The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-16 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

NEW COURT.
(From our Second and Third Editions of Saturday.)
TRIAL OF THOMAS WILLIAMS, ESQ., YOR FORGERY (FIFTH DAY).
Sir WILLIAM FoLLETT then proceeded to address himself
to the evidence given by Mr. Barton Penton, and the other
witnesses for the prosecution, and appealed to the jury whether
it had not fully borne out the charge in the indictment. He
repelled indignantly the imputations which had been thrown
out against the characters of those gentlemen, and put it to
them whether there was the slightest ground for impeaching
their testimony. He impressed on them the evidence given
by the engravers, which he said went clearly to establish
that the inference which naturally suggested itself that the
pencil marks to which the signature of the deceased had been
<Axed were instructions for the disposition of the' property
therein specified was a correct one. It was said what neces-
sity was there fur forging all these documents ? (nine in num-
ber). If the case were an honest one, it was true there would
be no necessity for it ; but as it was, the necessity was obvious.
He then called their attention to the evidence of Ann Williams
and Ellen Evans, and contended that instead of supporting the
case of the prisoner it bore strongly against him. They had
seen the testator affix his signature to certain documents.
It was not denied that he had so affixed it, but the suggestion
by the prosecution was, that the papers so signed were not his
last will and testament, but related merely to the property) that
of Hurlock), with respect to which the deed of partition was
executed. To confirm this, they had the map, plans, and
specification of the property in pencil, which the engravers hsd
sworn, had been placed there prior to the filling up the body of
the instrument with ink, and they had the expression—the re-
markable expression of the testator, deposed to both by
Anne Williams and Ellen Evans, as having been uttered
by him on signing the documents, " That Hurlock gave a
great deal of trouble." After going through the evidence,
in detail, and commenting on what he termed the improbability
of the case set up by the prisoner, the Learned Gentleman
concluded by apologising to them for the length cf time which
he had occupied. He had endeavoured to confine himself
strictly to the evidence, for it was upon that alone they would
have to decide, and he hoped they would discard every other
consideration from their minds. They had an onerous and
painful duty to discharge, but whatever the result would be,
he was satisfied that no one could complain that the case had
not been honestly and fairly tried.
Mr. Baron PARKE commenced summing tip the evidence at
three o'clock. After complimenting the jury on the patient
attention which they had given the case, he said that he should
require at their hands a still further extension of it. They
should not be swayed by the appeal made to them by the
Learned Counsel on either side, further than was warranted by
the evidence. It was the duty, on the one hand, cf the pro-
secutor to place the guilt of the prisoner beyond all doubt ;
and, on the other, if they saw clearly through all the difficul-
ties of the case, and were satisfied he had committed the
crime imputed to him, it was their duty, painful though it
might be, without fear of the consequences which would re-
sult from it, to find a verdict against him.
The Jury retired for upwards of half an hour, and returned
into Court at half-past six with a Verdict of NOT GUILTY.
The announcement was received with loud cheers and clap.
ping of hands by ade ely crowded Court.
The two females alleged to have been implicated in the
transaction were then arraigned, but no evidence having been
offered, a verdict of acquittal was taken.
The Court was immensely full, and Immediately on the ver-
dict being !pronounced, hundreds of respectably-dressed per-
sons pressed towards the dock in order to shake hands with
the prisoner. Similar enthusiasm was exhibited on the pri
Boner being discharged and reaching the street, where he was
met by a crowd of persons who cheered bins loudly.
Garrinione, Walls, and Shaw,' three men who stand
charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in
giving their evidence before the Newcastle-under-Lyme elec-
tion Committee, were, during the absence of the jury in the
last case, put to the bar and arraigned on five indictment.,
charging them with conspiracy and perjury.
The prisoners severally pleaded " Not Guilty," and tra-
versed the trial of their case until next Session.
The Court then adjourned to Monday, May 14.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. •

G UILD HA LL.
On Saturday one of the Directors of the London Parcels
Delivery Company, attended to answer the complaint of Mr.
Mr. Lewin, a bootmaker, in Mason's-alley, Coleman-street.
Mr. Lewin sent a boot, which had been returned to him to
ease the toe, by one of the Company's receiving-houses to a
customer in the Edgware-road on the 16th of January.
Learning it had not reached its destination he complained at
the receiving-house, and, after waiting a few days that inquiry
might be made, he was referred to the Directors at the Picket
Street depot.
The Director said the parcel appeared to have been stolen,
and the difficulty that had arisen in adjusting the matter was,
that the shoemaker insisted on the Company paving for the
pair of boots, instead of being content with payment for a
boot to match, as only ono had been lost.
The shoemaker had been obliged to make his customer a
new pair, and the odd boot would be unsaleable till he met
with a one-leved gentleman.
Sir PETER asked why he could not make a hoot to match the
one he had ?

The shoemaker said the bootswere of a peculiar make, at
325. the pair, such as were rarely asked for.
Sir PETER asked if the Company had had lost any other
parcel ?

The Director said they had, and it was not surprising, as
they carried 2,000 parcels a day.
Sir PETER said this was a case in which he bad no power to
adjudicate, but he hoped be should prevent them going to
law. The shoemaker must forego his profits on the pair of
boots, and the Company should pay him about 255. for them.
Eventually, both parties agreed to this suggestion, and 255.
Were paid.