The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-03 00:00:00

CHARGE OF FORGERY.

Yesterday at 1 o'clock, Frederick George Heatley, other-
wise Captain Heatley, who stands charged with forging
bills of exchange to the amount of about £9,000 in the
whole, with intent to defraud the Marquis of Anglesea, the
Earl of Uxbridge, and the Earl of Westmoreland, was again
brought before the Lord Mayor at the justice room of the
Mansion-house for further examination.
_ _ _

Mr. Lewis, jun., conducted the examination as before,
and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Champ, solicitor.
The evidence, as on file previous occasion, was confined
to the specific charge against the prisoner of forging and
uttering two bills of exchange for £l,OOO and £5OO, within-
tent to defraud the Marquis of Anglesey and the Earl of
Uxbridge; and to render the proceedings of yesterday in-
telligible it is necessary to state that about the 10th Nov.
the prisoner was introduced as Capt. Heatley to Mr. Peters,

a commission agent, at a tavern in Bush-lane, Carino-n-
-street. Mr. Peters, at the request of a Mr. Knights, had
then redeemed a bill of exchange for £l,OOO by the payment
of £lO, which Mr. Wylde, of the Alhambra Palace, had ad-
vanced to the prisoner on pledge of the bill. The bill pur-
ported to be drawn by the Earl of Uxbridge and accepted
by the Marquis of Anglesey. At the interview at the public
house in Bush-lane the prisoner asked Mr. Peters to get the
bill discounted for him, but Mr. Peters told him that it was
informal, in consequence of the drawer's name and endorse-
ment being written on an erasure, and of the stamp being
damaged. The prisoner thereupon said he would get a fresh
bill from Lord Uxbridge, with whom, he said, he was on
thasthhae was also with the Marquis of
t view, and returned later in the
Amnogstl
eienetyi m.
He
intimate
lteefrtmwsi,
day with another bill of exchange for £l,OOO, dated Oct. 17,
payable at Messrs. Hoare's, the bankers, three months after
date, and purporting to be drawn by the Earl of Uxbridge
and accepted by the Marquis of Anglesey. Tha prisoner
said he got it direct from Lord Uxbridge ; but that, too, Mr
Peters declined to get discounted on the ground that the
date was written on an erasure. A few days afterwards he
met the prisoner at a coffeehouse in St. Martin's-le-Grand,
and the latter there and then filled in the two bills of ex-
change now in question for £lOOO and £5OO, and took them
away to be signed by the Marquis of Anglesey and the Earl
of Uxbridge at the Junior United Service Club. The pri-
soner met Peters by appointment at a tavern in the Hay-
market, and there handed him the bills signed " Uxbridge'
as the drawer and "Anglesey" as the acceptor. Suspicion
being excited as to the genuineness of the signatures, the
prisoner was afterwards given into custody, when another
bill was found upon him for £l,OOO, with the names of the
same drawer and acceptor attached.
Yesterday, on the prisoner being brought up, Mr. Lewis
desired to make an explanation with respect to Captain
Massey, said to be " Redan Massey," whom the prisoner had
sought to connect with these forgeries. From the first the
statement of the prisoner in that respect was not for a mo-
ment believed; but Mr. Lewis said it was due to Major
Massey—for such he is, and not a captain--to state that he
left this country in July last with his regiment, the sth
Lancers, and is now serving with it in India. There could
not, therefore, have been the slightest pretence for the pri-
soner saying that Capt. Massey, if he meant thereby Major
Massey, was in any way mixed up with these forgeries,
which purported to have been committed in October last, in
this country, seeing that the Major was in India. The gal-
lant officer's reputation, which in some respects was matter
of history, was of itself sufficient to protect him from such
en imputation; but still he (Mr. Lewis) should be wanting
in his duty if he did not say that, so far as he knew, from
having had to collect information necessary to this prosecu-
tion, it was utterly untrue. With respect to Mr. Peters, the
principal witness in the case, it was due to him to state that
the moment he was convinced that the prisoner had intended
to defraud him he gave information to the police, which had
resulted in the prisoner being brought to justice. He (Mr.
Lewis) did not then intend to go into the charge against the
prisoner of forging the name of the Earl of Westmoreland
to a bill of exchange. It might be thought desirable to do so
on the trial of the prisoner at the Central Criminal Court,
but in that event he should give the prisoner due notice.
Mr. Peters, in cross-examination by Mr. Champ, said he
was a commission agent, and had known the prisoner only
hfoirm in
afewa
pdauybsii,chfroonsmatihneß9uthsho.iffine, Novembercamonlast.Cannon-street.
tr. That
et lie met
was the first interview, and he saw biro later in the same
day at the same publichouse. A few days afterwards he
saw him in Whitecross-street Prison. The signatures
" Anglesey " to the bills produced were not palpably dif-
ferent, but they differed iu 09EUO respects, 1:10 wadergitcvd

