Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-25 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES

CROWN COURT.—YESTERDAY.
[Before Mr. Baron Wwrsort.]
His Lordship took his seat this morning at nine
"o'clock, and immediately pioce2ded to try the following
EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF WILL FORGERY AT

MA.NCIIESTM

Richard Hardy, Joseph Berry (son-in-law of Richard
Hardy), Ruth Berry (daughter of the first prisoner am'
wife of the second), and John Hope (formerly a solicitor),
were indicted for having, at Manchester, on the 18th
April last, forged a will, purporting to be the last will
of one Ann Dean. There were aso counts charging
them with having uttered the forged will, knowing it to
be forged. All the prisoners pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Bliss, Q.C., Attorney-General for the. County
Palatine of Lancaster, Mr. Ellis, Q.C., Solicitor-General
for the Duchy of Lancaster,.and Mr. Ilalker, instructed
by Messrs. Goulden & Swinburne, solicitors, Manchester,
conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Queen, in
right of her Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster. •
.Mr. Pope, instructed by Messrs. Sale, IVorthington, &
Co., of Manchester, appeared for the prisoners.
The deceased, Ann Dean, was of illegitimate descent,
and, under the assumption -that she had died intestate,
-the prosecution was in the name of the Queen.
The case lasted the -whole day. Nineteen witnesses
were examined ; and, though the court sat until nearly
seven o'clock, his lordship had to defer summing up
until this morning.
The following is a brief summary of the case :—The
deceased, Ann Dean, was a woman of industrious habits.
About thirty years ago -she opened a small shop in Pen-
dleton, near Manchester, •with the trifling capital of Is.
61d. By thrifty and -penurious habits sTie was enabled
to extend her business.; so much so, that in 1835 she
became a depositor in -the bank of Messrs. Lloyd, Ent-
wistle, and Co., Manchester. She continued for a
period of twenty years to deposit her savings, and only
once, in 1837, did she draw out any money, and then
only 16s. 6d. The last.deposit she made was in 1853, and
Yip to the present time she th ad accumulated X 538135. 11d.
There arc reasons for supposinc, that she had effected an
insurance on her life for £1,000; but, as her papers
had been interfered with, no confirmation of this
supposition has, so far, been obtained. She
was unmarried, __and ,had no immediate relatives'.
The cellar she occupied served for her business and also

for her residence. The dampness of the cellar appears
to have impaired her health, and she became, in April
last, so unwell from this cause that she decided on
removing. One of the prisoners, Ruth Berry, a distant '
relative, called to see the deceased occasionally, and it
was arranged by them that on the 13th April the de-
ceased should come and lodge at the house of the father
of the said Ruth Berry. The deceased was taken in a
cab with some of her effects, and a neighbour, Mrs.
Fletcher, who had waited 'upon her, accompanied her.
After arriving at Hardy's house the deceased had tea,
and was then put to bed 'very ill. A surgeon was sent
for, who prescribed for her, but she seemed to sink
rapidly. Before she expired, she told Mrs. Fletcher and
another person to give the key of her place to her nearest
relation, Isaac Dcan, a draper, and she also intimated
that she intended to leave him her property. She died
early in the morning of the day after her arrival ; she
was then forty-seven years of age. 'Ruth Berry had
told some of the neighbours that the deceased had
died worth a "good bit of money," which had
been left to her and her mother. One of the neighbours
asked if a will had been left, and she said no. Isaac
Dean came to see the corpse, and he demanded an in-
spection of the boxes belonging to the deceased. No
mention of the will was made. Isaac Dean made ar-
rangements for the funeral. On a second visit he
was then told that the deceased had left a will.
The prisoner, Joseph Berry, went for the boxes
of the deceased in a cart. The deceased's papers were
overhauled, but only by the prisoners. The will was
afterwards produced, and it was stated that the deceased,
feeling the approach of death, gave directions for the
will to be immediately drawn up. This was at about ten
o'clock the night before she expired. It was saidthat she
called fo'r the prisoner Joseph Berry, and told him
where he would find his mother's will, and that he was
to draw out another somewhat like it, bequeathing her
-property to her daughter, Ruth Berry, and that she
-would put her cross to it. This, it was said, was done ;
and that in the hurry Luke ardman, an intemperate
character, was called in to put his name to the paper
as attesting witness, Ruth Berry being the sole execu-
trix. Isaac Dean said he did not believe this story,
and he ordered his solicitor to enter a caveat. A
long dispute ensued between the two parties ;
and the prisoner Hope, and the attesting witness,
Luke • Hardman, were frequently with the two
Berrys; not only at the public-house of the latter, but at
s !veral other public-houses, where it appeared that pens,
ink, and paper were in frequent requisition. Ultimately,
as Isaac Dean could not maintain a legal claim
t, the property on account of the illegitimacy of
the deceased, the caveat was withdrawn. Hard-

