The National Register.
London, England, 1819-01-17 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL itEGMTIL

lby Wunesi soon atter wrote the name of
coats" on it. as the prisoner wa, like a person of
that name he knew. lie wrote this :.:SO for the pur.
pogo of ilentifying the note, which he now did on its
being lievvn him. No such person lives in Nassau
Street.

John Lees, inspector of Bank notes fir upwards of
20 years, is able, frorn his experieNec, to distinguish
botween good and bad notes. The Bank use u pecu-
liar kind of paper for their notes whip Ike is in the
daily habit of seeing. There is a water marl in it
which is in the fabric of the paper. knows tite en-
graving; and the signatures of the different Cle& who

are authorised to wign notes. The notes now sliewn
him ore not genuine notes. They arc not Buuk paper.
but mere imitations of the good ones. The water
mail: in them is put in the paper afterwsr3s. The
engraving is quite different front the Rani. plotes ; the
line in the genuine notes which contains the date, &c.
is printed in the goal notes. not so in the others.
The signature is a titrgery. S mie of the notes arc of
the cline number. the Bank, from some accident,
may have i:,sued two of the same anuther, bat it hos
happened uncommonly seldom, not above three ar four
times within the last 20 years.

James Lambert, Cashier of the Bank, stated that
none but Cashiers are allowed to sign five pound notes
Oa being sliewn the notes now in Court, de declared
the signature purporting to be his was a forgery.
This closed the case fur the prosemtion.
In Lis defence, the prisoner, in a very agitated toile
of voice, said he gave the note to Mr. AntlerAm, but
declared he knew nothing of its being a forged note.
He gave a wrong address, as he was out of a situation.
lie called no witness. s.

Mr. Justice Holroyd charged the Jury; said the
evidence s,f the note being a thrg.al one was uncom-
monly full, and the ciremirtauce of the prisoner giving
a wrtnn addrCE3 was very conclusive against him.
Besides, the singular conduct he pursued in passing so
many other notes was of such a nature as could not
fail to strike any person. The very possession of so
many thrged wiles by a person in his situation, his
passing two within un hour of each, was most suspicious.
How came he to want so much tea, and if he did want
it, why did he nut pay for it with the silver he had pro-
Cured in the last place he was in? The only rational con-
clusion which could be drawn from doing so, was this,
that he knew the notes were all forged, and therefore he
was anxious to dispose of them. Had he been an honest
character, he wouldunquestionably have been abl e to give
an account of them ; but wits it like an honest man to run
away, and leave in Mr. Barclay's shop the 51. note,
without ever coining back to enquire after it? Inte-
grity and honesty never require the mean sulaerfuges
of deceit and earning. The counterfeited notes were
made of different paper, because it was well known
tnat it was a capital felony to have Bank paper in the
possessien of any person but those belonging to the
Bank establishment. Taking all the circumstances
into consideration, it was extraordinary to see how any
doubt could be entertained of kis gailty knowledge.
The case was one of great public interest, particularly
to those in business, and it was equally important to
the prisoner, that, the evidence should be satist:wtory.
The prisoner was in tears, and begged earuesaly fur
mercy from the Court and Jury.
he Jury, without a moment's hesitation, found the
prisoner Guilty—Death.