The Express.
London, England, 1861-08-22 00:00:00

ASSIZE INITLLIGENCE.

HONK CHICUITOBOTIION Avorerr 21.

Were ~ Jungles Ilealases sad a Common Jury.)
41•F-Cm P. 1111111PIIIZT.

This was an *dim to mom damages for injuries sus-
tained through the osslipsoo, of defendant's servants.
Mr. timpani awe Xl4. Grady were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Harrisoe and Mr. Humphrey for the defendant.
The facts of the ems, although occupying the court
nearly all day, did not present any very peculiar
features of Merest. The plaintiff in the action
is • labouring man, and the defendant the pro-
prietor of the Hibernia-wharfs, at Loodon-bridge, and
the injums for which the plaintiff sought to recover oc-
curred to his sou, • tine little boy, about ten years of age,
under thew circumstances :—On Monday, the 20th May,
, the plaintiff was at work in the immediate neighbourhood
of the wharf in question, and the child had been sent to
hint with his dinner. The defendant's men were employed
at the warehouses in raising bags of sugar from some wag-
gons into the upper story of the building, and whilst so
doing one of the bags of sugar fell upon the child as he was
passing, and broke one of his thighs acd his leg, crippling
bum for life.
The defence set up was, firstly, that every precaution had
been taken to have the chains sad tackle wed for raising
the goods from the warehouses of a proper strength ; sod
neat, that where the accident took place, which is called
blootagueclose, is not • public thoroughfare, and that the
child bad no business there, and that be bad been spoken to
about coming there by • man emplo od for that purpose.
The jury found for the plaintiff 1001.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIyzorooL, Auo. 21.
- -

C.owx Court —(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
TES CISABSIN AGAINST CAPTAIN WILSON.

After the deepatab of our parcel es Tuesday the jury
were locked tip for several hours, bed is they said they
could not agree bin lordship discharged them.
To-day the prosecutioo preferred two thanes of man-
slaughter and assault spinet the prisoner, but Mr. Aspinall
objected to these proceedings as unfelt. Ultimately his
lordship remanded the prisoner till the December Assizes,
refusing to accept bail for him.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
CRAWS OP POMMY AGAINST A CLERGYMAN.

Jame* Roe, 42, a pntlemanly-looking man, described in
the calendar u a elergyrnan, was iodide(' for feloniously
fong and uttering a warrant or order for the payment of
8,0001., with intent to defraud.
_ .

Mr. Oiffard and Mr. Poised °Deducted the prosecution ;
Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Morgan Lloyd were counsel for the
prisoner. . .

Mr. Giffard, in opening the case to the jury, said that the
charge spinet the prisoner was ow . of every serious character,
and he was sorry to my that the inquiry was rendered still
more painful from the foot that the prisoner wis a clergy -
man of the Church of England, and fining a highly respect.
able position in society. 'The learned counsel used he wee
fearful that it would Ise necessary for him to make • some-
what lengthened statemen t of the circumstances under which
the charge was preferred, but a short narrative of the princi-
pal fare will be sufficient to put the public In posesemos of
the =Aerial point. upon which the prosecution wastonaded.
It appeared that the prisoner wee the nephew of a Mr. Ed-
ward Roe, a Jaime of considerableproperty, rwahliag at Mac-
clesfield. and that this gentleman had two other nephews,
Mr. George Heartvrell Roe, sad Mr. John Orem
Res. Mr. Edward Roe died on the Ist of January, 1859,
haring made a will and codicil on the precious Mak and
30th of December, by which be bequeathed • legacy of
aeot to the primmer, and made his other twe nephews his
residuary legates.. The prisoner, there was no doubt, wen
exceedingly dissatisfied with this will, and he took proceed-
ings in Coal:leery to have it sot aside, on the ground of the
iecompeteire of the testator, and an issue was directed to
be tried by the Court of Chancery. It will be sufficient to
state that in all these proceeding the prisoner was defeated,
end the validity of the will established. Nothing further
appeared to Wive been dune until the middle of
lest year, when the prisoner put forward • letter which he
represented to hare bees wntten by his uncle on the 30th
of Diseembsr, DCA, and is which was inclosed • cheque upon
Messrs. Brocklehurst, his bankers at Macedesfield, far
COON., and he then took further proasedaps in 0111KMilfy
to eadeavour to obtain that sum out of the moist' of the
testator. The case on the part of the prosesatioa was that
this 1 otter was wily an ingenious device ea the part of the
peisooer, and that not only were the letter sad the cheque
forgeries, but that the prisoner had also forged the post-
ale* stamp that apared u pun the envelope of the letter.
The following evidence was adduced for the prosecution :
lb. Fulton, a clerk from the Probate Court at Chester,
produced the will of the deceased Mr. E,lwaid Roe, dated
the 25th of December, 1858, and • codicil to that will,
dated the 39th of the same month.

Endows was then OVID° that the prisoner bad entered a
caveat %Mint the will, sad that proceedings dispatMg iy
validity were oleo taken by • perms named Sale. An hale
win directed to be tried, the result of which was that the
Jury gove a verdict in favour of the will, sod by a sober
quest decree of the Court of Prelude the parties opposing
the will were modernised in eons. The cheque that was
the subject of the prosecution, and an envelope sod letter
that had been hopowided by order of the Court of Chancery
during the promedisgs, weevil.° produced.
The letter was read ; it was an follows :
" Macclesfield, Dec. 30, 1858' .
" Dear James,-1 am being made to do what I don't
want. If I an, gone when you come, me this money for
the Moat of yourself and howdy.
(Signed) " E. Rot."

The cheque in question was written upon the same sheet
of paper.
Mr. P. Wadsworth deponed that he lived at Matto°, near
Mmoisatield, and be had known the deceased several years
before his death. Witness was one of the attesting wit-
nesses to the will and codicil made by the &cared as the
251,11 and :10th December, I• 58. He was very feeble vibes
M executed the codicil on the :10th cif December, and he was
compelled to stretch out the flagon of his right hand with
the other before he could hold a pen. The wittier looked at
the letter above referred to, and aid he was quite sure the
deemed could not have written such • letter on the day it
bore date. The deceased died on the following day.
Drese-examined—The deceased wee quite of sound mi•d
and able to make • will when he executed it. Witness
drew up the will at the request of the deceased. Neither
lb Owego Heartwell Ros nor Mr. John Roe saw the will
taatil after the death of the deceased. The writing of the
cheque and the letter was similar to the handwriting of
the &teemed two or three years before. He only spoke
positively to these not being hie writieg from the fact of
No °octillion at the time. Mr. John Ornie Roe gave wile
ring • draft of the codicil on the 29th of December, and be
took it to the deceased to execute on the following day, and
explained to him the business that he bad come upon, sad
be read the codicil, end said it would do.
Reezatuiried— The deceased alerts used to sign his
Christian name in full, and be never knew him to sign as
" E." Roe.

Mr. Joseph Chapman depnsed that he bad known the de-
ceased seventeen yeani, awl was one of the attesting wit-
nesses to Use will and codicil • and he gave similar evideace
as to the toodilien of the deceased tai the day the codicil
was executed. lie also said he did lint believe that the
letter or the cheque, or the address on the envelops, wore
the handwriting of the demand.