imputations against him as regareed the charge of perjury.
The defendant said he would have nothg to do with such a
fellow as the prosecuter. Witness ton the letter hack to
the prosecutor, and be destroyed it.— Cress-examined : Mr.
King was very active in discovering, the :pods concealed by
the prosecutoryelthouse. Believes. the I 0 U was handed
to Mr. Commissioner Fane.—Re-examincd Heard the pro-
secutor say that he would do for the defeadant at the Bank-
ruptcy Court—Serjeant Brennan, of the 0 divition, pond
that he was employed to trace tome property belonging to
Mr. Felthouse's assignees. Witness traced it by Mr. King's
intervention. The party through whom he discovered the
goods wee a man named Smith. He found two vans and a
cart b ad of goods.
Dr. Hunter stated that he lived in Ilartotreet, Blooms-
bury. Wes a member of the College of Surgeons. Be-
lieved the character of King wee unblemished in tile neigh-
bourhood. lie knew the defendant five years ago, when he
• first lived in Hart-street, Bloomsbury.