the Marquis of Anglesey and the Earl of Uxbridge resided
in London, but he believed what the prisoner had said about
the bills, and he did not think it worth his while to go to
them. He occasionally gave the prisoner a shilling and
half-a-crown while the transaction was pending. The pri-
soner did not appear to be rich, and notwithstanding that
witness did not think it extraordinary that such a man
should have in his possession two bills for £l,OOO and £5OO,
purporting to be drawn and accepted by the Marquis of
Anglesey and the Earl of Uxbridge.
By Mr. Lewis—The prisoner had told him that he was on
most intimate terms with the marquis and the earl, and that
he had actually seen them sign the bills in question.
Sergeant Huggert, in cross-examination, said the prisoner
was in a deplorably destitute condition when ho took him
into custody.
The Marquis of Anglesey was called. He reside
at 48, Albermarle-street. The acceptances to the four bills
produced are certainly not in my handwriting, either one or
other of them, nor were they written by my authority. I
do not know the prisoner. lam not a member of the
Junior United Service Club. Messrs. Hoare are not my
bankers.

By Mr. Champ—The acceptances are not in the least like
my signature.

Mr. Mark William Lyndon, clerk in the Guards, depart-
ment of Messrs Cox, the army agent in Craig's-court, said
the Earl of Uxbridge kept an account with them. He was
well acquainted with the handwriting of the earl, and the
signatures to the endorsement of the bills produced did not
in the least resemble it.

By Mr. Champ—lf anybody had come to him with those
bills he should at once haw pronounced them to be for-
geries.

Mr. Charles Amow, clerk to Messrs. Clack, army agents
in Leicester-square, deposed that Major Massey, known as
" Redan" Massey is now attached to the sth Lancers. The
regiment left Plymouth in July last for Calcutta in the ship
Newcastle, and Major Massey went with it. He was not
in England in October last. •

Mr. Champ addressed the Court for the prisoner. He
submitted that the mere writing the name of a person to a
document did not constitute a forgery, unless it could be
shown there was an intention to defraud. Was it at all
likely that he could have expected, in his then destitute con-
dition, to palm off on a man with the experience of Mr.
Peters two bills for £I,OOO and £5OO, purporting to be signed
by two noblemen within easy reach ? It was as little likely
that Mr. Peters, meeting the prisoner for the first time in
an obscure public house in Bush-lane, could have believed
the bills were genuine, or that he could have got them dis-
counted, the prisoner being then without shoes, and desti-
tute to all appearance. The prisoner was a man with re-
spectable family connexions, but unfortunately he had be-
come addicted to the vice of drunkenness, and to that his
present position was attributable. He did not believe that
any jury would convict the prisoner, considering that there
could have been no intent on his part to defraud Mr. Peters
—and no other person had complained of having been de-
frauded—intent being the very essence of all crime.

Mr. Lewis said that when a man attempted, as the pri-
soner had done, to put into circulation bills to the amount of
£9,000, and asked another .to discount them, he must have
intended to defraud somebody.
_ _ _

Mr. Goodman said in the case of "the Queen v. Beaed,"
8, C. and P. 143, Mr. Justice Coleridge said, " As to the
intent, I must tell you that every man is taken to intend
the natural consequences of his own act. If I present to
you a bill with the name of ray friend upon it, knowing it
to be forged, it would be idle to say that I had no intent to
injure him."

Mr. Champ said that was a very old case, and that there
had been a different decision since.

➢lr. Goodman—lt is standard law in the city of London
at all events,

Mr. Lewis explained that the Marquis of Anglesey and
the Earl of Uxbridge had only been actuated in coming for.
ward in this matter by the desire to prevent a man of whom
they knew nothing going about London to defraud people,
though they could not but regret his destitute condition.
The prisoner, on being cautioned from the bench as to
anything he might say, reserved bis defence.

The Lord Mayor committed him to Nevgate for trial,
and declined, as not being within his power, to entertain an
application by his solicitor to admit him to bail in the
meantime.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Yesterday,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,

After Term Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Special Juries.)

FRANKEL V. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.

According to the opening statement of his counsel, the
plaintiff, then 17 years of age, was in 1861 studying with
a view to qualify himself for a commission in the Royal
Engineers, and in August he set out on a tour partly for
pleasure and partly for the purpose of seeing various large
engineering works in different parts of the country. On
Sept. 2, 1861, he took out a ticket for Manchester at the
defendants' office at Buxton. Passengers were conveyed by
an omnibus from Buxton to Whaleybridge, where they
joined the Manchester train. On this occasion there were
23 passengers and a great deal of luggage on the omnibus.
The mail coach from Matlock to Manchester left Buxton
about the same time as the omnibus, and on getting to a
long and rather steep descent, about two miles from Buxton,
the drivers commenced to race, the omnibus being first.
As ihe mail coach came dangerously near, one of the omni-
bus passengers, fearing there might be a collision, cried out
something to the driver, who then pulled his horses to the
left; the near front wheel, which had been previously on
the hard road, came upon a sift hollow grassy place, at the
side of the road, and caused the omnibus to give a lurch.
The plaintiff and another passenger, seated on the left hand
_ _