nun and the prisoners went to the Probate-office
at Manchester, and there Hardman and Berry took the
oaths that were required to prove the will. Joseph
Berry and his wife went to Lloyd, Entwistle, and Co.'s
bank with the probate on the 23rd June, and the money
of the deceased was withdrawn. Luke Hardman was
seen at the door of the bank giving vent to his
indignation, and afterwards Berry and his wife
were trying to pacify him. Hardman then

in communication with the police.
he and the prisoners had forged a

)at himself
said that

were trying to put him off with £2 78.- 6d. for his
s _3rvices. He stated that at the bank Mrs. Berry had
said she would give him £2O • but he declared that lie
would not take three times £2O. He said that Hope,' who
was formerly a solicitor, and now lived in a :cellar,
had drawn up the will at a public-house called the
Hare and Hounds, and that Mrs. Berry had
prompted him to tell the story about the death-bed will.
Several papers were found in Hope's cellar, among
which was a document purporting to be an indictment
against Berry and his wife for forging a will. At
Hardy's house two documents were found
written in the form of depositions, in
and Luke Berry made a statement of the circumstance
under which it was alleged the will was drawn up.
For the defence Mr. Pope delivered an eloquent
address, occupyinc, upwards of an hour and a-half, in
which he contended that the evidence of the accomplice
Hardman was untrustworthy, and that it had not been
confirmed in any material particular by other witnesses.
In the course of the trial a discussion ensued regard-
ing the part Mrs. Berry had taken in the affair. Mr.
Pope'contended that she acted under the coercion of her
husband, and was, therefore, not responsible. His lord-
ship took the same view of the matte; and this prisoner
was then discharged.

they were

which Birdman

His Lordship then deferred summing up until this
morning, and the jury were.ordered to be accommodated
for the night under the charge of two bailiffs.

-~

NISI PRIUS COURT

YESTERDAY

{Before Mr. Justice HILL and a Special Jury.]
lARTIN (ADMINISTRATRIX) V. THE LANCASHIRE AND

YORKSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY

The plaintiff in this case was the widow of a person
who had been killed by the breaking of a chain, in con-
nection with one of the defendants'

railway iv

and it. was WAR

...ged that the chain in question wa-sunfit
for the work, arid that the plaintiff's husband was killed
finsequence of its imperfect state. Mr. James, Q.C.,
Brett appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
Wilde, Q.C., and Mr. Williams for the defendants.
When the case was called on, the witnesses were not in
ttendance, and after waiting for some time, it was
•eed between the parties that the record should be
'‘drawn, on the same terms as if . the jury had not

begin sworn.

Mr. Wilde asked his lordship to certify for the costs
of the special jt!ry,

The (Jlerk of the court said the

jury would not be

pant.
His lordship said he entertained a strong opinion that
wherever a jury were sworn, they should be paid ; that
had been a rule always acted upon by those to whom he
had been accustomed to look up, and it should be a rule
with him.

