The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-13 00:00:00

(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a sum not
exceeding 361,8001. be granted to her Majesty, to complete
the sum necessary to defray the expense of the Pay, Allow-
ances, and Contingencies of Ordnance Military Corps, which
will come in course of payment during the year ending the
slst day of March, 1850 :" Whereupon Motion made, and
Question put, " That the Chairman do report progress, and
as leave to sit again." The Committee divided:—

MINORITY—AYES, 43.
Baillie, H. J. Hastie, Alexander Pilkington,:- James
Bass, M. T. Ilayes,3lr E. Salwey, COlonel
Broadley, H. Henley, J. W. Seymer, H. ,K.
Clifford, H. M. • Henry, Alexander Smith, J. Benjamin
Colebrooke, Sir T. ' Hildyar. :, It. C. Spooner, Riellard
Drummond, Henry Hildyard, T. B. Stuart, J. '-
Duncan, George Hood, Sir A. Thompson, Co*el
Ellis, John Kershaw, James Thornely, T.
Fergus, John Lennard, T. B. Walmeley, Sir 3.
Floyer, John Lushington, C. Willoughby, Sir H.
F,x, W. J. Molesworth, Sir W. Wood, W. P.
Gibson, Thomas M. Moore, G.

Grogan. Edward Mowatt, Francis TELLERS.
Gwyn, Howel O'Connell, John Home, Joseph
Harris, Captain Pearson, Charles Cobden, Richard

Harris; Richard Pechell, Captain

MAJORITY-NOES, 80.

Adair, R. A. lleathcoat, John Richards, Richard
Anson, Colonel Hobhouse, Sir John Romilly, Sir John
Armstrong, R. B. Hobhous3 T. B. Rumbold, C. E.
Baines, M. T. Hodges, T. L. Rushout, Captain
Baring, Sir F. T. Howard, C W. G. Russell, Lord J.
Bellew, it. M. Jervis, Sir John Russell, F. C.
Berkeley, Captain Keppel, G. T. Ratherfurd, A.
Brotherton, Joseph Labouchere, Henry Sandars, George
Brown, W. Langston, J. H. Shell, R. L.
Craig, W. G. Lascelles, W. S. Smith, R. V. .
Dundas, Admiral Lewis, George C. Smith, J. A.
... -.—

Dundas, Sir D. Lygon, Gen. Somerville, Sir W.
Fordyce, A. D. Martin, J. Stafford, Augustus
Forster, M. Maule, Fox Taltourd, Serg . ant
Freestun, Colonel Mitchell, T. A. Tancred, 11. W.
Frewen, C. H. Monsell, William Ihicknesse, It. A.
Goulburn Henry Morison, Sir W. Vane, Lord H.
Graham, 'Sir James '."Tichcll, John Verney Sir H.
Greene Thomas Norreys, Sir D. Vivian, J. E.
Grey, Sir G. Owen, Sir J. Walter, John
Grey, R. W. Paget, Lord C. Wellesley, Lord C.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Parker, John Williamson, Sir H.
Hamilton, G. A. Plumptre, J. P. Wood, Sir Charles
Harcourt, G. G. Pryse, Pryse Young, Sir John
Hastie, Archibald Raphael, Alexander
Hawes, Benj. Rawdon, Colonel
Hay, Lord J. Renton, J. C

Muss.
Hill, Lord Marcus
Howard, Lord E.

Ilaiter, W. G.

Rich, Henry

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HO ME CIRCC 11T.—Hertford. July 11.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
AUSTIN V. SPEAR.

This was an action to recover the sum of 75/. for
commission upon the sale of some property to the de-
fendant.

Mr. Chambers and Mr. Hawkins were for the plain.
tiff ; and Sergeant Shee and Mr. T. Chambers for the
defendant.

lc appeared that the plaintiff endeavoured to obtain
fees from both parties for his share in negotiating a sale
of the property.
The CHIEF BARON asked the jury to say whkher
the plaintiff, by acting in the way described, had not
himself broken the contract, and was not entitled, on that
ground, to recover.
The Jury. after a short deliberation, said they entirely
concurred with his Lordship, and at once returned a ver-
dict for the defendant.

