The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-12-06 00:00:00


two o'clock, and the Prisoner in consequence placed
at the bar.
Mr. Law informed Mr. Justice Bayley that the
Conn.el iii question had not yet arrived in Court.
but that hr was willing, with his Lordship's permis-
sion, to watch the Cause.
Mr. Justice Bin Lev, after remarking on the
gross impropriety of Counsel taking briefs, and
then not ;mending in Court to watch over the
interests of their clients, ordered the case to stand
over for half an hour longer. The Prisoner, he
said, had given briefs to two Counsel, who were
not then in Court ; it would be very hard for him.
therefor*, to take his trial without their assistance;
it was likewise very hard upon others, who were en-
gaged in the trial, that the business in question
should be delayed, in consequence of their non-
attendance.

♦t three o'clock the case was again called on for
trial. The Counsel in the case were not rho) in
Court, and the Attorney for the Prisoner asked for
further delay.
Mr..L.stice BATLEY—" If you employ Counsel
who• will not attend, I cannot help it. The case
most come on."

Afttr some further conversation, in a tone so low
as to be inaudible beyond the table, the case was
again put off.
At a quarter oast four, however, the Learned
Gentlemen made their appearance in the persons
of Messrs. Adolphus and Platt, and the trial pro.
ceerled.
Henry Walker was the first witness called. He
stated that he was • farmer, residing at Enfield,
where the Prisoner had some flour mills. Some
mouths ago he sold the Prisoner some wheat, amount-
ing, with another debt, to 281. 3.. 2d. The Pri-
soner, on the 17th of June. sent him a letter, en-
closing a bill of exchange for 371. 16.. purporting
to be accepted by a Mr. William Mc-ad. The bill
was not at that time endorsed, bnt about a week
afterwatds he saw the Prisoner at Waltham Abbey,
and he then wrote this endorsement upon it—" Mr.
William Mead, Pope's Head.alley." The Prisoner
had in the interim applied to witness for the balance
due upon the bill, but he refused to pay him until
he had made inquiry who the acceptor was. The
Prisoner renewed his application for the balance
at Waltham Abbey, but witness again refused, he
having learned that there was no such person as
M►. Mead in Pope's Head-alley. Upon that occa-
sion he asked the Prisoner who the acceptor web
and the latter said he was a flour-factor in Mark-
lane, and a very good man. When the time at
which the bill became due had nearly arrived, wit.
nese gave it to his son-in-law to present it for pay-
ment. The letter enclosing the bill was in the
hand-writing of the Prisoner. The Prisoner was
not arrested for two mouths after the bill became
due, because the witness did not think the accept-
once was ■ forgery until the Prisoner had deceived
him several times, in not keeping his appointments
to go in search of the acceptor.
Cross-examined.—The bill had been one night
out of his possession, and he only knew the one
produced to be the same by the name on the back
of it. The Prisoner always told him the bill would
be paid ; could not say whether the house in
Pope's Head.alley was occupied by one person or
not. It seemed to be occupied by a notary.
By the Cott IT.—Believed there was a side stair-
case to the house.

Mr. Palmer, son-in-law to the Prosecutor, said,
he presented the bill at No. 2, Pope's Head-alley.
The answer he received was, that Mr. Mead was
not known there at all. The witness did not go np
the stair-case, on the side of which some names
were written, but not one like Mead.
John Adam Elliott, clerk to Mr. Guillanaus, of
No. 2, Pope's Head-alley, knew the different per.
sons who resided in the upper part of the house.—
There was no such person resident there as Mr.
Mead in June last. In consequence of the inquiry
made by Mr. Palmer, the housekeeper was asked
in the presence of witness, if any person by the
name of Mead lived there, and she answered in the
negative.
(;rocs-examined.—Had never inquired if two
persons occupied one set of chambers. Witness
was in the habit of receiving the rents ; but had
never received ony from • person mimed Mead.
The Prisoner said nothing in his defence, but
celled • number of witnesses, who gave him a very
excellent character.
Mr. A DIILTUUS here b►gged to call a Mr. Moore,
of Bishopsgate-street. The bill was handed to wit-
ness, who ►tated that the body of it was written by
himself. He had drawn several bills for the Pri-
soner, but could not tell whether any other person
was present when he drew the one in question. He
had drawn bills for the Prisoner which other persona
had accepted. He did not kuow in whose hand-
westing this acceptance was.
Mt. Justice BAYLEY, in his address to the Jury,
said there were two charges against the Prisoner ;
the one for forging, the other for uttering the bill,
knowing it to be forged. The Jury were assembled
to try offences committed in the county of Middle-
sex, and • question might arise as to whether, if it
were • forgery, that forgery had not been com-
mitted in the City of London, and consequently if
the charge had ended there great difficulty would
have arisen ; but here, if the charge of uttering was
in their opinion bronglit home, it was clear they
were competent to decide on it, the residence of the
Prosecutor bring at Enfield, in Middlesex. After
some further observations the Learned Judge called
the attention of the Jury to the facts that the
Prisoner had not absconded, although he had been
told that Mead was not to be found ; and that he
had never shewn any anxiety to get the bill out of
the Prosecutor's possession.
The Jury retired fur three-quarters of an hour,
and returned with a verdict of Aol Guilty.

We feel gratilledln announcing, that the serious
accusation for a fraud on the revenue, preferred
against the proprietor of a Newapaper, established
in the South of Ireland half a century, having been
fully and rigidly investigated in the proper quarter,
and the inquiry continued during a period of nearly
three weeks—the charge has been pronounced most
unfounded, and totally without support. The ho-
nour, loyalty, and high character of the parties who
have thus stood the fiery ordeal, sod Raaard it with
an accession of the good will and respect of their
acquaintance, are long known and estirOated. The
accusers are to be proceeded against by taw, as we
hear....(Samoders.)