The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-06 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

THIS DAY.

OLD COURT.

George Forbes Atkinson, generally styled Captain Forbes,
was indicted for feloniously forging a bill of exchange for
the sum of 1,0001., with intent to defraud the Hon. Capt.
Lauderdale Maule. Other counts varied the offence, one
charging him with intent to defraud Mr. Lane, the solicitor,
who holds the bill.

Mr. CLARKSON stated the case for the prosecution. He
confined himself to stating the nature of the evidence he had
to produce, and cited the state of the law relative to forgery
from " East's Reports," where it was laid down that the
altering of an instrument to the prejudice of any other con-
stituted the offence.

Capt. Maule deposed that he was a son of Lord Pan=
more, and was Captain in the 79th Regiment. In 1835
he was desirous of raising a sum of 1,0001., and on the

11th February he was introduced to the prisoner, who was
to assist him in that purpose. He met him in the York
Hotel, Jermyn-street, where he drew a bill of exchange for
1,0001. at three months. Witness accepted the bill, and
fully believed that the one now produced was the
same bill. He waited until the 23d of February,
when he again saw the prisoner, who said the bill
was for too large a sum for discounting, and suggested
that two for 5001. should be substituted, which was
done, and then the prisoner took a paper out of his pocket,
saying " as both yours and my writing are on this, it had
better be burned." He threw it on the fire. Witness
thought it was his acceptance for the 1,0001. Witness went
abroad with his regiment, and while in Quebec he received
a letter from Mr. Lane respecting the bill. He got leave
of absence, and arrived in London on the 17th October,
when he went before Sir F. Roe and made his complaint.
The remainder of the witness's evidence was of the same
nature as that which was so fully detailed in the police
reports from Bow-street.
Mr. Lane, an attorney, said he was the holder of a bill,
which he produced. He received it from the prisoner on
the 14th or 15th February, 1836, and it was now in the
same state as it then was, with the exception of his own
indorsement, which was now erased. He had known the
prisoner between four and five years.
The bill was put in and read, which closed the case for
the prosecution.
Mr. ADoLenus, for the defence, inquired whether his
Lordship thought there was a case for the Jury.
Mr. Justice PARK thought the Learned Counsel had
better address the jury at once. He saw nothing in the
case for the interference of the Court. The questions for
the consideration of the jury were, first, did the alteration
of the date of the bill constitute the offence of forgery ?
and, secondly, if so, was the prisoner the party who com-
mitted the offence ?_

Mr. ADOLPHUS then addressed the jury. He said the
prisoner was not one of those advertising money-lenders
or agents with which London teemed. He was the
son of an honourable and most respectable gentleman
in Ireland ; in fact, though not of Noble birth, he
was in every respect as well and respectably connected
as the prosecutor. He commented upon the evidence,
which he contended did not in any way bear out the charge
in the indictment—that of forgery. Neither was there any
appearance of fraud ; in fact the prosecutor ought to be
thankful for the accommodation which had been given him,
as in place of being called upon for the money he was liable
for in three months, he got twelve to pay it. He left the
case with confidence in the hands of the Jury.
Mr. Justice PARK summed up. He went over the
evidence, and made some remarks upon the conduct of
Mr. Lane in the transaction.
The Jury consulted for a few minutes, and then retired.
In about half an hour they returned with a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. CLARKSON applied for a certificate of the case being
a fit one for prosecution by Counsel, and for the expenses.
Mr. Justice PARK—Certainly. It is one of the clearest
cases I ever saw.