HANSON AND ANOTHER V. THE PORT OF LONDON SHIP-

OWNERS' LOAN AND INSURANCE COMPANY.

This cause was tried by a special jury. The action
was brought to recover a sum of 2001. upon a policy of
insurance effected with the defendants, the claim being
made as for a total loss of the vessel referred to in the
policy.
The jury said they were unanimously of opinion that
the evidence had established a total loss of the vessel, and
they therefore returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.
CROWN COURT`.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
William Crawley, 50, was indicted for feloniously set-
ting fire to a stable, barn, and other buildings, the pro-
perty of Richard Morten.
The evidence was principally circumstantial, supported
by some incoherent statements made by the prisoner him-
self; but, as there appeared some reason to doubt his
perfect sanity, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Abingdon, July 11.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
CHARGE ur FORGERY—PRACTICE As TO VERDICTS.
Thomas Owen, an auctioneer, of the town of Walling-
ford, was charged with having, on the 27th July, 1848,
at the parish of St. Mary the More, in the borough of
Wallingford, falsely made, forged, and counterfeited. the
signature of one Joseph Cox to a certain account of
moneys paid and received, dated as settled the 21st May,
1846; and with having uttered and published the same
account as true, with intent to defraud one Sarah Ewing
and Charlotte Christiana Huggan. There were several
counts, charging the offence in every way which it was
thought the facts of the case would warrant.
Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Dowdeswell, were coun-
sel
for the prosecution; and Mr. Keating, Q.C., and Mr.
Pigott, for the defence.
Mr. WHATELEY, in stating the case, said that the
prisoner—who was far advanced in years, and had
h.therto borne a most respectable character—had for
matey years carried on business at Wallingford as an
auctioneer and china-dealer, and had lived on terms of
the greatest intimacy with a Mr. Joseph Cox, who was
formerly a timber-merchant, but having made a fortune,
hsd retired from business. When the prisoner wanted
money, he was in the habit of borrowing it of Mr. Cox.
This went on till the month of August, 1846, when Mr.
Cox made his will, and made out a list of the debts
owing to him, in which the prisoner's name was men-
tioned. By his will Cox left all his property, real and
personal, to Mr. Hedges, an attorney at Wallingford,
and the prisoner, as trustees and executors, in trust to
sell and pay the proceeds to his only sister, a Mrs.
Huggan. Cox, who was about eighty years of age, died
in September, 1846, and his sister died in March, 1847,
leaving two daughters, one married to a Mr. Ewing, and
the other a Mtss Huggan, who was not actually insane,
but was of unstable mind, and flighty. Shortly after
Cox's death the prisoner removed from the house his
hooks and papers. Some investigation took place, when
Mrs. Ewing showed the prisoner a list of debts which she
had found, and in which his name was mentioned for the
sum of 4521., as then due. He snatched the list out of ber
hands, and it had not been heard of since ; but another
list had been made out before that time, in which
the same sum was mentioned. An inquiry followed,
when the prisoner said that there was nothing due
from him, but on the contrary., there was something due
to him. A regular investigation soon after took place
between Mr. Barrett, an old Mend of Mr. Cox, and who
had made out the list of debts for him, the legatees, the
prisoner, and his co-executor. The prisoner then ad-
mitted that he owed 100/. on a note; but had paid 352/.
10s. by three payments; one of 2001. into the Bank, on
the 9th June, 1842. and another of 1501. into the Bank,
on the Bth of March, 1844, and a third of 21. 10s. to Mr.
Cox himself, in cash. The parties were not satisfied,
and he produced a receipt in these terms, signed by Mr.
Cox:—•" Received 21st December, 1842, of Mr. Thomas
Owen, the sum of 141. 25., for all interest up to this day,
as stated on the other side." These last words, " as
stated on the other side," were clearly not in the hand-
writing of the deceased, nor were the endorsements to
which they referred. These were—" 352/. 10s., note at
4 per cent. ; settled 2001, 9th June, 1842, bank ; 150/.
B,h March, 1844, bank; cad), 2/. 10s.; total, 3521.105."
Comparing these endorsements
with the receipt, it
would appear that the prisoner paid interest on the en-
tire sum up to December, though he had paid 2001. of it
in the preceding June. This was not satisfactory
—the parties thought the instrument nut genuine,
and required the prisoner to produce Cox's books and
papers. The cash book and day, book were produced,
i
out not the ledger. On an nspcceion of these books, it
appeared that several sums had been lent from time to
time to the prisoner, and thst one item had been altered.
In Mr. Cea'e cash-book, these entries appeared:—" Jan.
07, 1840, lent Mr. Thomas Owen 6501. at 5 per cent."
4 "August 23,1840, rtveived 16/.64,, half-year's interest.."