F A WALL IN LONDON-ROAD.

IAW AND

pensation for per-
fe by the fall

Injury susl
gefendan

by the plaintiff's w

nes, Q.C., and Mr.
ff's, and Mr. Wilde,

d L appeared f
Mr.

stiff in t

dant. It appeared
Shaw, was an engi-

Dyed uno;
and her a

Jrf and North-western.
They sought to drbecorevseirdefdromat 3Elrd.g.Jea- hill lels,
business, ~,,4, a timber merchant, in an extensive way. of
in this town, compensation for serious in-
juries sustained
uence of the fall in by the plaintiff's wife in conse-
qg of a wall, which belonged to the
defendant, and which surrounded his timber-yard, in
I,olldOn-road, OA the evening of the 20th of Novena-

Yohn;o:

compromise. The receipt was produced. The witness
• denied that, when he called'upon the plaintiff with the
£3O, he told him that Duckworth had been unable to
obtain damages.

The learned judge, in summing up, told the jury that,
if they should be of opinion that the plaintiff gave the
receipt in satisfaction of all claims, and that his signing
the receipt was not obtained by.a 'fraudulent representa-
tion, then they would give their verdict for the de-
fendant; but, if they were satisfied that there had been
such a fraudulent representation, they would return a
verdict for the plaintiff, with such damages as the cir-
cumstances of the case warranted.

The jury, after a few minutes' cons

a verdi"et for the plaintiff—damages

A LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

.EA V. THE PHCENIX LIFE ASST

DIRECTORS

NCE CO/drANT

The plaintiff in this action •was Mr.. John Lea, and
the defendants were the directors of the Phoenix Life
Assurance Company. The action was brought to reco-
ver the sum of £9,344, for breach of agreement, for
salary, and services rendered. The•defendants pleaded
that they made no such agreement, and they further
pleaded that they were a joint-stock company, carrying
on business under a deed of settlement, and that by the
29th section of the act under which their deed of set-
tlement was drawn up, the contract with the plaintiff
was void, as under such act no director was empowered
to enter into an agreement with another director with-
out the sanction of the shareholders. The plaintiff cox-
ducted his own case, and Mr. Wilde, Q.C., and Mr. Mel-
huish appeared for the defendants.

The plaintiff, in stating his case to the jury, said he
was well aware that juries generally had a prejudice
against a man who conducted his own :case ; but circum-
stances, which he could not avoid, had forced upon him
the duty of being his own counsel. The present action
was brought by himself • against the Phoanix Life
Assurance Company, for the breach of an en-
gagement entered

hey enterei

-With him on the 15th of November, 1853. 'The plain-
tiff entered into a lengthened statement relative to his
connexion with life assurance since the year 1850, and
having done so, he detailed the circumstances under
which he entered into an engagement with the plaintiff
in November, 1853. The. terms of the agreement,
which was dated the 15th of November, 1853, were,
firstly, that the plaintiff was to be appointed a director,
and the chairman of the company for five years, at a
salary of £l,OOO a-year, payable quarterly; . secondly,
that he was to have two guineas a-day for travelling ex-

penses for every day on aid' he might be engaged on
behalf of the company out of London; thirdly, that he
was to have a commission of five per cent. on all
business done for the company during the five years ;
fourthly, that lie was to have a per centage on the
surplus income out of the profits ; and, fifthly, that the
assets of the company alone should be liable for the pay-
ment of all the above-named sums. In respect of this
agreement, which the defendants had broken, a large
sum was now due to him, amounting on the whole to
£9,334 19s. 6d. Having entered into the engagement
with the defendants, he at once entered upon his duties,
and became the chairman of the company. In perform-
ing these duties he had no small difficulties to encounter.
He found the company in a disorganised state, and

considerably in deb
he joined the societ

to its bankers
it was found

and short
hat a total

organisation of the board and
that the majority of the di-
rectors were only nominal shareholders; and it having been
agreed that each director should hold at least 500 shares, he
assisted in 'politely chassezing out a number of the old
directors, (laughter), and others were appointed in their
places. From this period, he took the greatest interest in
promoting the prosperity of the company, and, in proof
of it, he might name one instance which occurred in
Gloucestershire. He went on the business of the com-
pany to Gloucester, and f' he met wit),

