The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-09 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEE. 8.

( Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Lord &INGER and a
Special Jury.)
COYLE V. WOODLEY.

The pleadings were opened by Mr. BARSTOW.
Mr. THESIGER stated the case. It was an action upon
a bill of Exchange for 1501., and had it been an ordinary
case he would have contented himself with proving the
hand- writing; but as they were made aware of the nature
of the defence, as they were aware that the hand-writing
was denied, it was necessary for him to state some of the
details of the case to the Jury. The bill was drawn by a
Mr. Lawrance, who was a brother of Mrs. Woodley, the
defendant. It appeared that Lawrance had been a man
of property, but unfortunately he had fallen into dissipated
habits, and had been often in the habit of being ac-
commodated by his sister with bills of exchange.
It was feared that he had made a bad use of the privilege
and was now out of the country. Now, every one would
feel for a lady called upon improperly to pay for the ex-
travagance and crimes of another, even though a near re-
lation ; and unless he could prove clearly from peculiar cir-
cumstances that it was accepted in the hand-writing of the
defendant, of course the Jury would give her the benefit of
such a feeling. He would show that Mr. Lawrance,
being well acquainted with Mr. Peinter, the son of the
well known glover in Fleet-street, and being in difficul-
ties, in the latter end of August last, asked that young
gentleman to go down to Bath and see his sister, in order to
induce her to accommodate him with her acceptance to the
bill in question. Mr. Peinter went down to Bath
and by Laysrance's directions, went to 18. Pork-street, and
inquired for Mrs. Woodley. He was not acquainted with
the lady, but he was shown up to the drawing• room,
where he saw a lady, who said her name was Mr-. Woodley.
lie gave her a letter from her brother, enclosing the bill ;
at first she refused to accept it, but on Mr. Peinter, ac.
cording to his instructions, saying Lawrance was in diffi-
culties, and the want of money would prove his ruin, she
took the bill into an adjoining room, and in two or three
minutes returned with it accepted, and at the same time
said she hoped it would be honoured when due, and that
she would not be troubled with it. Ail this would be proved
by Mr. Pcintcr, and he would call the banker of the lady who
would prove the hand-writing, but he would do more as he
would prove that the lady resided at the place named by
Mr. ['ender. The bill had been paid to a Mr. Pitcher,
and went from his hands to Sir. Coyle ; there was no
question raised as to his being a holder for a valuable con-
sideration. If he succeeded in proving these facts, he
had no doubt of obtaining the verdict of the jury.
Mr. Pcintcr proved the facts as stated by Mr. Thesiger.
In his cross-examination by Mr. KELLY, he said ho had
not resided with his father fur near two years. His
uncles and father had a variance, he sided with his uncles,
and his father said he had better go to them. They
made him a monthly allowance. lie had never been
charged with purloining any of his father's money while he
served in the shop. He had been in Kingston gaol for one
day, on a charge of stealing a lady's chain. The charge
was by a policeman, and lie was not supported—the Ma-
gistrate at once discharged bins. He bad known Lawrance
for 15 or 16 months, but knew nothing of his going abroad.
He received none of the money, except six pounds for his
expences to Bath.
Mr. Faulkner, a banker, in Bath, said the defendant
dealt with their house. The signature to the bill he be-
lieved to be in her band-writing. He would have paid a
cheque with such a signature.
By a Juryman— Would have paid the bill had it been
presented to him.
Mr. KELLY then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He said it was one of a most serious and distressing nature
to the defendant, who was a lady advanced in years, the
widow of a late attorney-general for St. Kitt's, and but
slenderly provided for. His Learned Friend had dealt too
leniently with the crimes of Lawrance. It was true, he
bad become much involved ; he had for a long time been
assisted by the defendant, even far beyond prudence should
have dictated; however, long before the period in question,
she had:refused further assistance, and the consequences were
soon seen, for it soon became known that he had forged to a
frightful extent upon his sister, upon his solicitor, and
a number of other parties; he had obtained what he could
from his crimes, and fled to America, where probably he
would end his guilty days. The question was not whether
the forgery was a good imitation or not, and therefore he
had good reason to complain of his Learned Friend, for
until that young man Peinter was put into the box, they
had never seen him or heard of his name in any way con-
nected with the case. His father all of them knew to be
not only respectable, but an opulent man ; but the account
the young man gave of his manner of life did not give him
much credit before a jury, especially when he came to give
such an account of a strange story—to tell such an impro-
bable tale. What influence was a young man like him, a
perfect stranger, to have over the defendant ? Why
did not Lawrance go down himself He would call
witnesses to prove the improbability of the whole story.
He would show that Lawrance was in gaol up to the 27th-
of August ; was it likely, then, that he was to come out,
and immediately send off to Bath for such a purpose ? He
would also prove that upon no occasion except one bad she
ever put her name to a bill for her brother, and that was
upon one occasion after she had assisted him with money,
as far as she could. Peinter's story was altogether a sur-
prise upon them, and quite improbable; for while Law-
rance was in prison he wrote in great distress, and then
the defendant made a promissory note for 1551. This was
in August.
TIIESIGER objected to his Learned Friend making
such a statement, as it could not be put in evidence.
Lord ABINGER could not see how it was possible to dis-
prove handwriting by improbabilities.
Mr. KELLY bowed to his Lordship's decision. Pein-
ter's story was an after-thought, for before the bill be-
came due, Coyle came down to Bath, and asked whe-
ther the bill was genuine, and he was then told it was
a forgery. If Peinter's story was true, what need for such
a journey. He would lay his evidence before the Jury, and
he had no doubt in a case at once of so much consequence,
and yet so painful, they would give it every consideration.
They were well aware that members of one family often
wrote a similar handwriting, and he was afraid they must
find that this was the forgery of the brother. A verdict
against her would ruin her, for there were many other bills.
She had hitherto held an honest character, and if they
found against her they would stigmatize her as trying to
relieve herself by charging her brother with the commis-
sion of an almost capital offence. Ile then called
Eliza Lawrance, the sister of the defendant, who was
examined by Mr. BAILEY. She deposed to Coyles' visit,
and the information he received of the bill being a forgery.
Coyle said he did not think her brother would have so
deceived him. Her sister received a letter from her bro-
ther, dated 23d August, and•between that time and the Ist
September no one called upon her sister with a letter from
London. She did not know tiny one of the name of Pein-
ter. The acceptance to the bill had a very strong resem-
blance to her sister's handwriting, but it certainly was not.
A person might be deceived by it.
Cross-examined—It was not written so free and easily
as her sister wrote. It was more studied. A number of
cheques which were produced by Mr. Faulkner, were folded
up so as to expose only the signature, and so put into the
hands of the witness. She did not believe any of them
were in the handwriting of the defendant.