"Lent ditto, 3521., 21st December, at 4 per cent."
"Lent ditto 1091., at lawful interest, 5 per cent., 13th
April." " Mr. Thomas Owen will be at 27th April,
1841, 6581. 2e." The prisoner, eel being asked the
meaning of this last entry. which a as in pencil, admitted
that it meant that he (Owen) would owe on that day
that sum. There were also two entries of the receipt of
two sums of 141. 2;. cash for interest on the 21st
December, 1841, and 21st December, 1342. This was
the interest at 4 per cent, on 352/ 10e. There was no
entry of the payment of the 6581. 2s. 6d., nor .of the
3321. 103., except that it was struck through as if paid.
On its being observed that the strokes were thicker and
firmer than those of the deceased usually were, the
prisoner admitted that it was he who drew them,
and said he did so because he had paid the account.
When Cox's books were produced, they appeared to have
been altered and mutilated, and the index of names was
struck out. The parties being still dissatisfied, the
prisoner produced his own books. These were two led-
gers; one included accounts from 1823 to 1844, the other
from 1845 to the present time. In the first book, which
should have included the prisoner's accounts with Cox
from 1840, the index was mutilated. COJed name did not
appear in it, and in the body of the book parts of several
pages were torn out. In the middle of the second book,
which commenced with accounts in 1845, there was the
following entry on the debtor side:—" Mr. Joseph Cox,
allingford, 1842, June 9, cash, 200/ ; 1844, March 8,
cash, 150 L; and (without date), cash, 21. 10s.; total,
3521. 10s.;" and on the credit side, "By note of hand.
3521. 10s. Settled above 21st May, 1836, Joseph Cox."
When the legatees saw this signature they pronounced
it to be a forgery. While the accounts were in this
state of confusion the parties, in the course of the last
spring, agreed to refer the entire matter to two gentle-
men, Mr. Blackstone, the Member of Parliament for the
borough, and Dr. Frith, the vicar of St. Mary's parish,
in it, who met on the 13th and the 28th May last; but
on its having become obvious that a forgery had been
committed, the legatees found that they could not with
propriety go on with the inquiry, and this prosecution
was consequently instituted.
This statement was supported generally by the evi-
dence of Mrs. Sarah Ewing and her husband, and their
attorney, Mr. Eyre, of Benson, in Oxfordshire. In the
cross-examination of the latter gentleman, it was elicited
that the prisoner had paid two sums of 2001. and 1501.
into the Wallingford Bank, to the credit of the deceased,
on the days named in the receipt, and that the attorney
for the prisoner refused to go on with the reference, after
the charge of forgery was made, until it should be duly
investigated, and that it was thereupon the prosecution '
was commenced. The prisoner's books, which had been
impounded by the arbitrators and been examined for the
prosecution, on being produced in Court, did not sup-
port the inferences sought to be deduced from them. In
the first (the old) ledger there were a great number of
leaves cut and torn, whisk could not possibly contain the
accounts relating to Mr. Cox; and in the new ledger
there was an entry on the second next page to that in
which Cox's account was, of the aecount of another per-
son, beginning in 1843, and there were several accounts
in the book beginning is 1844. On an examination of
Cox's own books they did not appear to have been
altered or mutilated. The only alteration of any entry
was that confessed by the prisoner to have been made
by himself, by running his pen across the account for
3521., because, as he said, he had paid it.
Mr. Blackstone, M.P., said, when the charge of
forgery was made before him and the other arbitrator,
he asked the prisoner how he accounted for the circum-
stance that the receipt dated Dec. 21, 1842, referred to
a payment made March 8, 1844, and the prisoner was
unable to make any answer; he also asked how it was
that the interest was paid to December, 1842, when 2001.
had been paid in the June preceding; and the prisoner
answered that it was because it was necesesry to give
six months' notice of payment. He (Mr. B.) observed
that the settlement of Mr. Cox's account, in 1842, ap-
peered in an account-book which began with 1845; that
in the index of names "Hue:Lire)? Cox, glazier, 124," ap-
peared first on a line; and that "Joseph Cox, Wallingford,
101," appeared second on the same line; and that no
other names appeared on the index two on one line; and
he asked what was the cause of this, and the prisoner
was not able to give any satisfactory explanation. He
believed the signature of Joseph Cox was in the hand-
writing of the prisoner.
Two other witnesses proved that the signature was
not in Cox's handwriting. In cross-examination they
admitted that the prisoner's character was most re-
spectable.