Jere deb ith a gentleman
named Colonel Brown; and this gentle nau, although he
had made arrangements to insure in another office,
effected an insurance with the Phceuix Company, solely
from his personal regard for him (the plaintiff). It
might appear somewhat egotistical to name this ; but he
felt it due to himself to state the fact. Some time after
the arrangement took effect he removed to Cheltenham,

by agreeMent with the directors, and actively prosecuted
the interests of the company in that locality. He did not,
however, strictly confine his residence to Cheltenham; but
during his stay there he made several visits to Paris and
Brussels, and neg,ociated business engagements with the
company in those capitals. After being so engaged on
behalf of the company for some months, the directors,
on the 19th of June, 1854, by a resolution of the board,

challenged the validity of. his appointment. The,
alleged that he had failed to bring business to the office
and made other complaints of a similar nature. He
remonstrated with them, told them that Rome was not
built in a day, and desired them to have patience with
him; but they refused any further offer of his services,
removed him from the chairmanship of the board, erased
his name from their list of directors, and he was
suddenly, and at once, deprived of a valuablE
source of income, and, from

po3ition

ber last, the wife of the plaintiff, in company with of November, 1853, the day on which he was elected a
another
.person of the name of Mason, was passing member of the board. From the time of Mr. Lea's ap-
down Stafford-street, out of London-road, when the wa.l pointment up to the following June, his attendance at
of the ,defendant's yard suddenly gave way, and she the office was irregular. On one occasi his absence
was buried in a mass of bricks. She was -soon after- caused the directors:considerable uneasiness. I was sent
wards mactricated from the rubbish, and removed to the to look for him,,and,found him an inmateof Whitecross
infirmary. There it was discovered that one of her prison. The directors of the company released the
arms was in such a shattered state that amputation was plaintiff on that occasion. The plaintiff had not repaid
rendered necessary ; her head was also seriously injured, any portion of the 'LSOO advanced to him when I left
and one of her feet was much crushed. The defendant the company's service in 1857. In addition to the £5OO,
put in,a plea that he had already paid £3O, in full satis- he had 500 shares in the company, .on which £1 per
faction and discharge of the injuries -sustained by share was payable. He never paid !anything upon
the plaintiff's wife ; but it was contended on the them.. The 'witness, in continuation, deposed to several
part of the plaintiff that he had •been induced to sums of money -which the plaintiff had received from the
accept the £3O in consequence of the misrepresentations company, as advances, and which he had not repaid.
of a person named M'Alanus, in the service of the de- The plaintiff then tendered himself in evidence. He
fondant, who stated that an action had- een brought by said he executed the agreement on the terms read, and
DuCkworth, and that he was not able to get anything only on condition that the terms were complied with did
from the jury. The plaintiff found that -this was not he consent to 'become a shareholder o. a director. On
the-case—that Duckworth obtained substantial damages the same day the agreement was executed at the board.

of injuries sustameu oy Ilth 15011; anu toe lie 'executed tile eeect of settlement, but it was after the
pililainetsirfe ,ctthe-efore, acting under -competent advice, had board had risen that he executed it. The board paid
instituted the present action. The defendant himself him £5OO in cash, in accordance with the terms, and
Vrepudiated the interference of 3.l‘Manus, and was angry handed over 500 shares to him to enable him to
when he heard of his misrepresentations. raise money for his own use, and also to lend money to
The plaintiff's wife was called, and deposed to the parties to induce them to insure their lives. He took
injuries which she had received. The plaintiff himself that money and those shares, and on the following day
and other witnesses were also examined. he deposited £5OO in a local bank at Cheltenham. He
Mr. Wilde then addressed the jury on behalf of the commenced using the money in loans, many of which
-defendant, and urged that the plaintiff and his wife had loans were very unfortunate. He willingly lent parties
agreed to settle the matter for the sum of £3O. money to enable them to insure their lives, because it
-.lll‘Manus was called on behalf of the defendant, and was to his own interest as well as the general interest of
tasted that, acting on the instructions'of the defendant, the company. With reference to his imprisonment in

