The Express.
London, England, 1859-06-23 00:00:00

[The witness wee bare shown several receipts, some of which
be said bee, the genuine signature of his brother. With ve-
to the others be said he could not speak positively, or
that they were not in the handwriting of the testator.]
Cross-ex.nuinsd. - :11 y brother lived about a mile and a
half from Orford. I have none of his letters. I found no
paper.
in his handwriting except those produced. He_ kept
Hs waa taken very ill in September before big death,
but had been ill long before that time. Ile was subject occa-
sionally to spitting of blood. The whole of his family srs
now in Australia.

--Re---eiit;iied.—My brother had a florid complexion sad
wore large 'bilkers. No one could mistake him for a man
with a sallow complexion.
Mr. Herbert, an attorney employed by the executors to get
poasession of the closes of laud, said that in May, 1835, a
summons woo taken out before the magistrate, but the pro-
ceeding was abandoned when the present plaintiff produced
the egreemsnt of the 7th of May, and said be intended to rely
upon it. The witness then gsvean account of the subsequent
pecamedings in the county court. He did not believe the
signature to the agreement was In Joseph Symonds' hood-
writing, although it was like It. The tignature at the foot
of his will he believed to be hie.

Mr. Robinson, a solicitor at Orford, who was in the habit
of transacting law Mainers for the testator, end he did not
believe the afgnatura to the agreement was in hie hand-
writing.
The Chief Baron said it appeared that theplaintiff had given
up the closes of land to the defendants, and lie therefore did
net see how the action wee maintainable. Perhaps the better
course would be to put an end to the case by the parties
agreeing to withdraw a juror.
Mr. Serjeant Bbee said the plaintiff gave them up in
obedience to a judge. order, which must be obeyed.
The Chief Baron—He might have objected to obey it, and
said he did not mean to giro up his rights, but after being
sued MI the county court and judgment being ermine him,
he signed a paper, giving up poescwioa, according to the
judge's order. lam quits willing to hear the point argued,
I either now or fn nest term, but if the defendants ask me to
I put a plea on the record that he abandoned his notice and
gave up possession, I shah be obliged to consent to do so, and
with ench • plea the plaintiff cannot maintain his action.

Mr. Seriant Shea said he must oppose that coarse. and
he would ask his lordship to allow the :ease to go on, se it In-
volved a charge of forgery, conspiracy, frond, and ierjury, and
effected the character not only of the plaintiff, but of hie wife
and two other persons.
Thetriel then proceeded, and some other witnesses having
been called to speak se to the handwriting,
The learned counsel on each side addressed the jury, and
The Chief Baron summed up, leaving the jury to say
whether the document, upon which the action had been
brought, was in their opinion genuine or not. If they
thought it was signed by the testator, Joseph Symonde, they
would find a verdict for the plaintiff ; but if they did not, the
defendants were entitled to • verdict in their favour. If
they found for the plaintiff he was of opinion that the
dsmeges should be merely nominal, as the plaintiff ty giving
up the land bad abandoned his notice and destroyed his
claim for erubstantial damages against the defendant..
The jury returned • verdict for the plaintiff—damages, Is.