Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-17 00:00:00

THE CHARGE ON FORGERY AGAINST A
LIVERPOOL ATTORNEY.

EXTRAORDINAY CASE—COMMITTAL OF THE ACCUSED.—
John &attack, an aaorney, of this town, who had been
remanded on a charge of having forged a bill of exchange
for £3O 104 6d, on Messrs. Little and Murray, builders,
West Derby, was brought before Mr. Mansfield yesterday,
for further examination. Mr. Aspinall, barrister, instructed
by Mr. Hughes, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Bluck defended the prisoner. The court was crowded with
respectable persons, who came to hear the case. The de-
tails of the former day appeared fully reported in our
paper of this day week. When the prisoner was put to
the bar, Mr. Bluck applied for a further adjournment for a
day or two, on the grouud, he said, that from circumstances
that had come to his edent's knowledge that morning, and
which had only just b sen communicated to him, it appeared
that there were parties in court who were to be examined,
and he (Mr. Bluck) would require additional instruc-
tions for their cross-examination. He was not yet
instructed on that point, because his client was not
aware of the facts until that morning. He would also
require instructions, because he intended to produce
witnesses to rebut the evidence that the parties alluded to
would give. It was not an ordinary case, and for this
reason—the prisoner was au attorney, and it was a ques-
tion of life and death, for if he were found guilty, a double
punishment would be inflicted—namely, itnprisoment, and
he would also be struck off the rolls, which would be death
to him. Some discussion took place, and at last Mr. Mans
field said he would go on with the case ; and then Mr.
Aspinall proceeded to lay the facts before the court. He
said, in the present case, the prisoner was charged with
having forged the acceptance of Messrs. Little and Murray
to a bill of exchange for £3O lOs 6d. That bill was dis-
counted at Bristol, by a person named Coles, through a
Mr. Jaques. Some time ago, Coles came from Aus-
tralia, and at Liverpool he met the prisoner,
and he became acquainted with him, as he had
met some friend or relation of his in Australia. Mr. Coles
settledin Bristol, and some time after he received a letter
from the prisoner, enclosing him a bill for £25 purporting
to be the acceptance of Little and Murray, and requesting
him to discount it for him. (He read the letter containing
the bill.) He (Mr. Coles,) declined to do so, and sent it
back. After that the prisoner forwarded the bill which
formed the present prosecution. The learned counsel
read the letter enclosing the bill, the purport of which was
that the prisoner had two suits for Little and Murray, and
that he was going to London on an inquiry, that Mr.
de Medine of London was his agent there, and the costs
in the case, to which he was entitled were
then upwaids of £3OO. That he wanted money for
counsel, and would take £lO by return, and the rest in a
fortnight. That he had got the bill from Little and
Murray, and that it would be paid in London The bill
was dated the 7th January, at two months. The body of
the bill was drawn by a clerk of Mr. Shattock's, named
Woosay. It was right to mention, that although the bill
was dishonoured in the first instance, !hat Mr Shattock
subsequently paid it, but it was impounded by order of
Mr. Hughes, the attorney for Messrs. Little and Murray,
in the hands of Mr. Jaques at Bristol. These were the
chief features of the case, and to sustain the prosecution,
the following witnesses were called :—Mr. George, Edge-
hill Coles, examined: I an an estate and general agent
at Bristol. Some time ago I met the prisoner in Liverpool,
as I had known tome acquaintance of his in Australia. I
received a letter from him some time after. (Produced
the letter.) This letter related to the discounting of the bill.
I declined to do that bill. _ It was £25, the acceptance of