he called upon the plaintiff, and offered him £3O in Whitecross-street, he stated that it was for the debt of
settlement of all claims. The plaintiff accepted the another person, for whom he had 'become -surety. He
amount, and gave a receipt in full, accepting £3O as a explained :tke matter at a subsequent meeting of the

board, at ,which he sat as director, and they expressed
their satisfaction with it. On :going to Paris and
Brussels, he did his best to promote the interests of the
company, and if it became a mere question of qttanttein
neer-nit, he could prove that it was not his fault if more
business was not done. At the close :of the plaintiff's
evidence, he stated that that was his case.

Mr. Wilde then rose, on the part of the defendants,
and was proceeding to urge several legal objections to
the validity of the agreement, when

His Lordship said he was of opinion that the agree-
ment was null, because the consent of the body of

to ask the jury whether they were of opinionnthtit the
monies which had been proved to be paid to the plaintiff
were sufficient for his services.; and if the jury should
say the amount was not sufficient, he should nonsuit
the plaintiff, giving him leave to move to enter a verdict
for any sum which the jury might be inclined now to
award him. It was a clear proposition of law, that a
board of directors could not enter into a.eontract with
a brother director so as to make it binding upon the
company, unless the contract -were sanctioned by the
shareholders at a general mectink,,. He would now
submit to the jury whether the plaintiff had not already
received sufficient money for his services.
After a few minutes' consultation, the jury said they

were of opinion that the plaintiff had gecti amply re-
munerated by the payments already made to him. A
verdict was then entered for the defendants.

AR.IISTRON

THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY

COMPANY

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
the value of a box, which was sent from the Burnley
Barracks by the plaintiff, in charge of the defendants'
company, and which was lost. After the hearing of the
case, the jury, by the direction of his lordship, found a
verdict for the defendants, on the ground that no legal
contract had been entered into.

ARMSTRONG

DTMES

This was an action on a bill of exchange. After the
case had been opened, it was agreed to enter a verdict
for the, plaintiff for £317, subject to the decision of the

The court rose a few minutes after five o'clock,

Mr. E. Ormond Hay has been appointed Governor of
St. Helena.

The potatoe crop of 1859 promises to turn out the
Inst crrnwn in Trnland ninon thp onna nld timng_ whnn

the market value of that article Of food ruled from a
shilling to eighteen pence the cwt

IMPORTANT.—A young man in the employ of a Shore-
ditch tobacconist was fined L 5 on Monday, for sending
lucifer matches by the South-Eastern Railway without
marking 'on the package; the nature of their contents.
One of the packages took fire in the train, and was
fortunately discovered by a porter
THE BANQUET TO MR. I

MATHA M.-It is said there

is no doubt that a grand banquet, to celebrate Mr.
Leatham's triumph, will take place in Huddersfield next
month (probably on Thursday, the Bth), when,.in addi-
tion to Mr. Leatham, Mr. John Bright will be present,
and, we hope, Mr. Cobden as well.

OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST A SURGEON.
riled inquest was held on Monday at Pimlico
he death of Mrs. Poole, who died in child-

birth on the 3rd instant, in consequence, as alleged, of
maltreatment by her medical attendant, Mr. Roe, of
Speak-street, St. George's-road, Southwark, a homoeo-
pathic practitioner. The jury found a verdict of man-