The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-17 00:00:00

persons who might have been defrauded. It is impossible to may
that it was dote with intention to defraud Peter Bacon. He would
' now go on to the third count, which stated that it was doee with
intent to defraud some person or persons unknown. This of course
is quite inconsistent with the first and second counts, and it would
be well If the opposite Counsel wnuid elect on which they were to
proceed. Could it have been with the intent of defrauding any
person or persons to the jurors unknown ? The persona who would
ultimately be defrauded were the Commissioners, because they act
for the public, in whose name this stock stood ; and therefore if it
went improperly from their name Iwo that of Lliza Foster, it goes
back to them as a matter of course. It can hardly be pretended
that these were persons to the jurors unknown. It one could not
recollect their names there is an Act of Parliament which enume-
rates them. Therefore he submitted that neither of the counts of
the indictment could be supported. There were parties who might
have been defrauded, and who ought to have been mentioned in the
indictment. He had some remarks to make on some parts of the
evidence with a view to its being receivable. lVith respect to the
Feat body of evidence brought to show the nature of the tnsirunient
in question, it struck him as very doubtful whether his Learned
Friend had a right to prove that all these deeds were forgeries.
Mr. Justice GasEbEg remarked that the objection should have
ben taken before.

Mr. listonEtticir said It was never too late, and hoped his client
would have the benefit of the objection in summing up. The whole
of these instruments may have been fabricated, but the indictment
only charged Hiram, with forging a power of attorney. Ile ad-
mitted that they bore upon the question.
Mr. Justice GasE LEE—These Instruments were so much mixed
up with the facts that it was impossible to separate them.
Mr. Barmy HlCK—Several offences have been completely proved.
They have not been satisfied whit putting in the documents. Of-
fences which bear but very slightly on this question have been
proved. Ilia Learned Friend might have done with one..bird of
his witnesses. Ile submitted that they had no right to att in that
way. Even if the case were a.similated to the case of forged notes
the analogy would not bear them out. If the evidence has been
Improper, the parties may afterwards have the benefit or the objec-
tion. All he begged was, that his Lordship would take a note of
what he had now submitted.

Mr. Justice OASELEK said all he could now do, if tiny th:eg
should occur In looking.over the evidence, was to mention it to the
Jury.
Mr. BRODVIIICK—SupnoIe there had been no Counsel, his
Lordship would have acted upon the suggestion of any amidst:
noire. He was quite sure that he would not now be excluded from
making the objection. He therefore submitted that none of this
evidence should be summed up to the Jury, or at least that he
should be allowed to give his reasons why he thought it should not
be summed up. In the cue of uttering forged notes, it may be
proved that other similar notes were uttered at different tunes; but
they are always things of the same kind. In such ame it must
not be proved that bad money was uttered ; it must tot
be proved that country bank notes have been forged. They
have proved the forgery of an affidavit before a Master in Chan.
eery, and a variety of other documents. If the parties did what
was alleged they were amenable to justice. He never knew an
instance where two persons were indicted for forgery, when the
one was standing by without by any act concurring in it. Nothing
was said by Rigaud when signed the paper. It is not
pretended that any thing was done by him, and the party who does
not sign cannot be indicted as a principal. In a case of forgery
that was tried before Baron Graham, all the parties were acting
together, but ore did not see the forgery committed, and suss ac-
quitted. Here the male prisoner was in the same room, but there
was no proof that he co-operated with the young woman in signing
the power in question. Both of them cannot, therefore, be cha.gsd.
lie would make no comment on the other parts of the evidence,
because he relied on this objection to the indictment. In a civil
suit, he added, it would not be permitted to contradict these letters
of administration until they had been repealed, and the Counsel
ought to have proved that they had been so repealed before they
same to accuse the prisoner of forging tnem.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQT7ET replied. The objections of the
Learned Counsel came under two veer distinct heads; the one re-
ferred to the interest of the Bank of England in the transaction—
the other was an objection to the evidence. The Learned Counsel
had waited till the evidence had been gone through before he took
his objection, that lie might see if any thing favourable would
occur. As to the construction of the Act of Parliament, lie would
never hold a different opinion in a Civil from a Criminal Court.
The case had been compared with that of forged notes; hut if any
such analogies were established, it would open for him a very
extensive field, into which he forbore to enter.

Mr. linonitnicir declining to make any further address, the
male prisoner read his defence very rapidly. The female also put
in a written paper.
Mrs. Day was called as a witness, on the part of the prisoners,
but did not appear, and the only witness who did was .Ntro. Baker,
the mother of the female prisoner, whose evidence was of no conse-
quence.
Mr. Justice GASELE E then summed up, and the Jury having
retired for a few minutes, returned a verdict of Not Goi;ty.
The female prisoner was far gone in pregnancy, and 34 during
the whole of the trtai, which lasted till half-put four.