Dr. Frith, who was called for the prosecution to pro-
duce some documents, also gave the prisoner a most ex-
cellent character, and said he did not believe him ca-
pable of committing the crime now imputed to him.
lAr. KEA.TING having addressed the jury on behalf
of the prisoner, the rector and mayor of Walling-
ford were both sworn as witnesses to his character, and
stated that they believed him to be a thoroughly ho.
nest man.

His LORDSHIP, in summing up the case, raid he should
in consequence of the line of defence adopted by the pri-
soner's counsel, leave two questions to the jury, to which
he would require their answers separately—first, whether
they were of opinion that the prisoner had forged the
name of Joseph Cox to the settlement of the account?
And next, if he had, whether he owed that sum at the
time, and so forged or uttered the signature with intent
to defraud any one? His Lordship having gone through
the evidence, left, in concluding, these two questions to
the jury.
As the jury were about to consult,
Mr. KEATING hoped he would be excused if he took

the liberty of saying, that the practice of requiring
special findings from a jury in a criminal case was new
to him, and he at present was not aware of any au-
thority for it.
His LORDSICIP thanked the Learned Counsel for the

suggestion, and again addressed the jury, explaining the
law of forgery to them, and telling them that they must
find a verdict of not guilty if they were satisfied either
that the prisoner did not actually counterfeit the signa-
ture of Cox, or utter it knowing it to be counterfeit, or
if he did counterfeit or utter, that the money had been
really paid, and that he had consequently no intention to
defraud any one.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of
Not Guilty, which was received with applause in the
body of the court.
This was the last case of the assizes, and did not close
till five o'clock.

Mr. Baron Rolfe had tried in the morning three un-
important cases which had remained since yesterday,
aud then went to open the commission at Oxford.
Oxford, July 11.
_ _

The commission was opened here to•day by Mr.
Baron Rolfe. The business commences to-morrow.
There are four vaiires returned, all actions for debt.
There are five prisoners for trial—one for murdering his
wife, one for forgery, and three for larceny.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Northampton, July 12.
The lion. Sir J. T. Coleridge arrived here at eight
o'clock last evening, and opened the commissions for the
county and borough, the Right lion. Sir James Parke
following at a later hour.
Their Lordships having attended Divine service this
morning, took their &eats in the County Hall shortly
after eleven o'clock, Mr. Baron Parke presiding in the
Crown Court and Mr. Justice Coleridge on the Civil side.
The business here has been remarkably light, the
cause list presenting only four cases, of which two were
undefended, and the others were concluded within three
hours.

The calendar exhibited the names of 19 prisoners and
14 cases for trial, two of them being within the borough
jurisdiction. Five were of assault and robbery, two of
doing grievous bodily harm, two of breaking and enter-
ing dwelling-houses, and two of offences against women,
both of which broke down, and the details in each are
unfit for publication. There were, also, one of man-
slaughter, one of shoep stealing, and one against a
soldier of stealing a watch.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
LINNELL V. CAPELL.

This was an action of trespassf;riTn assault between
two farmers, who fell into a quarrel when they were
sheep-cleaning. The defendant was the first to occupy
'he pens, and, having apparently ceased to use one of
them, prohibited the plaintiff from having the benefit of
it, upon which abuse and blows followed.
The Learned JUDGE remarked reprovingly upon the
practice of fighting, but observed thst, as the damage
was not very great on this occasion, it might have been
better if the parties had fought it out upon the spot,in-
stead of through the medium of an attorney.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with Is.
damages.