Mr. Jeffrey, a cler'i in the house of Jays and Smith,
who were solicitors for Lawrance. Ile was arrested and
was in custody, from the 22d August until the 27th. The
debt was 135/.

William NP.Malion had known the defendant 15 y ears.
flad had many opportunities of knowing her handwriting.
The signature to the bill was not his.
Cross-examined.—Had not seen her writing for more
than five or six yearP. The last before that was five or six
years before. . _ _

Mr. KELLY proposed to prove that a number of forgeries
were committed about this time by Lawrance.
His Loansme did not see that it was evidence in the
cause, and rejected it.
Mr. Layton, an inspector of franks at the Post-office,
had seen the bill in question.
Mr. KELLY—From your knowledge, is the signature to
that acceptance genuine or not ?
Mr. TIIESIGER objected, and
His Lonnsnte, after hearing the counsel on both sides,
held the objection to be valid, but he would admit it at the
defendant's risk.

Mr. KELLY would not press the evidence after his Lord-
ship's expressed opinion.

Mr TIIESIGER then put in the cheques which had been
seen by Mist-Lawrence.
Mr. KELLY and Mr. TIMMER then severally addressed
the Jury.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury, after com-
paring the cheques with the signature to the Bill,
and consulting for a quarter of an hour, begged leave to
retire to consider their verdict.

After being out for about a quarter of an hour, the Jury
returned with a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, 150/.

CRIMINAL COURT, FEB. 8.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ARABIN. )
Mary Lewis, 23, was indicted for having on the sth of
January, in the parish of St. Pancras, fraudulently obtained
a number of sheets, table linen, and other articles, the pro-
perty of Mr. Wrn. liodgens. She was sentenced to be
transported for seven years.
(Before Mr. Justice VAUGHAN, and Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)