side of the driver, were thrown off. The plaintiff was taken
up insensible, and conveyed to the Joddrel Arms Hotel,
Whaleybridgo, kept by a Mrs. Ward. Before this acci-
dent he was strong, active, and healthy, and had every
prospect of a bright and prosperous future, Now he is a
perfect wreck, both in body and mind; he has gradually
become worse, and it is almost certain that he has sustained
an incurable injury of the brain and spinal chord, which
will likely terminate in paralysis. This was supported by
the evidence of the plaintiff himself, whose shattered and
helpless appearance excited great commiseration, and by
that of four of his fellow-passengers. After hearing this
evidence his lordship said it was impossible to doubt the
accuracy of the account given by these witnesses. One
could almost see the scene, and the wonder was that the
whole of the passengers were not killed. Mr. Lush said
that this evidence was very different from the account given
to the railway company, but he would not attempt to resist
it. Evidence to show the extent of the injury was then
adduced. The plaintiff's mother, who was deeply affected,
said that she was a widow, and he was her only child. He
came toFolkestone two days after the accident,of which she
heard nothing. She was sitting listening to some music,
and, that he might not alarm her by too sudden an appear-
ance, he stood in front of her, trying to attract her attention.
His arm was in a sling, his face was elongated, his features
were distorted, and she did not recognise him. Her servant
asked if it were not like her son, but she looked and said,
" Oh, no ; not the least." He stood thus nearly five minutes
till the servant drew attention to the pattern of his trousers,
which was somewhat peculiar, and this made her look closely
at him, and at last she saw something in the expression of his
eyes which enable her to recognise him. She then detailed
the efforts that had been made to effect his cure. She had
taken him from Folkestone to Paris to see an eminent
surgeon, who was said to be unusually successful in the
treatment of injuries caused by a sudden shock, and stsyed
there five or six weeks, but without his receiving any benefit.
She had since tried the best surgeons and physicians in
London, but instead of growing better he seemed rather
worse. He suffered constant pain, his memory was affected,
also his eyesight ; a kind of dimness came over his eyes,
and he fancied he saw people when no one was near; he was
very restless, and often could not sleep ; his mind occasion-
ally wandered, and he was sometimes very excited, and at
other times very depressed. A number of eminent surgeons
corroborated this statement, and said that there was little if
any chance of recovery. On the contrary, there was great
reason to expect that he would become helplessly paralysed
and probably

Mr. Lush addressed the jury in mitigation of damages.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said that this
was one of the moat distressing cases he had ever seen or
known in a court of justice. A young man had gone forth
happy and strong, in the highest health and vigour ; and,
by the recklessness and mad folly of a driver, he had in
one moment become a wreck, and henceforth his life was
a blank. He did not think this was a case in which they
should listen to any arguments in mitigation founded on
the alleged poverty of those on whom the consequences of
their verdict would ultimately fall. Instead of a life of
activity and honour, full of hope and enjoyment, this un-
fortunate young man was doomed for ever to be the miser-
able creature they had seen. Instead of a happy and useful
existence his future life would be a life of suffering, and
misery, and dependence, till in the progress of this disease
the Lord in his mercy might sweep him away. Could his
mother but stifle her maternal instincts, and listen to the
voice of her calmer reason, she probably would prefer that
this accident had ended his days. No money could com-
pensate an injury like this, but it was for them to say what
amount of compensation should be given.
His Lordship spoke with the deepest emotion, and his
utterance was frequently chocked by sobs, which he vainly
endeavoured to repress. When he concluded there was
scarcely a dry eye in the Court. The plaintiff's mother, a
tall and dignified woman, was completely overcome, and
attempted to leave before the verdict was returned, but the
crowd was so great that she had the utmost difficulty in
making ker way out.
' • -

At the request of jury Dr. Hawkesley was recalled,
and al. ked whether the symptoms indicative of injury to
the spinal column were likely to increase, and paralysis
ensue in the lower;extremities. Dr, Hawkesley replied
that looking to the ordinary course of disease in similar
cases, and considering the symptoms in this case, he was of
opinion that the probable result would be a total loss of
power—. first in the lower extremities and eventually in the
arms, and, ultimately eomplete idiocy was very likely to
ensue. He added that it was impossible to say how lone
the patient might survive. It might b? 10 or 1:
it might be more. He would not hazza years, or
any
Afton' mow dclik,erA,S9P' 'Lao of the jury Warmed the

Lord Chief Justice, and said that the jury thought £1,500 a
reasonable sum, and his lordship took this as the verdict and
and left the Court ; but he had hardly done so when another
juryman started up and said that the rest of the jury had
never agreed to this, but that, on the contrary, he and at
least five others thought the verdict should be for £2,000.
Sergeant Shee instantly sent a messenger for his lordship,
who returned into court, and, after some explanation and
discussion, said that as six of the jury stated that they had
not agreed to the verdict, it could not be accepted ; and the
jury accordingly consulted again for a few minutes, and then
returned, through their foreman, a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £2,000.

Mr. Sergeant Shee and Sir George Honyman appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Ashbury for the
defendants.