Little and Murray. I sent it back. On the 9th of January
I received this letter from him. (Letter read, inclosing
the bill as alluded to in the opening.) This is the accspt-
ance for £3O lOs 63. I retained it for some days, and
wrote that I could not get it discounted. On the 16th I
received another letter from him, and I was induced to
apply to my friend, Ms Java, and by making myself
personally liable I got it discounted. It was dishonoured
and I took it up. I received letters from Little and
Murray, and in consequence I retained the bill. The
letters are in his handwriting. I believe the acceptance
to be his writing—l think it is. Cross-examined by Mr.
Bluck : lam not sure it is his signature. I had no other
bill transactions with him. I charged him £3 for the dis-
count, that is 10 per cent. without reference to time.
Sent £lO by return of pmt, and the teat in a fortnight. I
don't know Little and Murray. I don't know if he had
actions pending for them at the time. I came here in
consequence of Little and Morray's letter. I received the
amount 'of the bill less thirteen guineas, but that was
another matter between him and me. He brought an
action against the owners of the Marco Polo for me. I
was paid the bill, and gave a written undertaking
to send it back to him. Why did you not send
it back"? Mr. Shattock being indebted to me in
13 guineas, but he paid me except that ; and not wishing
to carry money about me (over 601. that I got), I procured
a Bank draft for seven days for the money, and when I went
back to Bristol, I told that to Mr. Jaques and he kept the
bill until the Bank draft was due, and in the meantime
the notice to retain the bill came, and it was impounded.
1 received 81. costs on it. He trusted to my honour to
send the bill back, but Mr. Jaques got a letter
from Mr. Hughes to impound the bill. I don't
know if he (Hughes) knew it was paid at the time.
Only through the means of Mr. Little's letter did I know
it was a forgery. I gave the prisoner my promise and
undertaking to send the bill when I got home. I got home
on the following evening. It was a week after when the
letter came to impound the bill. Unavoidably I broke my
promise. Went to Birmingham from Liverpool before
I got the banker's draft, I chose to do so. I broke my
word without the remotest intention of doing so. To Mr.
Aspinall : Having made myself liable to Mr. Jaques, I
charged the prisoner. £3 discount, and then arranged with
Jaques. Mr. John Little (of the firm of Little and Murray)
examined : I have known the prisoner over three years,
and we employed him as our solicitor. This is not our ac-
ceptance, nor was he authorised to sign for us. He had a
reference for us that he alludes to. The acceptance is like
his handwriting. He got his costs when the award was
given. Cress-examined by Mr. Bluck : He was our attorney,
and was engaged in a reference for us. We gave him a hill
for £25 in September. If the action went against
us we would be indebtee to him Don't know if he wanted
money at that time for counsel's fees. When did you first
know of that bill being in existence ? About a fortnight
age, or so. I was very friendly with him, and we went
about in London in the evenings occasionally. I got a
letter from Jaques, and I wrote back, and also wrote to
Mr. Hughes (the attorney). I went to Mr. Shattock's
office rather in a passion when I heard of it, but went
away more pleased. I told him I should write to Bristol,
but not for a day or two. He paid me £3 that day that I
had lent him. Mr. de Medina was the agent in London.
I took two bills from him before that, and one was dis-
honoured at the time. I wrote a letter to Mr. Jaques.
He told me Mr. de Medine owed him a great deal of money,
and unquestionably I believed him. He said he only got
£llO out of £2BO from de Medine. I was in London with
him in January, and !lad given him and the witnesses £26
or ,Z 27. He went to Swansea to get up witnesses. Had no
conversation with him in London about giving him a bill ;
was not exactly in the habit of getting tipsy is London. I
understood Mr. de Medine was spending some money on
our account. Richard Woosey examined : I was clerk with
Mr. Shattock. He brought this bill feamp to me, and desired
me to draw the bill for £3olos 6d on ittle and Murray, at
he expected Mr. Little to come and sign it. I wrote the
bill all but his signature to the draft. I believe the ac-
ceptance " Little and Murray," to be in the prisoner's
handwriting. Cross-examined by Mr. Bluck :I do not
know if Mr. Little called that day. Mr. Little used to
call very often, and was very friendly with him, and
promised to bine, nim a great deal of business. lam sure
the acceptance is in his hand eriting. I did not know I
was to be called till this morning. If the action went
wrong, Mr. Little would be much indebted to him. His
taxed costs on the reference was over £2OO. Mr.
Murray was examined, sun said this acceptance
is not in my handwriting. The prisoner had no
authority to accept the bill for me. Mr. Aspinall said
that was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Bluck
then proceede 1 to address the court for the pri-
soner. He said it was the most cruel and heartl ss
prosecution he had ever witnessed, or heard of, since he
commenced to practice in a police-court. He did not
mean to say that the bill was not a forgery, but the cir-
cumstances were so extraordinary that attended the whole
case, he could not help saying that it was a cruel and
heartless proceeding. Every one connected with the
transaction, save one, felt quite satisfied with the conduct
of the unfortunate prisoner at the bar, and that one was
Mr. Hughes, the attorney for the prosecution. Mr. Coles
was paid the amount, with costs and interest. There was
no harm done to, nor loss sustained by, Little and Murray.
He would call the serious attention of the court to the
whole case and its bearings. Then, in the first place,
Coles comes to Liverpool about the bill, and he gets the
amount, and more, from the prisoner. He puts it
into his pocket, and solemnly promises to return the bill
on his return to Bristol. What did he do? He tells you
ho was afraid to carry money with him, and that he got a
banker's draft for the amount. Where did he get it ? In
Liverpool ? No, he leaves Liverpool, and proceeds to
Birmingham, before he gets that draft; and I ask any
man of common sense, if that was not done forsome pur-
pose? He then goes home, and as he plausibly tells you,
air, he informs Mr. Jaques that he has brought the amount
in a bank draft. Now he had promised solemnly, and a
written undertaking also, to return the bill the moment he
reached home—did he do so ? No, but he allows it to
remain in the hands of Mr. Jaques for five or six days
under pretence that he could not get up because the bank
draft that was to pay the amount was not due. Did any